Vision what will be needed in 30 or 40 years. We can provide the historical context of the field, but if we do not also include the modern approaches we are doing our purchase BX795 trainees a disservice. Encourage your trainees to pursue emerging areas of research and to incorporate novel approaches into their research projects.2. Recognize your limitationsSenior faculty members who attempt to replicate or clone themselves in their trainees are doomed to fail. As outlined by Daniels and others, biomedical science has changed and will continue to change. The field must adapt and incorporate the most innovative of techniques and approaches. If the field of toxicology continues to innovate, as it should, in 20 or 30 years from now the routine techniques learned in the 1990’s will be woefully inadequate. Therefore, mentors must recognize that all of the tools that they have in their scientific toolbox will not be enough for a trainee to succeed in the future. We must train our trainees to innovate and learn even after they graduate. Faculty must be willing to send their trainees to other laboratories and workshops that provide them with training unavailable in the mentor’s laboratory. Those that have sabbatical benefits or reduced summer loads should use these opportunities to expand their experimental repertoire to benefit themselves and their trainees. Those that don’t should carve out time to attend intensive workshops to refresh their skillset. Regarding limits, at what point should a senior scientist hang up the pipettes? I see no reason for outstanding scientists who are continuing to do outstanding science to retire due to age. However, those who have reached retirement age and are not willing to compete for grants and be actively engaged in the scientific enterprise need to start considering retirement and perhaps transitioning into adjunct AG-490MedChemExpress AG-490 teaching or mentoring positions. For those scientists who are actively engaged in research and of retirement age, it would be great for their institutions to provide them with a 50 position. This would allow the investigator to stay engaged, receive compensation, be available for mentoring, and also to pursue other interests. This could open up funds, space, and positions for a very large number of new investigators. Often 50 of a senior salary is equal to 100 of a junior investigator. NIH is starting to explore an emeritus style grant program that would achieve something similar from the grant award side. My hope would be that the majority of senior investigators recognize the need to strengthen the pipeline of the field and transition into positions that create opportunities for young investigators. I am not one who thinks that investigators over 65 should be forced to retire as many of them are doing stellar work, but they do need to be given opportunities that are mutually beneficial to themselves and the young investigators looking to begin their careers. For those scientists in government or industry, as you approach retirement age consider expanding your commitment as mentors and teachers through adjunct academic appointments. To those senior investigators who are dead set in working full-time until they are dead, I say for the sake of the future of toxicology, if you are not going to retire, at least stop complaining. Yes, science is very different than it was 40 years ago. We know.from the barrage of negativity and it starts with you. As noted above, once you agree to take a trainee into your group.Vision what will be needed in 30 or 40 years. We can provide the historical context of the field, but if we do not also include the modern approaches we are doing our trainees a disservice. Encourage your trainees to pursue emerging areas of research and to incorporate novel approaches into their research projects.2. Recognize your limitationsSenior faculty members who attempt to replicate or clone themselves in their trainees are doomed to fail. As outlined by Daniels and others, biomedical science has changed and will continue to change. The field must adapt and incorporate the most innovative of techniques and approaches. If the field of toxicology continues to innovate, as it should, in 20 or 30 years from now the routine techniques learned in the 1990’s will be woefully inadequate. Therefore, mentors must recognize that all of the tools that they have in their scientific toolbox will not be enough for a trainee to succeed in the future. We must train our trainees to innovate and learn even after they graduate. Faculty must be willing to send their trainees to other laboratories and workshops that provide them with training unavailable in the mentor’s laboratory. Those that have sabbatical benefits or reduced summer loads should use these opportunities to expand their experimental repertoire to benefit themselves and their trainees. Those that don’t should carve out time to attend intensive workshops to refresh their skillset. Regarding limits, at what point should a senior scientist hang up the pipettes? I see no reason for outstanding scientists who are continuing to do outstanding science to retire due to age. However, those who have reached retirement age and are not willing to compete for grants and be actively engaged in the scientific enterprise need to start considering retirement and perhaps transitioning into adjunct teaching or mentoring positions. For those scientists who are actively engaged in research and of retirement age, it would be great for their institutions to provide them with a 50 position. This would allow the investigator to stay engaged, receive compensation, be available for mentoring, and also to pursue other interests. This could open up funds, space, and positions for a very large number of new investigators. Often 50 of a senior salary is equal to 100 of a junior investigator. NIH is starting to explore an emeritus style grant program that would achieve something similar from the grant award side. My hope would be that the majority of senior investigators recognize the need to strengthen the pipeline of the field and transition into positions that create opportunities for young investigators. I am not one who thinks that investigators over 65 should be forced to retire as many of them are doing stellar work, but they do need to be given opportunities that are mutually beneficial to themselves and the young investigators looking to begin their careers. For those scientists in government or industry, as you approach retirement age consider expanding your commitment as mentors and teachers through adjunct academic appointments. To those senior investigators who are dead set in working full-time until they are dead, I say for the sake of the future of toxicology, if you are not going to retire, at least stop complaining. Yes, science is very different than it was 40 years ago. We know.from the barrage of negativity and it starts with you. As noted above, once you agree to take a trainee into your group.