Culture Drives Research Funding

To the Editor:

I am writing to comment on the medical education article by Michael B. Clearfield, DO, and colleagues¹ in the November 2007 issue of JAOA—The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. In that article, the authors analyzed research funding trends at colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) between 1999 and 2004. I commend the authors for their timely and thoughtful analysis. In addition, I fully agree with the authors' primary conclusion—that faculty at the larger, state-supported COMs are better able to attract extramural research support than are faculty at the smaller, private COMs. However, I believe that the authors may have understated the importance of the research culture at individual COMs in determining the ability of faculty to attract extramural funding. This belief is based on my 27 years of experience as a basic science teacher and researcher in the osteopathic medical profession and on my own statistical analysis of some of the data presented in the article by Clearfield et al.¹

When I used a linear regression model to reanalyze the data in the authors' Table 6,¹ I found a strong correlation (r² [coefficient of determination] = 0.6343, P<.001) between the number of full-time faculty and the total extramural grant dollars at the various COMs—a finding that was consistent with the authors' primary conclusion. However, when I conducted separate analyses on the private COMs and the public COMs, I found no significant correlation within either subgroup.

My observations indicate that factors other than COM size or number of faculty members may be important in obtaining extramural funding. I suggest that it is the research culture (or lack thereof) within an institution that is the primary factor in driving grant-seeking activity by faculty. Quite simply, when the culture and environment of a COM values and rewards research activities, faculty are much more likely to pursue and obtain extramural grant support.

In discussing their results, Clearfield et al¹ noted that institutional culture and mission were among the determinants of funding capability. They further suggested that faculty at some of the older COMs may have been successful in obtaining funding because those institutions have had more time to establish cultures of research. However, when I conducted a linear regression analysis to try to correlate the age of the schools with research grant dollars, I found no significant correlation. Indeed, data in the authors' Table 6¹ indicate that some of the newer COMs—most notably Edward Via Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine in Blacksburg (established in 2001) and the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford, Me (established in 1978)—appear to have developed fairly substantial research programs in their relatively short histories. Again, these observations suggest that it is the culture of research within an institution that drives faculty research activities.

The issue of research culture is a critically important factor that needs to be considered as the osteopathic medical profession continues to expand. Many of the newer COMs and those currently under development are private institutions with limited resources and with missions that are heavily geared toward the training of osteopathic physicians for underserved populations.² In this context, there is growing pressure on COM faculty to focus on teaching activities at the expense of research. Growing the osteopathic research enterprise in such an environment will represent a major challenge.

The leaders and faculty of all COMs—whether public or private, new or old—need to be fully engaged in fostering institutional cultures that promote and reward research activities.