Awards for Supporting Actors

Academia has a long history of rewarding individual efforts, and without a doubt, PI status remains vital to any investigator. But as research is more and more conducted in teams, what are the benefits of playing a contributing role? Why commit precious time to engage on the sidelines as a supporting actor?

Needing the Right Partners: A Hammer Looking for a Nail

By uniting people with different skillsets under one tent, team science offers opportunities to be part of a larger project that could not be done successfully by one person. Collaborations among scientists with complementary expertise gives all sides a chance to apply their knowledge and gain new insights. “Clinicians understand what research question they want to solve, but they may need a partner in data science to understand how to model that question, which data and tools they need, and what criteria to consider,” said Tina Hernandez-Boussard, PhD, associate dean of research and professor of medicine, biomedical data sciences, surgery, and epidemiology and population health.

Conversely, for researchers focused on methodology, working with clinicians provides a chance to apply their tools and methods to answer clinically meaningful research questions. “In a sense, it is a hammer looking for a nail,” said Vivek Bhalla, MD, an associate professor of nephrology. Similarly, basic scientists working with clinicians may be able to test their lab findings in real patients and translate their discoveries into medical benefits.

“Team science is a partnership. You have to value what each member brings to the table. It is that equal balance that makes it magnificent,” said Hernandez-Boussard.

Getting in on the Ground: Influencing the Development of New Tools 

Another benefit of collaboration is the prospect of influencing the development of new tools. “A group here at Stanford developed an app to facilitate workflow for health care providers. I was over the moon when they picked hypertension to test the tool and I had the ability to work with them during the development,” noted Bhalla. “I wanted to be there on the ground floor to make it most applicable to the intended target.”

“When choosing opportunities for collaboration, we look for areas that we are specifically interested in,” said Joseph Levitt, MD, an associate professor of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine. “We are currently involved in a clinical trial of personalized mechanical ventilation, something that is highly related to our field. It will be a labor of love and will also provide important experience to our fellows in adjusting ventilators based in individuals’ lung mechanics.”

Larger than the Sum of Its Parts: Established Teams as Fertile Ground for Collaboration

Being part of a larger, stable team makes it possible for the PI role to be passed around with each successive grant, creating equal opportunities for everyone. “In our division, everybody can and does participate in team science,” says Lori Muffly, MD, an associate professor in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. “There is an understanding that our research is better if we all collaborate, including actively enrolling patients on each other’s clinical trials.”

She points out that their team involves members with different expertise, allowing for an ongoing exchange of ideas to support current and future grants. “Our weekly meetings don’t just include faculty who have lab, clinical, or population science expertise, but also our nurse coordinators, research staff, and our regulatory experts and statisticians.

Authorship and Communication

Ongoing collaborations also allow for credit to be shared and distributed fairly over time.

“We have a practice in BMT-CT where if the majority of a research project comes from our division or is a divisional investigator-initiated clinical trial, all of our faculty are offered authorship,” said Muffly. While this may not be possible in larger divisions, forming thematic groups can create teams for shared authorship.

Good communication is key, including clarifying upfront what people’s roles are and what they can expect in terms of rewards, whether it concerns authorship, money, or opportunity. Communicating clearly is also critical for the partnerships to remain productive and respectful. “We don’t always speak the same language. The same words may have different meanings for different researchers. It’s necessary to be open minded and listening to how people might define things in a different way,” said Boussard-Hernandez.

Room at the Top

Becoming part of a large national or international collaboration opens doors, including the chance to network with top experts, something that is particularly enticing to junior and mid-level faculty. “It is really rewarding to be on a first-name basis with the experts in the field. And if you demonstrate that you are a thoughtful, responsible person, then they will want to work with you, and you are able to recruit them for your own grants,” said Levitt.

The Joy of Science

Finally, there is simply the joy of science. “Many of us have not lost sight of the motivation for devoting our career to academics: It is to advance our fields,” said Shuchi Anand, MD, an associate professor of nephrology.  “This is more likely to happen when there is rich cross-fertilization of disciplines, ideas, and methodological expertise.” 

“You get to have these conversations that stretch your mind,” added Boussard-Hernandez. Muffly concurs. “Team science is my number one favorite thing about Stanford, about my job. Team science defines all the work I do and is so much fun!”