Career development awards are associated with lower career-long research attrition risk in Veterans Affairs investigators.
This retrospective cohort study of US Department of Veterans Affairs investigators from 2008 to 2026 reveals that receiving a prior Career Development Award is significantly associated with a 42% reduction in the risk of career-long research attrition, regardless of demographic or professional variables.
Original paper dedicated to the public domain under CC0 1.0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. It is not medical advice. Do not make health decisions based on this content. Read full disclaimer
Inside the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, a unique ecosystem exists where medical care and scientific discovery happen side by side. Doctors and researchers work together to treat veterans while simultaneously studying their conditions to improve future care. For decades, the agency has run a special training program designed to help early-career scientists launch their research careers. This program, known as a Career Development Award, provides young investigators with protected time and funding to learn the ropes of conducting studies, mentored by experienced colleagues. The goal is to turn promising early researchers into independent scientists who can secure their own long-term funding. But a critical question has lingered: does this early boost actually keep these scientists in the game for the long haul, or do they eventually drift away from research to other roles?
A new study set out to answer this by looking at the career paths of hundreds of investigators within the Veterans Affairs system. The researchers examined data from scientists who had finished their training awards between 2008 and 2026, comparing them to peers who never received such an award. They tracked whether these individuals remained active in VA-funded research or if they stopped serving as lead investigators or co-investigators on projects. The team found that the early training made a profound difference. Scientists who had completed the Career Development Award were significantly less likely to leave research behind. In fact, they were about 42 percent less likely to stop their research engagement compared to those who had not received the award. This advantage held true regardless of whether the scientist was male or female, or what specific type of doctoral degree they held.
The study also looked at what happened within the group of award recipients to see if certain types of scientists were more likely to stay or leave. The results showed that doctors who also conduct research, known as clinician-scientists, were much more likely to remain active in the lab and the clinic than scientists who do not have a clinical background. This difference likely stems from the flexibility of their roles; when research funding is tight, clinician-scientists can often shift their hours to see more patients to support their salaries, then return to research when grants are available. Non-clinician scientists, who rely entirely on research grants for their pay, do not have this safety net and are more likely to leave the system entirely when funding dries up.
Beyond the type of scientist, the specific field of study mattered greatly. Researchers working in health services and epidemiology, which involves studying how healthcare is delivered and how diseases spread through populations, were the most likely to stay engaged. In contrast, those working in basic sciences, engineering, endocrinology, infectious diseases, and aging were significantly more likely to leave the Veterans Affairs research system. The authors suggest this is because scientists in these technical fields often have many opportunities to move to the private sector, where pharmaceutical and device companies offer higher salaries and different career paths. The study did not find that gender or the specific medical specialty of a clinician-scientist changed their likelihood of staying, but the field of research and the presence of a clinical role were powerful predictors of a long career in VA science.
Ultimately, the findings highlight that the initial investment in training early-career scientists pays off by keeping them in the research workforce for decades. The data suggests that while the training award itself is a strong foundation, the long-term retention of these scientists depends heavily on the flexibility of their roles and the stability of their funding. For the Veterans Affairs system to maintain a robust pipeline of researchers, especially in critical areas like engineering and infectious disease, the study implies that more support structures are needed to help non-clinical scientists navigate the gaps between grants. By understanding these patterns, the agency can better support the scientists who dedicate their careers to improving the lives of veterans.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.