Chapter 11. Choosing, and Being, a Good Mentor 179

clinician-educators spend in scholarly activities, and perhaps even lead to less work–family conflict.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Drs. Herbert Chen, Charles Scoggins, and Jennifer Tseng, all of whom provided their lecture materials from the AAS Fall Courses for the creation of this manuscript.

References

1.Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(6):1103-1115.

2. Caniano DA, Sonnino RE, Paolo AM. Keys to career satisfaction: insights from a survey of women pediatric surgeons. J Pediatr Surg. 2004;39:984-990.

3.Thakur A, Fedorka P, Ko C, Buchmiller-Crair TL, Atkinson JB, Fonkalsrud EW. Impact of mentor guidance in surgical career selection. J Pediatr Surg. 2001;36:1802-1804.

4.Ko CY, Whang EE, Karamanoukian R, Longmire WP, McFadden DW. What is the best method of surgical training? A report of America’s leading senior surgeons. Arch Surg. 1998;133:900-905.

5.Lukish J, Cruess D, Executive Committee of the Resident and Associate Society of the American College of Surgeons. Personal satisfaction and mentorship are critical factors for today’s resident surgeons to seek surgical training. Am Surg. 2005;71:971-974.

6.Fenelon, F. The adventures of Telemachus, the son of Ulysses. Edited

by LA Chilton and OM Brack Jr. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1997.

7. Palepu A, Friedman R, Barnett R, et al. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional development in U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 1998;73:318-322.

Selected Readings

Jackson VA, Palepu A, Szalacha L, Caswell C, Carr PL, Inui T. “Having the right chemistry:” a qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2003;78:328-334.

Lukish J, Cruess D, Executive committee of the Resident and Associate Society of the American College of Surgeons. Personal satisfaction

180 J.A. Sosa

and mentorship are critical factors for today’s resident surgeons to seek surgical training. Am Surg. 2005;71:971-974.

Palepu A, Friedman R, Barnett R, et al. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional development in U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 1998;73:318-322.

Pololi L, Knight S. Mentoring faculty in academic medicine: a new paradigm? JGIM. 2005;20(9):866-870.

182 M.V. Brock

very accessible funding potential. Although surgery poses many constraints on an individual surgeon’s time because of the necessity of being physically present in the operative suite, and despite clinical productivity increasingly being measured by relative value units (RVUs), it is imperative that young, academic surgical researchers take time from their clinical responsibilities to compete for these postfellowship awards. In addition, the NIH is actively encouraging surgeons to participate in basic science research, translational research, clinical outcomes research, and even in prevention/control research. Increasingly NIH institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) are enticing surgical faculty to apply for their K Awards by reducing the minimum protected research time requirement from the traditional 75% to a mere 50% or announcing partnerships with surgical societies or foundations that essentially double the amount of salary support provided.1

In fact, some data imply that the lack of surgeons garnering K Awards is because they are not even writing them. A 2004 study by Rangel and Moss found that nonsurgeons were 2.5 times more likely than surgeons to apply for any type of NIH Career Development Award.2 So, if young surgical faculty have limited time for grant writing pursuits, and if the newly implemented NIH policy has made the grant review process more restrictive by only allowing two submissions of any grant application, then it behooves young surgeons contemplating academic careers to become well versed in the basic tenets of submitting a successful proposal.

Most of this information presented in this chapter is made freely available by the NIH itself on its expansive websites. Unfortunately, these websites often bury valuable grant hints and tips of grantsmanship beneath pages of technical information that require considerable time to read and navigate. This chapter is an attempt to provide, especially the first-time applicant, with concise, very practical information that will lead to a well-crafted K Award. In particular, the applicant will learn how to avoid common errors, how to work together