Feedback about CBCRP from Respondents
The survey asked respondents to provide feedback about CBCRP and we specifically sought their suggestions for improving our postdoctoral fellowship award program.
The first two questions in this final section asked whether or not respondents had recommended CBCRP to their colleagues and whether or not they chose CBCRP funding over another opportunity. Of the 39 respondents, 37 had recommended the program to their colleagues. The two respondents who had not recommended the CBCRP postdoctoral fellowship had not had the opportunity to do so because one was no longer working with scientists living in California and the other worked in a field in which postdoctoral appointments are rare. Six of the respondents were offered other fellowship opportunities the same year they received the CBCRP award. There were several reasons why respondents chose CBCRP over other opportunities including:
Amount of money: CBCRP offered more money for the award and/or for travel to meetings (5);
Timing: CBCRP offered the fellowship first (2);
Reputation: CBCRP had a better reputation and funded more interesting research than the other funder (2); and
Breast cancer specific: CBCRP was a breast cancer specific funder and the postdoc wanted to establish herself in breast cancer research (1).
Suggestions for Improvement
Overall, respondents were very satisfied with the CBCRP's postdoctoral fellowship program and felt that the experience had greatly contributed to their career development. Only one respondent reported being generally unsatisfied with the program. While we heard very positive comments about CBCRP's program, the respondents were forthcoming about how CBCRP could improve our funding efforts. Most of the suggestions or comments listed below were mentioned only once or twice during the interviews. Respondents suggested the following ways to improve CBCRP:
TRAINING
- Offer a grant-writing workshop (at the Symposium) for postdocs and new investigators.
- Sponsor a training in breast cancer pathology for those new to the field or conducting research in other breast cancer research areas.
- Collaborate with another funder (such as the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program) to have postdocs sit in on grant review panels. One respondent had the opportunity to be a reviewer and said that this experience has helped him tremendously.
APPLICATION/REVIEW PROCESS/FUNDING
-
Extend postdoc grants to three or more years. As one respondent explained, “It took me the first year to figure out what a postdoctoral fellowship was even supposed to be!”
-
CBCRP should adjust review criteria to make sure that people who get awards are truly interested in building a career in breast cancer research.
-
Focus efforts on getting funding to recipients as close to July 1 as possible. A few grantees noted that it took more than three months for their funding to reach them.
-
CBCRP should communicate more clearly about how postdocs can spend money on supplies and travel.
-
If a principal investigator moves out of state during the award period, but is still overseeing research in California, the principal investigator should be able to continue receiving the funding. (CBCRP can only fund California researchers).
NEW AREAS/FOCUS
-
Create a new award type especially for MD/PhDs.
-
Give supplemental awards to postdocs working with community groups for costs associated with collaboration. Respondent suggested at least $5000 per community group per year.
-
Identify strategies to encourage and fund researchers who are talented, committed to breast cancer research and have good ideas but who have not taken a traditional research path. These include researchers—mostly women—who would like to continue research in a part-time capacity in order to raise a family or for other personal reasons and researchers who have taken soft-money positions for a number of reasons. This is a group that appears to have a high attrition rate that has less to do with the quality of their ideas or interest in breast cancer than it has to do with institutional factors such as lack of support and opportunity for individuals in these positions.
-
Emphasize the postdoc awards more in the CBCRP portfolio. Give more money for the awards and award more of them.
-
CBCRP should be larger and fund more research.
COLLABORATION AND OUTREACH
-
Get the word out about CBCRP. Promote CBCRP's postdoctoral fellowships more. Advertise more in the biotech industry. Get the word out in the basic science community. Advertise at the AACR meeting.
-
Encourage more interactions between basic scientists and clinical scientists. Help establish collaborations early. Postdocs could have a clinical mentor and a basic science mentor.
CONCERNS RAISED BY RESPONDENTS
-
One respondent felt that the role of the mentor is unclear. CBCRP should either minimize the required involvement of the mentor or require more formal collaboration between the mentor and the postdoc.
-
Another respondent felt that CBCRP is still funding relatively safe grants. CBCRP should not fund anything that could get funded by the NIH.
-
A respondent felt that CBCRP is no longer focused on early detection and this is disappointing. Even a small amount of money in this area can bring researchers into breast cancer.
-
One respondent has been unable to receive a subsequent CBCRP award with the same line of research that he was funded for as a postdoc. The work is now at a higher level and he doesn't understand why it was fundable as a postdoc but is not now.
FEEDBACK ABOUT THE BIANNUAL CBCRP SYMPOSIUM
-
The symposium provided a good opportunity for basic scientists to talk with and hear from breast cancer advocates. Scientists need to get out into the public.
-
Enjoyed interaction with activists groups [at the Symposium], got a better sense of the impact and importance of translational work.
-
The grant-writing workshop at the Symposium is helpful.
-
The symposium was not that helpful. It was more geared toward the public and should have more of a scientific focus.
