Proceedings of the Canadian Association for HIV Research: Canadian Foundation for Infectious Diseases Professional Development Workshop for Viral Researchers

Abstract

In March 2018, the Canadian Association for HIV Research (CAHR) and Canadian Foundation for Infectious Diseases (CFID) collaborated to conduct a workshop targeted to mid-career virology researchers. Key objectives of the workshop included 1) sharing knowledge and expertise cutting across various viral diseases, 2) developing collaborations as we anticipate the next wave of suppressive and curative treatment for HIV, HBV, CMV, and other viral diseases, and 3) providing insights, advice, and “food for thought” as participants advance to mid- and later phases of their research careers. This article reports on the key topics contemplated including scientific misinformation within the public realm, network building, interdisciplinary collaboration, mentorship, and communicating with decision makers. Given the focus on virology, the Canadian Society for Virology was invited to highlight their efforts to build a cohesive network that is impactful in facilitating viral research in Canada including advocating for appropriate levels of peer-reviewed research funding. Many key pearls of wisdom are contained within this document which are of value to all researchers aiming for success in a continually evolving, complex, and challenging Canadian research and academic environment.

In March 2018, the Canadian Association for HIV Research (CAHR) and the Canadian Foundation for Infectious Diseases (CFID) combined efforts to conduct a successful professional development workshop held in Banff, Canada. This meeting was co-chaired by Dr Curtis Cooper (CAHR President) and Dr Susan Richardson (CFID President). A key objective of this meeting was to share knowledge and expertise that cuts across disciplines and specific areas of viral research (see Supplemental Appendix 1). Faculty and participants came from diverse backgrounds, areas of expertise and locations across Canada (see Supplemental Appendix 2). It was our hope that future cross-cutting collaborations would be seeded during the meeting. Such an outcome would demark a major success as we anticipate the next wave of suppressive and curative treatment for HIV, HBV, CMV, and other clinically important viral infections. Additionally, we hoped to provide insights, advice and “food for thought” as participants advance to the mid-to-later phases of their research careers.

Sessions held at the workshop included talks on how to: advocate against misleading pseudoscientific information as a research community and spread evidence-based messages; build networks of cross-disciplinary teams; initiate and sustain research collaborations between basic and clinical researchers; effectively communicate with decision makers; and see through the forest to understand the future career options that exist for basic and clinical researchers in academia and industry.

In this workshop proceedings, we have compiled and distilled the critical information from various speakers and ensuing discussion that took place which we believe is of value to the broader research community in Canada.

Addressing Scientific Misinformation within the Public Is Critical for Health Care System (Noni MacDonald)

For more than three decades there has been increasing emphasis in medicine on patient centred care, shared decision making, and scientific evidence-based clinical care (1–3). These strategies have been promulgated to improve quality and have led to better health outcomes, patient understanding and satisfaction. Sadly, with increasingly misleading scientific information, the strategies noted above collide, as more and more members of the general public rely on the web, social media and social networks for health information. Only some of these sources provide evidence-based information while many others serve as reservoirs of scientific misinformation. Often the public and some health professionals cannot discriminate misleading scientific information from authentic, evidence-based data; a problem further compounded by the tsunami of information on the web and the extraordinary reach of new media (4). Increasingly, we live in an environment in which the public directs (and in some cases fervently demands) clinicians and policymakers as to what they do and do not want related to the health-related decisions. Unfortunately, such suggestions from the public are often not based on scientific evidence but on misinformed beliefs. Misleading news and misinformation are a growing concern that crosses the whole spectrum of science but is especially problematic in the health domain where it may influence health care decisions that can lead to serious morbidity and even mortality at the individual and community level (e.g., vaccine refusal) (5).

Developing an effective approach to address scientific misinformation in the health domain requires an understanding of how health risks are perceived and how personal decisions are made, as well as an understanding of techniques used by science deniers, and then using appropriate strategies to counter and neutralize misinformation (6). In many cases, we scavenge data that supports our beliefs and dismiss contrasting information (7,8). As a consequence, if the information agrees, it is assimilated; if not, it is rejected (7). We thus see and hear what we believe rather than believe what we see and hear. What others around us do (and what we think they expect us to do) very much influences our decisions and actions (9). We more easily assimilate anecdotes and stories that are compatible with or support our beliefs than numbers and statistics (10). As well, we are more influenced by recent rather than distant experiences (11).

While humans have made decisions based on our beliefs for millennia, we are now being bombarded by more and more science misinformation on the web that can shape these beliefs. As Meyer notes “social media seems to systematically amplify falsehood at the expense of the truth” (12). False news and science misinformation are socially contagious, spreading in a similar fashion to microbial outbreaks (13); more efficiently spread than fact-based news (14). The so-called “experts” on the internet now influence thousands instead of only a few close neighbours (15). There is a growing body of knowledge available on the techniques and arguments used by science deniers. Five core techniques are generally utilized when putting forward their arguments (15–17) (Table 1). Common techniques include ignoring any argument that counters the one they are promulgating, shifting to a new argument when losing the original argument, banning valid science evidence comments from their blogs and websites (i.e., censoring), and aggressively attacking those who counter their arguments with scientific evidence (18).

Table 1:

Techniques used by science deniers

Technique	Action
Conspiracies	Argue that scientific consensus is based upon complex and secretive conspiracies—academics, industry, government all working to cover the real evidence, and so forth
Misleading experts or “so-called” experts	Use misleading experts and denigrate experts who disagree; if the fake expert is undermined, they are seen as martyr to the cause and conspiracy is further involved
Selectivity	Only cite and quote obscure papers or sections of academic papers that support the argument, ignoring all other articles that counter their argument
Impossible expectations	A health treatment must be 100% safe and effective
Misrepresentation and false logic	Jump to conclusions such as “after it . . . therefore, because of it” and exemplify false analogies

Data adapted from World Health Organization (WHO). How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2017. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/315761/Best-practice-guidance-respond-vocal-vaccine-deniers-public.pdf (Accessed June 29, 2018).

Although the positions of science deniers can rarely be changed when confronted with evidence in public, this is a lesser concern as they are not the target audience for those hoping to address science misinformation (18). The general public is the target. Based upon the Gateway Belief Model, evidence indicates that highlighting consensus among scientists increases public support for a scientific conclusion, even when the topic is emotionally charged (19,20). Often, when scientists are silent, they give an impression that the misinformation is correct. Based upon psychology and communication research, the general public can be influenced to “hear” the corrected information not with an “information dump” but rather through unmasking the technique(s) that are being used in combination with a well-designed evidence-based correction of the misinformation (18,21).

In these challenging times, scientists should unite to spread evidence-based messages. The dissemination of pseudoscience is not going to go away and as such the scientific community has a critical role to play by speaking up and acting as part of the countermeasure.

Building Networks with Academic Partners: The Art of Herding Cats (Scott Halperin)

Research networks can be defined as a collaboration of multiple principal investigators and research institutions with common goals, with at least a minimal governance and communication structure, and some shared programs (22). Research networks are usually permanent or semi-permanent research collaborations, typically among geographically dispersed investigators, with a particular focus and involving multiple projects. While research teams are often informal, coalescing around particular projects and/or funding opportunities, research networks typically have a more formal structure, sometimes arising as research teams obtain additional grants and diversify their study portfolios (Box 1). Research networks are often funded by granting councils—for example, the National Institutes of Health (USA), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Canada), and the Wellcome Trust (UK)—and they may be favoured by government as a policy tool (such as the Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research of the National Centres of Excellence Program by the Government of Canada) (23–25). As a result, in contrast to research collaborations which are formed from “bottom-up” in response to an investigator-initiated, curiosity-driven idea, research networks are often formed in a “top-down” manner in response to a funding initiative with a specific policy objective.

Box 1:

Characteristics of a formal research network

Characteristics

• Funded for set purpose, for set period of time

• Funded by government or foundation

• Formed to meet a policy agenda

• Formal administrative structure

• Purpose is to generate new knowledge and engage in knowledge mobilization

• Training mandate

• Formal evaluation process

• Reaches beyond researchers into the stakeholder community

Data adapted from World Health Organization (WHO). How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2017. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/315761/Best-practice-guidance-respond-vocal-vaccine-deniers-public.pdf (Accessed June 29, 2018).

Research networks provide numerous advantages compared with single investigator funded research. For the funder, research networks provide a mechanism to provide coordinated, single source large awards and to influence the research agenda. Network funding provides a higher level of accountability of the investigators to the funder, enabling the funder to more easily set broad research objectives, establish deliverables, and create a formal communication and reporting structure with a single point of contact, all accomplished through the establishment of a formal governance structure. As Holbrook et al (24 p20) opined, “funding agencies and senior government officials are often as concerned about governance as they are about actual outputs.” Research networks also provide advantages to investigators including additional collaborations, more stable funding (often with more streamlined applications to the network for specific projects), the ability to diversify an individual’s funding with network project support as a supplement to investigator-initiated project grants, provision of studentship awards, and availability of infrastructure support and scientific meeting travel assistance. Additionally, research networks provide advantages to other stakeholders such as a formal conduit to the research community and coordinated knowledge mobilization.

There are challenges and barriers to network research. From the network perspective, managing the expectations of funders and other stakeholders can be problematic. The mandate of a research network often exceeds the funding provided. Networks must also take care not to antagonize other investigators who apply for and receive funding in the same topic area outside of the network structure. Claiming to be the “one stop shop” for all research in the particular field is likely to create friction within the general research community. Within the network, meeting the needs of network investigators may also be challenging. Strategies must be established to ensure there are opportunities for academic advancement for all network investigators, with specific attention to mentoring junior investigators. Multi-authored publications can be particularly difficult for those seeking promotion within academic institutions. Ensuring that network governance, communication, and other administration provides added value to members rather than being a burden must be a high priority for network managers.

A number of strategies have been used in Canadian vaccine-related networks to maximize the benefits, address the challenges, and mitigate the barriers (Table 2). Shared leadership can provide more opportunities for advancement by members of the network. For large networks, there may be an advantage of having an administrative principal investigator whose major responsibility is the management of the network and who may or may not take on scientific leadership roles with specific research projects. Having broad-based decision making through an executive committee or management committee can also increase engagement by investigators in the network. However, for this model to be successful there must be meaningful shared governance with actual decision making by the leadership group. In addition to shared administrative leadership, decentralized scientific leadership is a useful mechanism to share the academic benefits of the network’s scientific output. By having different investigators taking leadership on specific research projects or taking responsibility for different targets in a surveillance network, the responsibility for data analysis and first authorship on manuscripts can be shared by a larger group of investigators. This also provides a mechanism for mentorship of younger investigators and promotes continuity and sustainability of the network over time.

Table 2:

Lessons learned from a selection of Canadian vaccine-related research networks

Network	Description	Focus	Funding source	Year established	Challenge/barrier	Lessons learned and mitigation strategies
IMPACT	Tertiary care pediatric hospitals in Canada	Surveillance: vaccine safety; selected vaccine preventable diseases	Public Health Agency of Canada	1991	Some differences in funders’ priorities (surveillance, specific targets) and investigators’ priorities (disease characterization and burden, other targets)	Leveraging of network infrastructure to obtain funding from other sources
					Individual advancement; academic “kudos”	Co-principal investigators; different investigators taking on “data captain” role for each surveillance target resulting in more opportunities for first authorship
					Number of investigators limited to the number of sites	Introduction of associate membership with additional investigators with specific expertise in a given surveillance area
					Continuity	Introduction of co-investigators: junior investigator at a site mentored by the senior investigator in advance of replacement
CAIRE	Vaccine researchers in academia and public health	Applied vaccinology; research facilitation, planning, and education	No direct funding sources. Fees charged to members of the research sponsors advisory board (industry)	2000	Industry, public health, and academia rarely have venue to directly interact over common research issues	Established a research sponsors advisory board to provide a “safe place” where vaccine manufacturer, public health, and academia investigators can discuss and debate topics related to the research environment in Canada
					Decreasing late-phase vaccine research being done in Canada	“Para-research” activities by research networks are almost sufficient to support/justify their own network; can result in research community benefits even if there are no benefits to individual researcher
PCIRN/CIRN	Network of networks related to vaccine safety, immunogenicity, effectiveness, coverage, and ability to respond to emerging threats	To provide Canada with research capacity for generating data for public health decision making related to influenza and, subsequently, for all vaccines of public health interest	Canadian Institutes of Health Research through funds provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada	2009. PCIRN: 2009–2014; CIRN: 2014–	Identifying public health research priorities	Multiple levels of engagement with advisory committees, federal/provincial/territorial immunization committees, and specifically established stakeholders’ advisory committees
					Ensuring high priority areas of research are funded when there is an emerging issue	Only commit to project funding initially for the first years of the funding period, reserving funding for later years for new high priority areas; establish a transparent and efficient method of prioritizing, soliciting, and evaluating new projects for subsequent funding; establish an expedited process for urgent issues

IMPACT = Immunization Monitoring Program, ACTive. Contract between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Paediatric Society (40,41); CAIRE = Canadian Association for Immunization Research and Evaluation (42,43); PCIRN = Public Health Agency of Canada/Canadian Institutes of Health Research Influenza Research Network (44); CIRN = Canadian Immunization Research Network (45)

Ongoing management of a network is strengthened by having an accountable management structure that parallels the investigator structure. A network project manager liaising with individual project (or subnetwork) managers ensures that network accountabilities are not ignored or not given sufficient priority by investigators. In return, this management structure needs to provide value to the investigators through streamlined communication, reporting, and financial management. Having too many obligatory passage points will result in a dysfunctional network; too few obligatory passage points can lead to missed opportunities for one part of a network to share with and benefit from the learnings and interactions of another part of the network (24).

For those considering joining a network, critically evaluate the goals and objectives, the leadership, the members, the governance, and the funding. Ask yourself whether your personal objectives align with the network’s objectives. Will participation enhance or interfere with your current research program? Are there already indicators of successful collaboration? For those establishing a network, choose your network colleagues carefully; good co-leadership makes the network run smoothly. Equally as important, choose your staff carefully; good network staff ensures success. Sustainability may require diversification; keep the leadership flexible and responsive. Map investigators’ objectives to network’s objectives and to funder(s) objectives. This process is not necessarily linear but if done well, ensures ongoing engagement. One of the greatest challenges to network success is to maintain the “freshness” and relevance of the network both to the investigators and to the funders (sustainability). This is facilitated by good communication but must be balanced against “e-mail fatigue.” The network principal investigator cannot forget that he or she is only leading because others wish to follow. Network leadership is only making it happen; the intellectual motivation/innovation comes mostly from the network’s membership. As Will Rogers (1879–1935) is quoted as saying, “If you’re ridin’ ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it’s still there,” and “Chaotic action is preferable to orderly inaction.”

Clinician Scientist and Basic Scientists: Together More Than the Sum of Their Parts (Guido van Marle)

In the field of biomedical sciences, translational/collaborative work from “bench to bedside” is highly regarded and strongly encouraged. The original Bill C-13—the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act of March/April 2000—stated that:

In general terms, the proposed Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) would represent a more integrated approach to health research which would be more focused on the underlying determinants of health and disease. Its purpose would be to link researchers across a broad spectrum of disciplines and provide a national focus to Canada’s research efforts. The CIHR would not only support existing research in Canada but would also foster new synergies among researchers and build upon the research base by joining loosely linked health research in a network of virtual institutes. (26)

This clearly illustrates that the mandate of CIHR is to bring different disciplines together in order to improve the health of Canadians as well as reach beyond the borders of Canada.

Working together does not always come naturally or easily. During the CAHR–CFID workshop, participants and preceptors/moderators discussed hurdles and enablers for these types of collaborations. Given the nature of the audience, there was a focus on the issues that an academic basic scientist and clinical scientist may encounter in their respective settings. A common hurdle is the different demands of these disciplines. Clinician scientists have to balance their time between clinical duties and research. In general, the demands of clinical responsibility will win out. This may create tensions with basic scientist who expects a greater time commitment to research from their clinical counterparts. Basic scientists have responsibilities focused on their academic units and administration. Furthermore, their promotions and tenure are linked to their research performance. Despite these core differences, a team of clinician and basic scientists can shine and synergize, by each using their strengths and addressing the fundamental gap that is critical for translational of basic research work to clinical. In a successful collaboration, the basic scientist supports the clinician scientist and takes on more of the research responsibilities, while the clinician offers the essential clinical links and expertise, which the basic scientist lacks (27).

Physical separation between clinician and basic scientists is another key hurdle. Research meetings, seminars or rounds in which scientists and clinicians can meet, discuss and be exposed to each other is one way of building links and creating opportunities to network. If an institute fosters a culture of collaboration and recognizes the value of it, this will stimulate the conversations and interactions between basic and clinician scientist (28).

Finally, creating a culture of collaboration starts at the training level. Trainees exposed to a collaborative environment during the formative phase of training are more likely to keep pursuing these types of collaborations afterwards (29).

Communication with Decision Makers is Critical (David Evans)

Often, decision makers (DM) must be engaged in an effort to resolve the issue encountered in the academic workplace.

DMs are anyone who can affect your academic world. This includes daily workplace contacts, university administration, funding agencies, journals, government, the public and the press. Where do you look for help when the bureaucracy has held up the release of your funds or you have a concern about an ethical issue? Your first instinct might be to complain because you perceive that nobody at the grant panel or an editor of a reputable journal appreciates your abilities. This may be counterproductive. The appropriate approach depends on the circumstances.

Generally, the first step is to acquaint yourself with the facts. Define what the issue, problem or complaint is and, ensure that you are not the cause. For example, before complaining to research services about a delayed budget authorization be sure that you have addressed all of the tasks required by the research office. If there is a need to communicate with a DM, determine who the right person is to approach and match the problem to the DM’s job/status. Be respectful of people’s time, schedule a meeting, send background documents in advance, be sensitive to external rules and regulations, and listen to his or her advice.

One reason to contact a DM may be to offer help or advice, or perhaps report a concern. Take time to identify the right path to direct your concerns (e.g., research news is handled by your institution’s press office; not the head of research). Advice is always welcome, but be practical and reasonable. Ensure that issues related to finance are well calculated and thought out. Be prepared to help deliver on the advice. Reporting is a challenging issue, especially if it concerns ethical breaches or other violations of institutional policies. Be sure you are on secure footings and communicate with the right DM in confidence. Telephone calls and face-to-face meetings are usually more impactful than e-mails. For what may be major breaches, it is worth first approaching the senior leadership in the Dean’s or Provost’s office and then they can help circle back as deemed appropriate.

Complaining can be very cathartic but should be approached with care. Be sure to identify the right DM and progress up the hierarchy of responsibility. Going over someone’s head to complain is generally not helpful. It annoys the more junior DM (perhaps the subject of your complaint). As well, thoughtful senior DMs will generally not second-guess their direct reports without reason. Therefore, start with the person that might have caused the problem and see if they can resolve it first. Do your homework, identify the problem clearly ensuring that you are not responsible, avoid exaggerating a grievance, and offer practical solutions. Regardless of why someone might want to prosecute a complaint, you should be prepared to compromise on solutions.

A final key point to highlight is the importance of acknowledging the guidance and assistance provided from DMs. Consider penning a letter to the DM and copy it to the person you are writing about. This action will procure much more attention than a mere e-mail and the subject will appreciate the recognition. The occasional heartfelt “thank you” goes a long way toward making the academic workplace harmonious (30–32).

Your Evolving Academic Career (Keith Fowke)

An academic position offers a wide range of possibilities and it is highly likely these activities, opportunities and interests will vary over the three-plus decades that a career often extends. To provide a general framework for considering your evolving career (acknowledging that clearly not all careers with fall into this framework), the academic career can be divided into roughly three decades, known as the establishment decade, the confidence decade, and the builder decade (Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Decades of an academic career and focus of individual’s efforts

The academic career by decades

The establishment decade (ages 35–45) is that time when, as a new academic, you try to establish yourself in their three main focus areas of an academic: research, teaching and service (and clinical for health professionals). For research, the new academic works very hard to distinguish themselves as an independent investigator, get their first grant, recruit people to their laboratory or research environment, and publish with their trainees as first authors and themselves as senior author. During this time, they work hard to get their research recognized nationally and they develop novel networks of collaborators and colleagues that extend beyond their postdoctoral experience. For teaching, this varies greatly from initially having minimal teaching, so they can focus on establishing their research program, to having teaching be the major part of their academic duties. The new academic develops their own style of teaching, interacting with students and developing assessment tools. For service, they will try to sit on committee relevant to their department and university and will seek out grant review panel opportunities as well as a review for multiple academic or scientific journals. During this establishment decade, an underlying preoccupation with any request on your time is, “will it aid in a promotion/tenure application?” An academic’s energy in the first decade is necessarily laser-focused on the development of their own research or teaching program.

The confidence decade (ages 45–55) is characterized by knowing what your strengths are and being able to focus on them. By the second decade, an academic will usually have successfully undergone promotion/tenure review. If research has become an area of strength, they will have renewed grants, are known nationally and internationally, and their focus extends beyond their own program where they are able to assist others in their research endeavours. The confident academic decade is characterized by research leadership opportunities, such as group leader, or a leadership role in an academic or scientific society. The academic will have the ability to be more selective and teach only those courses in which they are really interested. Having obtained promotion/tenure, the service activities they engage in during this time are those that are highly meaningful to them and not necessarily what would “look good” on a promotion application.

Finally, let us consider the builder decade (ages 55–65+). This is the time when the academics own career has been established and they now look at how they can improve the situation around them. The focus shifts to mentorship and developing the next generation of academics by taking on roles as department or faculty administrators or leadership role in education. During this time, an individual recognizes that leadership is a way of making a change and you are willing to see your efforts primarily benefit those around you, rather than yourself directly.

The evolving career

Why does an academic career change between these various decades? There as many reasons as there are different career paths. However, some common reasons (both positive and negative) include the following:

• Research is going well and expanding

• Research is highly competitive, exhausting and not as successful as you had hoped

• Teaching is highly rewarding

• Teaching is challenging and not gratifying

• Leadership allows a person to influence change—locally to internationally

• Sitting on committees does not yield the change needed and is seen as frustrating

The important point is to recognize that the academic career will change and that you should try to anticipate that change whenever possible.

What can be done about it?

In speaking to a number of colleagues about their careers and how they changed over time, some common themes emerged:

• It is never too late to get a mentor and seek advice from someone who has been through what you are likely going to go through and who can help you plan (33–36).

• When bringing in new faculty, recognize that you may be recruiting your future boss. Recruit the best so you are surrounded by excellence.

• Accept opportunities to explore the wider institution.

• Jealously protect your time for things about which you are passionate.

• Actively plan your career evolution rather than allowing it to happen to you.

That final point is perhaps the most critical. Be active in your career planning. There is a whole field of literature on academic career development. For example, in the Journal of Faculty Development, Campion et al (37) described 16 core competencies required for successful career development of mid-career faculty in an academic medicine and reports that those attending career development workshops had statistically significant improvements in knowledge, skills, attitudes and connectivity. Taking the time to read the opinions and advice of academics who’ve devoted a career to this field, is time well spent.

The second area of engagement is attending career development workshops. Both the literature and our experience in conducting career development workshops at CAHR and CFID support this advice (38,39).

Not all academic careers are the same and none of them fit exactly into the model provided in this article. However, this framework suggests that there are various stages to an academic career and that all careers evolve to some extent or other. The goal is that if an individual can recognize the change and make some effort to plan for it, then the academic will find continued professional and personal fulfillment during their ever-changing academic career.

The Canadian Society for Virology: Fostering Virology Research Across Canada (Nathalie Grandvaux)

The Canadian virology community has benefitted from years of leadership from world-renowned researchers. However, the community lacked the support of a society-based structure. Recognizing the outstanding and long-due need for better ways for the research community to connect, the idea of a Canadian Society for Virology (CSV)/Société Canadienne pour la Virologie (SCV) emerged. The CSV was co-founded by Drs Nathalie Grandvaux (Université de Montréal) and Craig McCormick (Dalhousie University) and incorporated under the Canada Not-For-Profit Corporations Act in 2016. In the first 6 months, CSV collected an impressive 200 paid memberships from researchers across all career stages. The CSV promotes the advancement of education as well as dissemination and application of knowledge related to virology. The founding principles of the society are to foster information exchange between Canadian researchers through the organization and support of symposia, workshops and research training programs, and to provide leadership for the definition of research initiatives and the development of research networks. Additionally, CSV actively promotes an equitable, diverse and inclusive Canadian research environment.

For Canada to realize its potential to lead virology research, the research community must come together to exchange ideas and discover new opportunities for collaboration as well as to secure the highly competitive tri-council funding. For this purpose, CSV aims to serve as a “big tent,” holding a bi-annual symposium, most recently in Halifax (June 2018), that showcases the breadth of Canadian virology research, spanning basic, translational, clinical and epidemiology research, based on animal, microbe, plant and invertebrate viruses.

A key driving impetus for the creation of the society was the major changes in research funding occurring in Canada. Over the past 6 years, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research dramatically “reformed” their operating grant programs. Concurrent with this, the funding success rates have markedly declined due to a flatlined global budget, an increase in applications and a shrinking pot of money targeted to investigator driven research in favour of more applied research. Our research community suffered greatly because of these changes. We need the strong collective voice of a society more than ever to support the development of the next generation of young virologists. CSV not only provides the support to favour trainee attendance at the bi-annual symposium, but additional training initiatives such as a skills acquisition program that allocates travel funds for trainee exchanges between Canadian laboratories have also been implemented. As a part of this effort to advance and promote virology research, we are developing partnerships with other Canadian scientific societies and organizations including CAHR and CFID to support strategic activities and advocate for research funding.

Conclusions

While training and mentorship activities are often viewed as a necessity for young investigators, the reality is that such opportunities to learn from leaders in the field are just as beneficial for mid-career researchers. And yet, there exists a dearth of opportunities for this cohort to meet with peers, exchange ideas and learn from those with a great depth and breadth of experience. The CAHR–CFID Professional Development Workshop for Viral Researchers addressed this learning gap and offered participants the chance to learn from those with a wealth of experience in such domains as academic leadership, commercializing research, building consortia and networks, and communicating effectively with decision makers. Post meeting participant evaluations overwhelming demonstrated that this learning opportunity met its objective and mirrored the positive commentary that was abundant over the course of the workshop. The authors of this article extend their appreciation to CAHR and the CFID for organizing this event and thank the generous sponsors for their support.

Competing Interests:

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Ethics Approval:

N/A

Informed Consent:

N/A

Registry and the Registration No. of the Study/Trial:

N/A

Animal Studies:

N/A

Funding:

No funding was received for this work.

Peer Review:

This article has been peer reviewed.