Strategic Understanding of Current Pharmaceutical Sciences

To begin the discussion, we initiated a strengths, weaknesses, opportunity, and threats (SWOT) analysis that was facilitated via a digital collaboration platform (Fig. 1). Within this discussion, there were three main points that were discussed: (1) Role of American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) to academic pharmaceutical scientists. (2) Alumni engagement and philanthropy. (3) Too few trainees in pharmaceutical sciences with interest in joining academia as tenure-track faculty.

Fig. 1

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunity, and threats (SWOT) analysis of the Pharmaceutical Sciences field with respect to graduate education

Overarching Pharmaceutical Sciences Professional Organization

Across Pharmaceutical Sciences are medicinal chemists and pharmaceutics (drug delivery) experts with backgrounds in chemistry, biochemistry, engineering, pharmaceutical sciences, and other related fields. Additionally, there is expertise in pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), and drug disposition (ADME: absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion) with training in the aforementioned backgrounds as well as areas like pharmacology. Across the field, the discipline is united in advancing pharmaceuticals; however, we are divided in our professional organizations. Historically, AAPS has brought together many aspects of the discipline, focusing on student awards and speaking opportunities for trainees to highlight their innovative research. Although many felt this feature of the annual AAPS meeting has declined, a significant strength of AAPS is its continued support for student chapters and its communities, such as the Nanotechnology Community. Although a few chairs noted that they had significant alumni attendance at AAPS, most of the chairs and vice chairs noted that AAPS was not the primary conference for students or faculty to attend. The reasons for reducing AAPS involvement included the temporary nature of the poster displays, the difficulty in hearing speakers on the expo floor, the limited relevance of the scientific content to individual research interests, and limited involvement of academic leaders in leading the society. Proposing programming or changes to existing programming was felt to likely lead to minimal impact. It was expressed that a multi-pronged approach would be necessary for AAPS to effectively engage the academic pharmaceutical science community. It was noted that AAPS could have a beneficial role in attracting highly motivated Pharmaceutical Sciences PhD graduates to academia, through a prestigious, competitive, and well-compensated post-doctoral program. More focused or narrowly themed conferences and professional organizations were felt to be better attended by trainees and faculty. For instance, medicinal chemists often prefer American Chemical Society meetings, PK/PD scientists now have options like the American Conference on Pharmacometrics, while drug delivery researchers typically favor the Controlled Release Society. Overall, there was a desire to engage Pharmaceutical Sciences students, industrial professionals, and alumni more broadly in a single professional organization for networking and scientific discussion, but attendance at more focused or narrowly themed conferences will likely continue.

Alumni Engagement

Alumni engagement is crucial in graduate education because they can share their career experiences and paths with students, offering valuable mentorship and insights. This guidance helps students learn from real-world experiences and more effectively navigate their own academic journeys. Alumni engagement and support is also vital for scholarships, professional development opportunities, and research, providing essential mentorship and financial resources that directly benefit students and postdocs. These contributions enable the institution to offer more scholarships, making education more inclusive and accessible to a broader range of trainees. Alumni also contribute to the institution’s reputation by sharing their successes and promoting the university in their professional circles. Furthermore, they help foster a sense of community and continuity. These factors collectively enhance the overall strength and impact of students’ and postdocs’ training and education.

As part of this discussion, AAPS was brought into the conversation regarding alumni engagement and that a national conference can be a venue for hospitality suites to engage alumni, particularly for celebrations around faculty or unit milestones. The chair and vice chairs emphasized the strengths of alumni engagement, including their participation in symposia, seminar speaking invitations, student discussion panels, advisory board memberships, and guest lectures in didactic courses. Additionally, including alumni in discussions around curriculum revisions was also raised. It was specifically mentioned that students should be allowed and encouraged to organize symposia and events with alumni. However, it was noted that while the unit typically covers costs for food and venue of such a symposium, alumni travel expenses are infrequently covered due to budget limitations. This can sometimes make alumni engagement more challenging. In the pre-meeting survey, we asked specific questions about alumni engagement by the chairs and vice chairs (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Graph of PhD alumni engagement methods across those who completed the pre-meeting survey (n=13) who were from nine different schools and twelve different programs. Also mentioned were interactions through conferences and research projects. Data is presented as average ± 95% confidence interval

With regards to alumni engagement and especially philanthropy, best practices were discussed at the meeting. Overwhelmingly, alumni engagement was best organized centrally through the Dean’s office (Fig. 2). It was discussed that an individual at the Associate Dean level or development office was often in place to help guide alumni philanthropy for multiple degree programs including the PhD. However, expanding the development office’s role to interact with the PhD alumni can help advance engagement with this group. A PhD alumni relations individual who could meet PhD alumni where they are across the country was mentioned as one approach. Overall, the attendees noted enormous potential in PhD alumni relations as highlighted also in the SWOT analysis (Fig. 1).

Challenges with Hiring Faculty with a Pharmaceutical Sciences Background

The final topic under our strategic discussion was focused on faculty hiring and that too few trainees in Pharmaceutical Sciences were pursuing rigorous postdoc experiences and entering academia as tenure-track faculty. This manifests in Pharmaceutical Science units hiring individuals with cross-disciplinary training in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and engineering disciplines. Fundamentally, although their research interests may very much align with the field of Pharmaceutical Sciences, foundational content in the field (e.g. physical pharmacy, PK/PD) can then be lost or units might struggle to find adequate instructors for these topics in the professional pharmacy and PhD programs. Thus, while hiring from outside disciplines is crucial for bringing fresh perspectives and driving innovation, it is equally important to recruit within the Pharmaceutical Sciences field to preserve essential domain knowledge. The attendees agreed that significant division exists between programmatic needs and federally fundable research areas in Pharmaceutical Sciences. Research focused on fundamental pharmaceutical knowledge, such as tablet making and compounding, is currently not a significant area of government funding in the US. However, it was noted that these areas can and do receive funding through industry. The key will be to leverage these collaborations and to further expand them. This division results in a diminished knowledge base in fundamental Pharmaceutical Sciences that is often needed by students that enter industry. Some programs compensate for this by organizing workshops where alumni in pharmaceutical industries provide didactic lectures in pharmaceutical product development.

There were some solutions proposed to make up for the lack of basic Pharmaceutical Sciences knowledge. The idea of sharing knowledge resources (e.g. lecture material, lecture videos) for graduate training was discussed, and scheduled for further discussion at subsequent meetings. A few faculty discussed the use of lecturers to help address this division, but a few also stated that lecturers were not feasible in their unit structure based on required teaching loads. It was noted that partner hire opportunities have also led to successful lecture hires for some units. Particularly for clinical expertise, it was mentioned that senior PharmD students, medical doctors, pharmacists, and other allied health professionals could be used to consult on lectures, or as speakers within or leading the lectures. These clinical examples were thought to be valuable to the students as well as provide important perspective to the faculty leading the lecture or course. Proposed solutions for addressing the lack of basic Pharmaceutical Sciences knowledge included sharing educational resources, utilizing lecturers and clinical experts, and considering partner hire opportunities.

Our strategic discussion concluded that Pharmaceutical Sciences encompasses diverse expertise, including medicinal chemistry, drug delivery, PK/PD, and drug disposition. Despite a unified goal of advancing pharmaceutical sciences, the field is divided regarding its choice of professional organizations. AAPS has historically united most of the discipline but given the changing focus of AAPS, advances in the field and branching off into new areas, it is now less favored for student, faculty, and alumni engagement. Within the discipline, alumni engagement varies and includes alumni participating in symposia, seminars, lectures, and advisory roles. Effective alumni engagement is best organized through the Dean’s office, with potential for a dedicated PhD alumni relations role. Faculty hiring in Pharmaceutical Sciences faces challenges as fewer trainees pursue postdocs and academic careers, leading to hires with cross-disciplinary backgrounds but this results in gaps in foundational Pharmaceutical Sciences. Proposed solutions included sharing educational resources and utilizing lecturers and clinical experts. Overall, a multi-pronged approach is needed to address these issues and strategically engage the Pharmaceutical Science community.

The Importance of Science Advocacy

To discuss the importance of science advocacy for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dr. Dawn Beraud the Executive Director of American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE), joined the meeting to speak to the group. She highlighted the need for science advocacy which included protecting and increasing science funding to advance discovery, increase trust in science, and improve the quality of life. A key point was to link scientific evidence to policy with the goal of governmental leaders hearing the voice of their scientifically minded constituents. It was presented that science and policy have a symbiotic relationship where science is dependent on policy but best practices for policy should include evidence-based science. Current members of congress have limited STEM degrees, with a majority focused on law studies. Therefore, scientists have a role in educating policymakers.

AIMBE has taken several strides in science advocacy including identifying areas where advocacy is needed. These areas include research agency funding, NIH reform, artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, the understanding of forever chemicals, and other areas of interest. Members of AIMBE or AIMBE’s Council of Societies (smaller related organizations that formally affiliate with AIMBE) are informed of opportunities to organize advocacy activities including training and briefings around the subject.

The AIMBE website (https://aimbe.org/advocate/) features several significant tools for engaging in advocacy activities. One notable tool allows users to draft letters to their congressional representatives based on zip codes, focusing on specific scientific policies that require support. In addition to writing letters to government officials, Dr. Beraud discussed other ways AIMBE helps introduce researchers to science policy. A significant resource is the AIMBE’s Public Policy Institute that is a 2-day workshop in Washington, DC open to undergraduate students, graduate students and postdocs. During the workshop trainees hear from public policy experts, industry leaders, and senior government officials about the policy landscape shaping the scientific enterprise. Further, Dr. Beraud indicated that scientists could offer lab tours for members of congress, perform demonstrations of their science, and participate in community engagement forums that are focused on educating the public about nearby science and research.

Overall Dr. Beraud from AIMBE emphasized the importance of science advocacy, including increasing science funding, linking evidence to policy, and educating policymakers, with AIMBE providing tools and training for effective advocacy.

Graduate Education in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Since the goal of pharmaceutical sciences is to train global health leaders, implementing best practices in graduate education is essential. With regards to graduate education, we highlighted best practices in the use of chatbots and large language models (AI) as well as challenges around funding of graduate students. Several questions around the graduate programs and their qualifying exam across the different universities and programs were asked in the pre-meeting survey. When asked to provide the size of the PhD Pharmaceutical Science program for their school, respondents reported an average of 62 students across programs (Table I). All respondents indicated that a qualifying exam is required for graduation, with most of those exams focused on a written proposal with an oral exam on a topic related to their thesis (92%). Qualifying exams are crucial for assessing students’ knowledge across the discipline, preparing them to develop research proposals for testing hypotheses effectively, and enabling them to communicate scientific concepts clearly. Nearly half of the respondents also indicated a requirement of a series of written exams (46%); however, there was a point of discussion regarding the use of AI, which is discussed in more detail below. Other qualifying exams included a written literature review (38%), a minimum grade point requirement (23%), and one individual specifying a written proposal completed prior to their research proposal. Qualifying exams are just one part of PhD graduation requirements, with over half of the respondents (54%) indicating a first-author research publication is required, and 15% noting a teaching assistant (TA) requirement. Overall, there was good agreement between the units regarding qualifying exams and graduation requirements.

Table I Pre-meeting Survey (n=13) Results from Nine Different Schools and Twelve Different Programs Around General Program Information

There was also good agreement with respect to career placement of alumni. With Pharmaceutical Sciences being such an applied area of study, it is not surprising that a vast majority of the PhD graduates from the respondents’ programs have placement in industrial jobs (78%) (Table I). The second most common career placement is in academic positions (16%); however, there is wide variance in these responses. Earlier in the meeting, we discussed the poor placement of PhD graduates in academic career paths, particularly the lack of individuals with Pharmaceutical Sciences education pursuing tenure-track faculty positions. This issue was revisited later in the meeting, where it was summarized in the context of the proposed NextProf program. It was noted in the discussion that some individuals may have responded to this question as the next position for their students after graduation (e.g. a postdoc) rather than their career position. A small proportion of alumni also hold positions in government (8%) or other positions including communications (2%).

AI Use in Graduate Education

Discussion around AI was initially to define some of the risks around student use. There was discussion about how open-sourced AI (e.g. ChatGPT) can lead to the release of potential intellectual property to the large language model (LLM) cloud. Of the survey responders, 33% said they had spoken to PhD students about potential loss of intellectual property by using AI (Fig. 3). Many programs noted a university managed LLM (e.g. Co-pilot) which still uploads content to a cloud, but one that is contained in the university. The contrast would be if sensitive information is uploaded into ChatGPT, it could (albeit likely at a very low percentage) be incorporated in a response elsewhere in the world, potentially disclosing intellectual property. When logged into a university managed LLM, the information could also be incorporated into a response for another user, but they would have to log into the university system. The discussion highlighted the risks of using open-sourced AI like ChatGPT for students, emphasizing that university-managed LLMs offer a safer alternative for handling sensitive information and intellectual property.

Fig. 3

Graph of engagement of PhD graduate students regarding use of chatbots and large language models (AI) from survey respondents (n=13) who were from nine different schools and twelve different programs. Data is presented as average ± 95% confidence interval

During the meeting, it was noted that when discussing AI use with graduate students, the NIH’s review policy on chatbots was highlighted. The NIH prohibits the use of generative AI tools like chatbots for peer review due to confidentiality concerns and emphasizes responsible AI use in biomedical research (https://osp.od.nih.gov/policies/artificial-intelligence/). This policy addresses concerns about the release of intellectual property and sensitive information through chatbots. Survey results showed that 33% of respondents had not discussed safe AI use with their graduate students, with 67% requiring students to acknowledge AI in their exams and coursework (Fig. 3). However, only 17% had conducted workshops on AI use, and 33% had incorporated AI into lectures, exams, or coursework. Discussion around best practices to acknowledge AI use was particularly highlighted as many felt just saying they used AI was not enough information. A matrix for disclosure was discussed and outlined (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

Discussed table for acknowledging AI use in graduate student assignments

A key discussion point regarding AI was focused on its implications for written qualifying exams. The participants felt that qualifying exam questions that focus on recall of singular topic knowledge are especially susceptible to simplification thorough use of AI. Several suggestions were discussed to help mitigate this. A primary strategy discussed was to require the combination of knowledge to solve a problem that has multiple sources of knowledge with very open-ended solutions. Another strategy was to use AI in the exam, asking students to use AI to make an inquiry, and then support or contrast the results from the inquiry. Having the students generate a graphical abstract of their research proposal was also discussed. Concerns around the use of AI to generate images for that application were discussed and it was noted that AI images often have spelling and other errors (e.g. too many fingers or eyes). Overall, the discussion on AI’s impact on written qualifying exams highlighted concerns about AI simplifying recall-based questions and proposed strategies like integrating problem-solving with multiple knowledge sources, using AI inquiries, and creating graphical abstracts to maintain exam integrity.

PhD Student Admissions, Progression, and Institutional Support

Understanding the various aspects of PhD student support is crucial to ensure that students receive the necessary resources to succeed in their programs. General discussion of PhD graduate students focused on multiple aspects including student admission routes, progression information, and institutional support to finance students. Most programs mentioned admission of students through both direct admission into Pharmaceutical Sciences and umbrella biological or medical science programs. Several programs noted rotations for their students during their first semester or year in the program. Most universities provide institutional support for students during their first year; however, two universities reported no support or rotations for first-year students and another noted that only directly admitted students received financial support, while those admitted through other programs (e.g., umbrella programs) did not. Also, one program noted only a semester of support through the institution. Some institutional support was facilitated through a TA, and another program conveyed that an optional year of TA support was standard. Institutional pay of full tuition was also mentioned as a type of support for funding graduate students in addition to one program that supported four semesters of a student, or one year if they had pursued a MS in the school’s program. Funding sources for PhD students were part of the pre-meeting survey and is reported in Fig. 5. The discussion highlighted various aspects of PhD student support, noting differences in admission routes, first-year rotations, and financial support across programs, with some universities offering more comprehensive institutional support than others.

Fig. 5

Graph of funding source distribution for PhD graduate students from survey respondents (n=13) who were from nine different schools and twelve different programs. Data is presented as average ± 95% confidence interval

Financial support for graduate students was indicated as the most significant concern by those who completed the pre-meeting survey. The reliance of the principal investigator’s (PI’s) grant and contracts to fund graduate students dominated the responses (8 of 11 responses) to the question ‘What do you consider the most significant challenge in training graduate students in a PhD program in Pharmaceutical Sciences?’. In particular the lack of financial support from the institution was highlighted as a challenge. Addressing this challenge requires a concerted effort from institutions to provide more robust financial support to students and faculty. This is especially important considering the rising student stipends, inflation, and increased reagent costs, all coupled with the stagnation of NIH modular budgets, which have remained unchanged at $250,000 per year since 1998. Other challenges noted were covering broad curriculum (2 responses) and scientific writing (1 response). During the meeting, it was mentioned that breaks in support or switching advisors can cause further strain on resources. One strategy is to share the student’s costs between the old and new advisor to facilitate student rotations when initial student placement was not suitable. Predoctoral T32 programs either within or outside pharmacy were also mentioned as a strong area of support for students, although they can be highly competitive. Overall, the most significant concern for graduate students in Pharmaceutical Sciences is financial support, primarily due to reliance on PI grants and contracts, with additional challenges including lack of institutional support, broad curriculum coverage, and scientific writing.

The duration of students’ coursework was also discussed to ensure they receive comprehensive and in-depth training and expertise, while also allowing sufficient time for research progression and avoiding unnecessary delays in their PhD dissertation defense. Regarding the average length of classes for students, members from seven different programs responded that students conclude classes after three semesters of coursework, with four programs responding they had four semesters of coursework. None indicated five semesters of coursework although many indicated that students would audit additional courses or may take individual coursework in a given semester after the bulk of their coursework had been completed. The discussion revealed a consensus among most programs regarding the length of coursework. It was generally agreed that three to four semesters are sufficient to cover the fundamentals and principles of Pharmaceutical Sciences in-depth.

Graduate Course Design and Implementation

Given the interdisciplinary nature of Pharmaceutical Sciences, it is crucial that course content is taught in a way that ensures both sufficient depth and breadth of expertise. Based on survey results, over half the respondents had graduate courses which were taught with one primary instructor who taught many of the courses (62%), with 85% of the respondents team-teaching graduate courses with one coordinator (Table II). About one-third of the respondents indicated that tenure-track faculty have a specialized graduate course that is part of the PhD graduate curriculum. This could be tied back to comments stated with regards to some respondents feeling that teaching the breadth of content across Pharmaceutical Sciences is a significant challenge in addition to comments around the decrease of expertise in fundamental Pharmaceutical Sciences content. Overall, most programs have a similar approach to coordinating teaching for the graduate curriculum.

Table II Pre-meeting Survey (n=13) Results from Nine Different Schools and Twelve Different Programs Regarding Didactic Teaching of Phd Graduate Students

The survey also asked if best practices for teaching were employed in the classroom including flipped classroom teaching, active learning techniques, and clear objectives for each lecture. The flipped teaching model involves students learning basic foundational content (e.g., latent heats) before class through videos or readings and then applying that knowledge in the classroom through problem-solution focused lecture content or clinical applications. Additional frequent aspects of flipped classrooms are quizzes or audience engagement tools that hold the student accountable for the pre-class material. Of the survey respondents, nearly half responded that flipped classrooms are incorporated into their coursework. A common element of a flipped classroom is active learning exercises that help the students to apply the basic knowledge they learned before class. A few of the many examples of active learning are think-pair-share, student reflections, the whip-around-pass-strategy, and one minute paper. Of the respondents, 85% indicated that they incorporate active learning elements in their graduate classroom. Another important element for clarity of teaching is clearly defined objectives, preferably those linked to Bloom’s Taxonomy so students can appreciate the depth of understanding needed for each objective. A little over three-quarters (77%) of respondents stated they had clearly stated objectives for each of their lectures. The survey found that many respondents use flipped classrooms and active learning techniques in their teaching, and most ensure their lectures have clearly defined objectives.

Another facet discussed in the survey was around instructors in the graduate courses. Survey respondents noted that industrial professionals (Fig. 6), alumni (Fig. 2), research track faculty, and trainees (Table II) all play a role regarding instruction. A notable strength of the Pharmaceutical Sciences discipline is its strong industrial involvement, as evidenced by 85% of alumni and industry professionals providing didactic lectures in the graduate curriculum, according to survey respondents. Slightly over one-third of responders indicated that research track faculty teach in the graduate curriculum. This opportunity allows research track faculty to gain teaching experience and provides students with insights into areas beyond the expertise of tenure track faculty. This approach can be beneficial if it does not significantly detract from their research focus. The respondents were also asked if post-doctoral fellows and graduate students (trainees) engaged in teaching, with 15% responding that they were. Like research track faculty, this may provide an opportunity for them to gain teaching experiences if they are able to continue focusing on their research without serious distraction. The survey highlighted that graduate course instruction involves industrial professionals, alumni, research track faculty, and trainees, with significant industrial involvement and opportunities for research track faculty and trainees to gain teaching experience as appropriate.

Fig. 6

Graph of engagement of industrial professionals and PhD students as collected from a pre-meeting survey with data from nine different schools and twelve different programs (n=13). Data is presented as average ± 95% confidence interval

Graduate Student Interactions with Industrial Professionals

In Pharmaceutical Sciences, like many disciplines, graduate students value interactions with industrial professionals. This is underscored by the large fraction of our students that have careers in industry (78%; Table I). Survey respondents indicated that their students interact with industrial professionals through various means, including guest lectures in courses and speaking invitations through student organizations and unit invitations (Fig. 4). All the survey responders noted that PhD graduate students in their program participated in internships with industrial professionals. A 100% response to student internships also supports the strength of the close involvement of individuals in industry and their involvement in the training of Pharmaceutical Sciences graduate students. The survey results highlight that graduate students in Pharmaceutical Sciences highly value interactions with industrial professionals, as evidenced by their frequent career placements in industry and participation in internships and lectures

NextProf PharmSci

A key point emphasized during the discussion was the imbalance in career interests among Pharmaceutical Sciences trainees, with too few pursuing academia and a far greater number leaning towards industry careers. This trend, coupled with a recent increase in retirements, has led to a shortage of individuals who can teach fundamental Pharmaceutical Sciences knowledge. To increase the pipeline of trainees into academic jobs, the concept of a NextProf program (https://nextprof.engin.umich.edu/) for Pharmaceutical Sciences was proposed as a key meeting point. The NextProf program is a multi-day workshop designed to strengthen and diversify leaders in academia and historically has been carried out for engineering programs. NextProf supports senior PhD candidates, postdoctoral researchers, and early-career scientists in preparing for faculty roles by offering insights into the academic job market, guidance on preparing application packages, interview process training, mentorship opportunities, and strategies for developing successful research programs. A goal of the meeting was to design and implement a NextProf PharmSci program, based on the engineering program.

The NextProf PharmSci presentation outlined a comprehensive workshop designed to train the next generation of academic leaders in pharmaceutical sciences. The primary mission of the workshop is to demystify the academic career path and build inclusive excellence within the field. This initiative addresses a significant branding issue, as Pharmaceutical Sciences have fewer PhD programs compared to other disciplines like chemistry and engineering and often individuals outside the field are unclear what pharmaceutics, pharmacokinetics, and other discipline terms mean. Further, many future applicants cannot differentiate Pharmaceutical Sciences from pharmacology and professional pharmacy (PharmD) programs. This is especially true for domestic applicants, as there are few undergraduate Pharmaceutical Sciences programs in the US. By raising awareness and providing targeted training, the workshop aims to attract stellar PhD students and postdocs to the field. The proposed program covers a wide range of professional development areas, including career development, leadership, research, teaching excellence, mentorship, J.E.D.I (Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) training, networking, ethics, translational and regulatory science, and global engagement.

In addition to these core areas, the proposed workshop emphasizes the importance of sustainability in biomedical and pharmaceutical research. It highlights opportunities for sustainable treatment avenues using new biomaterials based on naturally available starting materials. The proposed workshop also includes sessions on grant writing, research methodology, and innovative teaching methods to equip participants with the skills needed for a successful academic career. By fostering a supportive community through mentorship programs and networking events, the workshop aims to create a collaborative environment that promotes excellence and innovation in Pharmaceutical Sciences.

There was significant enthusiasm for the proposed NextProf PharmSci program during the meeting. Meeting participants recognized the importance of creating a training pipeline and supporting not only those entering into academia but those new to academia. It was also highlighted that mentoring of junior faculty could also be a crucial element of the program. Individuals felt that an enrolment of 25 to 50 participants would be ideal. Reaching out to umbrella programs as well as T32 programs at the universities represented at the meeting will be critical to identify potential shared resources as well as disseminate information to other disciplines. Fundraising efforts will also need to be pursued to facilitate an in-person meeting. Meeting participants expressed strong support for the proposed NextProf PharmSci program, emphasizing the need for a training pipeline, mentoring junior faculty, and targeting an enrollment of 25 to 50 participants, with efforts to involve university umbrella programs and T32 programs, and plans for fundraising and organizing in-person meetings.