TABLE 2.
Variation in approaches to designing the BEST programs
| I. Scope: approaches to defining the scope of the program | ||||||
| Emphasis for learning objectives | Career areas | |||||
| Career exposure | Narrow: defined career tracksa | |||||
| Career exploration skills | Broad: all careers | |||||
| Career decision-making skills | ||||||
| Professional skills | ||||||
| Career-specific skills | ||||||
| II. Trainees: approaches to defining the target trainee population | ||||||
| Recruitment models | Participation | Other requirements | ||||
| Open to all trainees | All elements are required | Prequal vs. postqual Ph.D. students | ||||
| Cohort (trainees apply) | Some elements required; others optional | Postdoctoral fellows >1 yr at institution | ||||
| All elements are optional | PI approval is required | |||||
| III. Programmatic elements: approaches to curricular offerings | ||||||
| Career developmentb | Professional developmentb | Experiential learning | Mentorship | |||
| Self-efficacy | Writing and presentation | Site visits | Peer and small group | |||
| Career identity | Networking | Job shadow | Career coaching | |||
| Career exploration | Teamwork and leadership | Job simulation; externships | Mentoring by faculty | |||
| Career decision making | Wellness | Internships (part or full time) | External career mentor | |||
| IDP |
Workplace readiness, job search skills |
|||||
| IV. Faculty: approaches to engaging faculty in the program | ||||||
| Engagement | ||||||
| Assess faculty needs, provide information and/or training, codevelop solutions, serve as instructors or panelists, participation by trainees’ research mentors | ||||||
| V. Partners: approaches to engaging internal and external partners | ||||||
| Types of partners | Engagement of Ph.D. alums and other professionals | |||||
| Ph.D. alums and other professionals | Networking events | |||||
| Employers/companies | Informational interviews and job shadows | |||||
| Peer institution (create a dual institutional program) | Contribute to developing curriculum | |||||
| Other schools, colleges, departments, or programs | Contribute to resources | |||||
| Regional industry/employer advocacy organizationc | ||||||
| Career/job-oriented company or consultant | ||||||
In designing their BEST programs, each institution took different approaches, resulting in 17 unique experiments. Here, we have organized the different approaches taken by the BEST institutions into 5 key areas: scope, trainees, programmatic elements, faculty, and partners. The combination of approaches taken by institutions within each of these areas constitutes a complete training program. We suggest that this framework could be used to help guide the development of new BEST-like or BEST-inspired training programs at other institutions, taking into account—just as the BEST programs did—institutional culture, environment, and local expertise. IDP, Individual Development Plan; PI, principal investigator.
Entrepreneurship/business/innovation, science communication/writing, government and nonprofit research, intellectual property/tech transfer/legal, policy/public affairs, regulatory, biotech/pharma, education/outreach, and academe.
Delivered through different methods: panels, seminars, workshops, courses, and resources (e.g., print and web materials).
For example, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council (http://www.massbio.org) and California Life Sciences Association (http://www.califesciences.org).