Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) brought together senior and junior members actively engaged in scholarly and educational activities for a consensus conference centered on developing a strategy for sustainable training of the next generation of mechanistic researchers in female pelvic medicine.
Methods
Four a priori identified major foci were explored in a half-day virtual consensus conference. Participants included representatives from various countries and disciplines with diverse backgrounds—clinicians, physician-scientists, and basic scientists in the fields of urogynecology, biomechanical engineering, and molecular biology. Following a keynote address, each focus area was first tackled by a dedicated breakout group, led by the Chair(s) of the most relevant IUGA committees. The break-out sessions were followed by an iterative discussion among all attendees to identify mitigating strategies to address the shortage of mechanistic researchers in the field of female pelvic medicine.
Results
The major focus areas included: research priorities for IUGA basic science scholar program; viable strategies for sustainable basic science mentorship; core competencies in basic science training; and the challenges of conducting complex mechanistic experiments in low-resource countries. Key gaps in knowledge and core competencies that should be incorporated into fellowship/graduate training were identified, and existing training modalities were discussed. Recommendations were made for pragmatic approaches to increasing the exposure of trainees to learning tools to enable sustainable training of the next generation of basic science researchers in female pelvic medicine worldwide.
Conclusions
The attendees presented multiple perspectives to gain consensus regarding critical areas of need for training future generations of mechanistic researchers. Recommendations for a sustainable Basic Science Scholar Program were developed using IUGA as a platform. The overarching goal of such a program is to ensure a successful bench-to-bedside-and-back circuit in Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, ultimately improving lives of millions of women worldwide through scientifically rational effective preventative and therapeutic interventions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brass EP. Basic biomedical sciences and the future of medical education: implications for internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(11):1251–4.
Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793–5.
Finnerty EP, Chauvin S, Bonaminio G, Andrews M, Carroll RG, Pangaro LN. Flexner revisited: the role and value of the basic sciences in medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):349–55.
Hotez PJ. Loss of laboratory instruction in American medical schools: erosion of Flexner’s view of “scientific medical education.” Am J Med Sci. 2003;325(1):10–4.
Opthof T. Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2011;49(6):613–21.
Steinberg BE, Goldenberg NM, Fairn GD, Kuebler WM, Slutsky AS, Lee WL. Is basic science disappearing from medicine? The decline of biomedical research in the medical literature. FASEB J. 2016;30(2):515–8.
Awasthi S, Beardmore J, Clark J, et al. Five futures for academic medicine. PLoS Med. 2005;2(7):e207.
Fontanarosa PB, Bauchner H. Scientific discovery and the future of medicine. JAMA. 2015;313(2):145–6.
Jacob V, Belsky J, Cone D. The decline of basic science publications in major emergency medicine journals and research conferences. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25(6):705–7.
Beck AH. STUDENTJAMA. The Flexner report and the standardization of American medical education. JAMA. 2004;291(17):2139–40.
Mylopoulos M, Woods N. Preparing medical students for future learning using basic science instruction. Med Educ. 2014;48(7):667–73.
Woods NN, Brooks LR, Norman GR. The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis: creating coherence among signs and symptoms. Med Educ. 2005;39(1):107–12.
Woods NN, Neville AJ, Levinson AJ, Howey EHA, Oczkowski WJ, Norman GR. The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis. Acad Med. 2006;81(10 Suppl):S124–7.
Tjian R. Supporting biomedical research: meeting challenges and opportunities at HHMI. JAMA. 2015;313(2):133–4.
Acknowledgements
We thank the individuals who presented their opinions at the IUGA BSSP consensus conference: Matthew Izett-Kay BMBS MD MRCOG, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; Menachem Alcalay, MD, Head, Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Medicine Unit, Sheba, Israel; Lindsey Burnett, PhD MD, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego; Diego Rubinowicz, MD, Urology Center of Palm Beach, PA, USA; Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito, PhD, MD, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil; Lioudmila Lipetskaia, MD, MSc, FACOG, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University; Maria Giroux, BSc, MD, FRCSC, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeon, University of Toronto, Canada; Lucie Hympanova, MD, Ústav pro péči o matku a dítě, Prague, Czechia; Tamara Serdinsek PhD, MD, University Medical Centre Maribor, Slovenia; Alex Szlachta-McGinn, MD Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Additional information
Editor in Chief: Kaven Baessler
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Alperin, M., Alarab, M., Botros-Brey, S. et al. The Future of Basic Science: Development of the Next Generation of Mechanistic Researchers in Female Pelvic Medicine. Int Urogynecol J 35, 775–779 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05766-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05766-8