Basic and clinical research is the lifeblood of endocrinology and necessary to enable the field to innovate. Research requires funding; the monies to support young investigators are diminishing and being shifted to those more senior. The average age of an investigator to compete successfully for his/her first independent grant has increased from 36 in 1980 to 45 today. The percent of investigators over age 66 has increased from 0.2% to 7%. In 1962 57.9% of submitted grants were funded and the percent now is approximately 14%. At the same time the total dollar support from the NIH has decreased by 28% from 2003 to 2013 when adjusted for inflation. These statistics emphasize how challenged a young investigator can be in competing successfully for funding of his/her work. Other challenges are the competing responsibilities incurred when working in an academic institution. Basic scientists spend 17.7% of time on administration, 7.6% on clinical practice, and only 59.1% on research. Clinician scientists spend 12.4% of time on administration, 27.9 % on clinical practice and 43.5% on research. Many projects require nearly full time in the laboratory and this is not possible unless the work week is extended to 80-100 hours. For clinicians, the challenges in the United States are to meet the increasingly stringent requirements for documentation and the very short time allowed to see new and follow-up patients (generally 40 and 20 minutes). All of these challenges have discouraged young professionals from going into endocrinology as a field. It is estimated that 70% of endocrinologists in training programs in the USA currently are foreign medical school graduates, a major change from 20 years ago. The method in which research is conducted is changing. With the depth and breadth of results needed to be competitive, multidisciplinary groups are required in which investigators are inter-dependent, not independent.
What can be done to empower the next–generation of endocrinologists? The Endocrine Society recently empaneled a task-force to address this issue. Key recommendations included: (1) work with training program directors and mentors to educate about professional development possibilities (2) highlight the satisfaction of endocrinologists in their work through testimonials and outcome data to serve as means of recruiting into the field (3) incorporate Nex-Gen members into society taskforces, committees and governance structure (4) develop mock study sessions and grant review processes targeted at young endocrinologists (5) create online educational materials targeted at Nex-Gen members (6) initiate a comprehensive career development program (7) Enhance Nex-Gen visibility by instituting a series of regional meetings with platform presentations and by appointing Nex-Gen members as annual meeting session chairs paired with more senior investigators (8) create informational tools to summarize all funding opportunities (9) establish career development sessions analogous to meet the professor sessions. In summary, only by a comprehensive approach which addresses all of the needs of Nex-Gen members can we overcome a potential crisis in the future where our societies become predominantly composed of older members.