Video clip | ASCI Perspectives – the patient connection to physician-scientists:
Alessia Fornoni, MD, PhD, and MSTP candidate Antonio M. Fontanella

Physician-Scientist Engagement Committee (PSEC) member Dr. Alessia Fornoni (University of Miami Miller School of Medicine; view profile) talks with Antonio M. Fontanella, a Medical Scientist Training Program candidate in her laboratory studying the mechanisms of proteinuria in kidney diseases as well as a recurrent focal segmental glomerulosclerosis survivor. They discuss how Fontanella’s experiences as a patient have influenced his path toward becoming a physician-scientist and inform his patient-focused approach to research. — Posted March 2026

Click the image below for the full interview. (For a the full video, click here; 9 minutes.)

ASCI Perspectives – the patient connection to physician-scientists:
Alessia Fornoni, MD, PhD, and MSTP candidate Antonio M. Fontanella

Physician-Scientist Engagement Committee (PSEC) member Dr. Alessia Fornoni (University of Miami Miller School of Medicine; view profile) talks with Antonio M. Fontanella, a Medical Scientist Training Program candidate in her laboratory studying the mechanisms of proteinuria in kidney diseases as well as a recurrent focal segmental glomerulosclerosis survivor. They discuss how Fontanella’s experiences as a patient have influenced his path toward becoming a physician-scientist and inform his patient-focused approach to research. — Posted March 2026

Click the image below for the full interview. (For a short clip, click here; 1 ½ minutes.)

Active and International membership guidance

Information is current as of February 24, 2026. Please be aware of potential changes in future cycles.

Nominations for Active and International membership generally open in the summer. Click here to be notified when the next annual cycle begins. All participants in a nomination should carefully review the information below. Send questions to staff@the-asci.org.

Navigate to section:

Eligibility

Nominees for Active and International membership:

  • must be physicians who have “accomplished meritorious original, creative, and independent investigations in the clinical or allied sciences of medicine” and who enjoy “unimpeachable moral standing in the medical profession” (as stated in the ASCI bylaws);
  • may not be nominated more than three times; and
  • must be age 50 or younger on January of the election year.

Proposers are discouraged from nominating those whose qualifications may not be sufficiently advanced, or from re-nominating a candidate if the candidate’s work has changed little since their previous nominations.

The ASCI Council reviews nominations and may recommend up to 100 Active and International nominees for election. The Council presents the recommended nominee group to Active and Senior members to approve by vote. Those elected will be recognized at the following ASCI Dinner and New Member Induction Ceremony at the AAP/ASCI/APSA Joint Meeting in Chicago.

Note that Council members may not serve in any capacity regarding nominations.

Nomination preparation guidance and instructions

A nomination requires one Proposer and one Seconder, both of whom must be ASCI members in good standing and (if applicable) current in Society dues. General Supporters are optional and are not required to be ASCI members. Note that Emeritus members may participate in any of these roles.

Note: A nominee may request that the nomination be set up for her/his editing by sending an email to staff@the-asci.org; if a Proposer has been identified, provide that person’s name in the request. 

There is no limit to the number of nominations a member can propose or support (either as Seconder or General Supporter).

The Proposer is ideally from an institution different from the nominee’s institution (although this is not required) and should have a good understanding of the nominee’s work. The Proposer is responsible for:

  • starting the nomination (see “ASCI account access” below);
  • granting access to the nominee to edit certain sections of the nomination (see detail in “Nomination sections” below); note that granting access is required, as demographic information can be supplied only by the nominee;
  • providing the “Proposer’s general statement on the nominee” (500-word limit) and “Statement on progress and development since previous nomination” (if applicable, 500-word limit);
  • ensuring that the nomination is accurate and complete; and
  • submitting the nomination.

Nominees can, when granted access, edit sections of the nomination except those exclusive to the Proposer. Only the nominee can provide demographic information, including research domain(s).

The Seconder is ideally from an institution different from the nominee’s institution (although this is not required) and should have a good understanding of the nominee’s work. The Seconder is responsible for completing and submitting a form that includes:

  • scores for the areas enumerated in the form;
  • comments (500-word limit) that supplement, but do not duplicate, information provided by the Proposer and deal specifically with the nominee’s original scientific contributions; and
  • a description of the relationship to the nominee.

General Supporters (not required; limited to 3 per nomination) may help to provide additional context for a nominee’s contributions, and to demonstrate wider support for the nominee beyond the candidate’s own institution, particularly if the Proposer and Seconder of a nomination are from the nominee’s institution. Anyone (including any ASCI member except those on the ASCI Council) may serve as a General Supporter. The General Supporter completes and submits a form that includes:

  • scores for the areas enumerated in the form;
  • comments (250-word limit) that supplement, but do not duplicate, information provided by the Proposer or the Seconder and deal specifically with the nominee’s original scientific contributions; and
  • description of the relationship to the nominee.

A nomination support template may be referenced in order to aid in drafting comments. Please note, however:

  • General Supporters who are ASCI members should complete and submit the required information online through their member accounts (see “ASCI account access”).
  • General Supporters who are not ASCI members should request that the Proposer add them to the nomination. The Proposer is then able to send an email containing information about accessing the support form on the ASCI website.

ASCI account access

  • Access your account
  • Go to the “Activities / nominations” tab, navigate to the “Active and International membership” section, and click on Search for a nominee.
  • Enter the nominee’s last name (you may enter a partial name):
    • If the nominee is found, you’ll be prompted to select your role if available: Proposer, Seconder, or General Supporter.
    • If the nominee isn’t found, provide the requested information to add the nominee and start the nomination by selecting your role (see bullet point immediately preceding).

Nomination sections

  • About the nominee
    Proposer and nominee may edit this information.
  • Nominee’s demographic information
    Only the nominee may edit this information.
    The ASCI requests responses to questions in a brief, 9-section survey that will help provide the foundation for expanding diversity, fostering inclusion, and achieving equity in the ASCI. All response areas are voluntary, with a “Prefer not to answer” option available for each section. Anyone with access to person-specific information (such as ASCI leadership, members associated with review processes, and staff members) will be required to keep the information confidential. Depersonalized summary information of all response areas may be provided in periodic public reports.
  • Nominee’s research domain(s)
    Only the nominee may edit this information.
  • Nominee’s institutional affiliation
    Proposer and nominee may edit this information.
  • Support for nomination
    — Only the Proposer has access to this section.
    Proposers may attach the Seconder and General Supporters to the nomination by searching the ASCI member directory. For a supporter who is not an ASCI member, Proposers must supply the supporter’s name and email address in order to attach the person to the nomination. After supporters are attached to the nomination, Proposers are provided the ability to notify them regarding their support forms.
  • Nominee’s biography
    Proposer and nominee may edit this information.
    Limited to 300 words, this brief summary of the nominee’s research and accomplishments will not be evaluated for review, but will be used to populate the nominee’s ASCI directory entry if the nominee is elected.
  • Documents
    Proposer and nominee may edit this information:

    • Full academic curriculum vitae, including:
      • current funding (clearly indicate whether the nominee is a principal investigator),
      • past funding,
      • invited lectures,
      • patents, and
      • full bibliography (with original research separated from other types of publications and the nominee’s name presented in bold face).
    • NIH-style biographical sketch (5-page limit), following the current format available at:
      http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/biosketch.htm
    • A high-resolution headshot photograph (for use if the nominee is recommended for election)
    • Three “Most significant publications,” excluding those representing work done by the nominee as a trainee. For each of these three files, an annotation is required and consists of three aspects:
      1. Citation: Author list in the original publication sequence, with the nominee’s name in capital letters, followed by numbered notation of the nominee’s role in parentheses (1 = principal investigator, 2 = collaborator), title, journal name, volume, inclusive page numbers, and year: Example:
        “John Q. Public and JANE DOE (1). Title. Journal. 1:1-10 (2015).”
      2. Pubmed ID (PMID).
      3. Annotation: A description (50-word limit) of the publication’s key findings and significance.
  • Seminal contribution(s)
    —  Proposer and nominee may edit this information.
    Summarize the nominee’s defining seminal contribution(s) and why this work forms the basis for the nomination (75-word limit). Use of lay terminology is encouraged.
  • Proposer’s general statement on the nominee
    Only the Proposer has access to this section.
    In the Proposer’s own words (500-word limit), describe the quality, originality, and impact of the nominee’s scientific work and the consistency and importance of the nominee’s research theme. Include a statement on the level of independence from the nominee’s mentor(s) and the nominee’s productivity and stature in the field.

    • Proposers should expand upon the candidate’s seminal contribution(s), including the originality, novelty, and impact of this research on the field. Note any special circumstances (e.g., childbearing or personal/family illness) that influenced the candidate’s research activities.
    • Information regarding major awards, invitations to give plenary lectures (especially at national and international meetings), and invitations to write chapters in major textbooks should be included as applicable — the quality and quantity of work are important factors.
  • Statement on progress and development since previous nomination
    Proposer and nominee may edit this information.
    In the Proposer’s own words (500-word limit), describe the critical differences between this nomination and the previous nomination (if applicable).

ASCI Perspectives – the patient connection to physician-scientists:
David Weinstock, MD, and Samantha Watson, MBA

In this first in a series of Perspectives videos highlighting the connection between patients and physician-scientists, PSEC member Dr. Nasia Safdar (University of Wisconsin; view profile) moderates a conversation between hematologist/oncologist Dr. David Weinstock (Pfizer; view profile), an expert in the field of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and Samantha Watson. Ms. Watson, his patient at a young age and a survivor of two types of cancers, became a patient advocate, supporting young adults struggling financially because of a cancer diagnosis. Dr. Weinstock and Ms. Watson discuss what they have mutally learned about the experiences of patients and scientists and share personal stories, including Ms. Watson’s relationship with her bone marrow donor. — Posted December 2025

Click the image below for the full interview.  (For a short clip, click here; 1.5 minutes.)

Video clip | ASCI Perspectives – the patient connection to physician-scientists:
David Weinstock, MD, and Samantha Watson, MBA

In this first in a series of Perspectives videos highlighting the connection between patients and physician-scientists, PSEC member Dr. Nasia Safdar (University of Wisconsin; view profile) moderates a conversation between hematologist/oncologist Dr. David Weinstock (Pfizer; view profile), an expert in the field of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and Samantha Watson. Ms. Watson, his patient at a young age and a survivor of two types of cancers, became a patient advocate, supporting young adults struggling financially because of a cancer diagnosis. Dr. Weinstock and Ms. Watson discuss what they have mutally learned about the experiences of patients and scientists and share personal stories, including Ms. Watson’s relationship with her bone marrow donor. — Posted December 2025

Click the image below for a clip from the interview.  (For the full video, click here; 41 minutes.)

Update from the JCI Insight Editor

Dr. Eickelberg

Allow me to introduce some of the initiatives our University of Pittsburgh team has implemented over the past several months after onboarding as the new Editorial Board for JCI Insight. The overarching aim for the University of Pittsburgh editorial team is to make publishing cutting-edge research and reviews easier, speedier, and less labor-intensive for our authors. At the same time, we intend to serve our constituency by publishing excellent and exciting science. Here are some of the new and upcoming efforts that our Board is undertaking.

  1. JCI Insight now publishes Research Letters. These short reports feature content with highly novel and impactful disease-relevant findings that may not have fully explored mechanistic insights expected from a full-length article. We trust that this new category will particularly appeal to our early-stage career faculty, such as K awardees or equivalents, as well as ASCI Emerging-Generation (E-Gen) Award and Young Physician-Scientist Award (YPSA) recipients.
  2. We are pleased to support early-stage investigators by including YPSA/E-Gen Award recipients as associate editors. The integration of early-stage career faculty into the editorial team of JCI Insight will grow their skill set, academic profile, and integration into the ASCI.
  3. We are very excited to feature our JCI–JCI Insight Dual-Journal Submission process, in partnership with the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Papers designated for the Dual-Journal Submission track will automatically be considered by JCI Insight in the event that the JCI rejects the manuscript, saving our authors and reviewers valuable time and allowing quick identification of the journal that is the best fit.
  4. We encourage authors to upload reviews from other journals with their submissions. The goal of this program is to streamline the review process, particularly when authors have completed revisions in response to prior peer reviews. The Editors will consider this information along with the manuscript in determining a priority fit for JCI Insight.
  5. Look for enhanced coverage of articles and author stories on social media. We will feature content on XBlueSkyLinkedInFacebook, and Instagram, so please tag us in your conversations about your work.

In addition, we are planning several other activities in the coming year. We will publish themed issues highlighting biological mechanisms that drive disease. Look for a call for papers in the coming month for our first themed issue, “Mechanisms of fibrosis across tissues.” Our team will also add monthly “office hours” to allow authors to discuss submissions with the editorial team, to facilitate the review process, and to manage expectations for potential revisions.

Finally, we have one very ambitious goal: Rapid Launch publications. Our editors plan to select a few submissions this year for expedited review and publication by JCI Insight, with a provisional acceptance decision within 15 days after submission. We hope that our authors will appreciate the competitive advantage of publishing in JCI Insight on highly novel and significant topics, without compromising on the quality of expert peer review. If you feel that your lab has exciting work that would be suitable for this track, we encourage you to contact us at editors@insight.jci.org.

Best regards,

Oliver Eickelberg, MD
Editor in Chief
JCI Insight
https://insight.jci.org

P.S. See publications in the last 3 months by ASCI-member corresponding authors:
https://the-asci.org/controllers/asci/Journals.php?#jci-insight

ASCI Perspectives: Renee Hsia, MD, MSc – video clip

Dr. Renee Yuen-Jan Hsia (view profile) is the 2024 recipient of the ASCI/Marian W. Ropes Award. She recently met with PSEC member Dr. Jennifer S. Yu (Cleveland Clinic; profile) to discuss what inspired her to become a physician-scientist, her experience at the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, as well as systemic public health challenges and potential paths forward. At UCSF, Dr. Hsia is Professor and Vice Chair of Health Services Research in the Department of Emergency Medicine, a faculty member of the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, as well as a member of the Center for Healthcare Value and the Global Health Economics Consortium. — Posted December 2024

Click the image below for a clip from the interview. (For the full video, click here; 14 minutes.)

ASCI Perspectives: Renee Hsia, MD, MSc – full video

Dr. Renee Yuen-Jan Hsia (view profile) is the 2024 recipient of the ASCI/Marian W. Ropes Award. She recently met with PSEC member Dr. Jennifer S. Yu (Cleveland Clinic; profile) to discuss what inspired her to become a physician-scientist, her experience at the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, as well as systemic public health challenges and potential paths forward. At UCSF, Dr. Hsia is Professor and Vice Chair of Health Services Research in the Department of Emergency Medicine, a faculty member of the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, as well as a member of the Center for Healthcare Value and the Global Health Economics Consortium. — Posted December 2024

Click the image below for the full interview. (For a video clip, click here; 3 minutes.)

Transcript of ASCI Perspectives – Hsia interview

Interview with Renee Renee Hsia, MD, MSc; UCSF (elected 2019); December 10, 2024, by vido conference.

Interviewed by Jennifer Yu, MD, PhD (elected 2018); Member, ASCI Physician-Scientist Engagement Committee.

Note: The text has been edited for readability by ASCI staff.

Dr. Jennifer Yu: Good morning and welcome to the ASCI Perspectives. I am Jennifer Yu from the Cleveland Clinic, and my guest today is Dr. Renee Hsia, the recipient of the Marion W. Ropes Award. This award recognizes a mid-career woman physician-scientist for outstanding achievements in academic medicine. Dr. Hsia is a professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine in the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco. She was the first woman physician-scientist in emergency medicine at UCSF, and she has paved the way for other clinicians and other clinician-scientists in her field.

Her research has highlighted how structural changes in our health-care system have led to inequities in health-care access and utilization. Her work spans multiple disciplines, including health-care economics, health policy, and clinical investigation. Her work has shed light on how market-driven imbalances in the supply and demand of emergency care impact mortality and exacerbate underlying inequities. Dr. Hsia’s academic contributions are remarkable. She has published over 190 articles, and her work has reached the public through media, including in the New York Times, Reuters, and USA Today. Dr. Hsia has received a number of awards for her research, including the Harold S. Luft Award

for mentoring in health services and health policy research. She was inducted into the ASCI in 2019 and National Academy of Medicine in 2021.

Dr. Hsia, welcome, and thank you for taking time to speak with us today.

Dr. Renee Hsia: Thank you so much, Dr. Yu, for hosting me. I’ve really been looking forward to this time with you.

JY: Thank you. You were the first woman physician-scientist in your department in emergency medicine, a department with few research scientists. Can you please share with us your path to becoming a physician-scientist?

RH: Sure. When I started medicine, I had never thought about becoming a research scientist. To me, emergency medicine was a way to kind of be very hands-on. I really liked talking with patients. I love being in the middle of everything. When I started at UCSF, there were opportunities for career development, and I thought I would take advantage of those. And then I became more aware, as I was practicing and as an early faculty, aware of the many issues that we struggle with in the United States health-care system. Previously, I’d been doing a lot of global health work, and when I became trained in research and methods, I saw that there were a lot of systemic issues that really required and needed answering here in the United States.

And so that’s how I began. I was a resident. Before UCSF, I was a resident at Stanford, and I had the opportunity to train with Laurence Baker, who’s a health economist at Stanford. And he really was the first entree into this world, where he let me have access to data, work with his team, and I became trained in health services research from him, being my first mentor. So that was the beginning of it.

JY: Thank you. And UCSF is affiliated with many different hospitals, and you chose to work at the county hospital. Can you tell us more?

RH: I love working at SF General. It is just a joy to be there. The reason I’m here, and I think the reason a lot of us work here, is because we are really committed to the mission of this hospital. And this is the hospital where we serve the majority of patients who are traditionally underserved. So, racial, ethnic minorities or minoritized communities or low-income. It’s a place where I feel like we’re able to give dignity to people who don’t normally receive it. It’s an honor to be here. I wouldn’t say that it’s always easy. I think it’s very challenging to work at this environment. It’s a struggle, to be able to provide good care when there are not as many resources available. But it’s the reason why I’m here is, the reason why many people choose to be here is because it allows us to practice in a place where normally we would not be able to maybe intersect with people in our daily lives in other ways.

JY: And disparities in health care are widening, and you’ve identified many structural and cultural barriers to health care for the marginalized, for the uninsured, which you see in your practice. So what are some of these critical barriers and how can we go about addressing them in our institutions?

RH: I think one of the things that I’ve been learning as I’ve been doing this research is that we have a lot of structural inequities that are embedded in our system. And that is not the result of one individual deciding to have bias towards another person. And it’s not going to be cured by having physicians, for example, do more CME or do more training necessarily on unconscious bias. That definitely exists. Implicit bias definitely exists, but the root of a lot of our inequities is really structural. And that’s what a lot of my work has been focusing on is, when you look at a graph saying, “What is the wait time of emergency department patients?” and White patients have shorter waits than Black patients. That’s not because an emergency physician is going out and saying, “Oh, I’ll see you and I won’t see you.” It’s because there are more hospitals that are located in areas that are affluent than not affluent, because the financial structure of the health-care system is that hospitals are incentivized to provide care where there’s “good” payer mix, where there’s commercial payer mix, where there’s strong Medicare reimbursement. And they choose to have service in in those areas, and they choose to close in other areas.

And I think one of the things that we can do is become more aware. I think in our practice a lot of times, we just feel like, oh, we’re just working in this environment and we feel like, oh, you know, kind of going out of that is exhausting or may be too much to think about, because there’s the insurance industry, there’s these health-care, huge hospital systems, and what can we do? But I do think that there is more momentum and more awareness to recognize that the fact that hospitals act like economic entities, that’s a result of the way that we’ve chosen to structure our health-care system because we have chosen to have private financing and we’ve chosen to have private delivery. And there’s other ways that we can think about organizing this.

And so I think that it’s a privilege and it’s a responsibility to speak out on these issues and become aware of them, because that’s really the root of a lot of the inequities that we face.

JY: Great. And can you talk about how perhaps telemedicine or artificial intelligence might be able to bring some of the expertise out to these underserved areas or underserved populations?

RH: Yeah, that’s a great question. And I think that of course, after the pandemic, there’s been an explosion of these technologies. But even before that, when we think about stroke care, for example, we’ve had telestroke, mobile telestroke units, and these kind of ways that we can bring technology into areas that are less resourced, whether that’s because of rurality or because of other reasons that, when hospitals, for example, they may not necessarily need, a neuro-interventionist to just give TPA. They just need the image to get transferred; they need someone to read it, and then they have the IV, they have the TPA to give.

So, what are the ways that we can make this more accessible? And also, again, I’ll just go back to what I mentioned before: The financial structure has to be in place that there is incentive for bigger hospital systems to help out these other hospital systems as well. Because if that doesn’t exist, then it’s just going to be an act of charity, which is not predictable, which is not a sustainable way to provide services to all populations.

JY: Right. And how? How do you think we might be able to implement these changes as a society?

RH: Well, I think that’s the million-dollar question. When we think about restructuring our health-care system, a lot of the things that we’ve been doing have been maybe Band-Aid approaches that accepts what we have and says, “Well, let’s try to fix these things on the end.” But we really haven’t been able to address the more fundamental issues.

But I think there really is more awareness that our health-care dysfunction, when we look at the malalignment of incentives, when we think about insurance and health-care systems, what I mentioned earlier, if we really want this to change, we really have to understand that it’s a bipartisan issue, that it’s not that there’s only certain states that have good health-care. No, like everyone is experiencing this, and there’s unpredictability, there’s fear of financial catastrophe, when you receive health-care services. And I think, now that there’s more awareness, there hopefully will be more political momentum to maybe make change.

JY: Right. Thank you. So there’s a lot of hope for the future.

RH: Maybe not in our lifetime, maybe in our children’s lifetime. I don’t know, but I hope so.

JY: And hopefully, speaking with the younger generations, we can also mobilize more energy and improve health-care and inequities.

RH: I do see that energy and awareness in our residents. I think people are interested in these issues. They feel the injustice, and I think that they recognize, that – It’s just like Cornel West, when he was saying that justice is a public display of love. This is the way that you love well is by changing these systems. And so, I know that’s a strange word to think about in academia. But I think all of us who are in academia, we do things because we want to improve the lives of others, and it comes from love. And so, there’s just different ways that it manifests itself. And research is one of them.

JY: For sure. And thank you for serving as a role model for all of the physician-scientists, all the people aspiring to be researchers and to change health care for all of our patients. So thank you.

RH: Thank you so much, Dr. Yu.

JY: Oh, you’re welcome. And for our early-career colleagues who will be seeing this interview, do you have any words of wisdom for them? Things that you’ve learned during your career journey?

RH: Yeah, I would say that the two things that I would share would be first to find other people who have talents and strengths and interests that are different from yours but are complementary, but that can be part of your team. And that’s been the key way that I’ve been able to do work that I feel like is rigorous and that is joyful and that is just a privilege to be a part of is to work with teams with – There’s so many people who have just so many areas of knowledge to contribute. And when you’re able to identify that and encourage that, that is really a wonderful thing to be part of.

And I think the second thing would be to recognize and accept, and not just accept but also embrace, the reality of human finitude. And I would say that, recognizing my own limitations, whether that’s time or needing sleep or whatever it is, but recognizing that I have finitude and not just accepting it, but embracing it and saying, okay, that we are not created to be machines. I think, in my younger years, people would say, “Oh, Renee, you’re such a machine.” And I would so proud of that. I would take it like a compliment. And that’s what we think in medicine. You don’t need to sleep, you don’t need to eat. You can just keep working hard. I think that it’s great to work hard, but I do think that there’s a way that – Sometimes I know that I’ve struggled with equating my work with my success or my work with, or my external success as my value. And I think that that’s dangerous. And I think that’s something that sometimes in academia or in America is a very cultural thing that we kind of identify ourselves with our external accomplishments. But to recognize that, we are finite, that we’re human. I think that there is a lot of benefit of recognizing those limitations. So that’s something that I would say.

JY: Right. Thank you. Absolutely. There’s such an important need to recognize what we can accomplish and to seek out others who can complement us and go together. We can go together and go much farther together as a team.

RH: Absolutely. Yeah.

JY: Thank you. Well, Dr. Hsia, thank you so much for taking time to speak with us today and sharing your journey, sharing your words of wisdom, and of hope for a better tomorrow.

RH: Thank you so much for your time, Dr. Yu, and I really been privileged to be part of ASCI and all of that it’s doing, so thank you.

ASCI Perspectives: E. Dale Abel, MBBS, DPhil – video clip

Endocrinologist Dr. E. Dale Abel (view profile) and PSEC Consulting Member Utibe Essien, MD, MPH  (Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine — Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA), discussed Dr. Abel’s journey to becoming a physician-scientist and holding a leadership position, from the University of the West Indies in Jamaica to Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, then to major US medical institutions. He relates experiences as both a mentor and mentee; shares lessons learned about peer recognition from his pioneering work on the metabolic mechanisms underlying heart failure in diabetes; and emphasizes the importance of soft skills and collegiality. Dr. Abel is William S. Adams Distinguished Professor of Medicine and Chair and Executive Medical Director, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and UCLA Health. — Posted October 2024

Click the image below for a video clip. (For the full video, click here; 25 minutes.)
A transcript of the complete, unedited interview is linked below.