In May 2026, the FPH Academic Public Health and Public Health Educators in Medical Schools SIGs jointly hosted an online workshop, "Inspiring the Next Generation of Academic Public Health", bringing together around 30 participants spanning the full career spectrum, from undergraduate students and early career researchers to senior academics, training programme directors and public health educators. The workshop set out to explore the academic public health pipeline as a system: where interest in research careers is fostered, where it falters, and what practical steps educators, supervisors and institutions can take to strengthen it.
The conversation was energetic and candid. Participants heard from speakers including Dr Iona Lyell, a public health registrar currently out of programme for research, Dr Catherine John, an Associate Professor whose fellowship-funded PhD grew from specialty training, and Professor Maggie Rae CBE, Training Programme Director for Public Health in the South West. Their stories illustrated what academic careers in public health can look like at different stages, but they also highlighted a central challenge: across undergraduate medicine, MSc programmes and specialty training, there is substantial variation in access to academic placements, visibility of role models, research integration within training, and support from supervisors. These differences shape whether talented individuals come to see academic public health as accessible, viable and attractive.
This is not a challenge unique to public health. Gillespie and colleagues, writing earlier this year as part of the BMJ Commission on the Future of Academic Medicine, ask the same uncomfortable question across clinical specialties: "Who would want to be a clinical academic?" Their analysis echoes much of what our workshop surfaced: funding insecurity, a lack of clear progression routes, the challenge of mid-career transition, and the critical importance of mentorship and role models. The parallels suggest the problems we identified in public health are systemic rather than specific to our specialty.
What the workshop told us
Several concerns were consistent across participants. The perceived ‘experience paradox’ was particularly prominent: early career professionals described feeling that research opportunities require prior research experience, creating a circular barrier to entry. Further along the career path, fellowship holders and postdoctoral researchers described a growing tension between the financial and professional uncertainty of fixed-term posts and the stability offered by consultant or senior leadership roles in the NHS or local authorities, which is precisely the career crossroads that the broader clinical academic workforce literature identifies as a critical retention risk.
Participants also raised questions about identity and fit. Public health practice values breadth and responsiveness; academic careers can appear to reward narrowing specialisation. For those working across portfolio or practice-based roles, finding time and organisational support to engage with research was a recurring challenge, particularly where academic involvement had to be negotiated alongside substantial service responsibilities.
The role of professional background also featured prominently. Academic public health role models are still predominantly drawn from medical routes, which can make the pathway feel less visible and less attainable for those entering through non-medical backgrounds. This matters for a specialty that prides itself on its multidisciplinary foundations.
What helps
Mentorship emerged as one of the single most important enablers, consistent with evidence across clinical specialties. Those who had benefited from good mentoring described the tangible difference it made, not just in accessing opportunities but in building the confidence to pursue them. Access to mentorship, however, remains uneven.
Participants drew attention to initiatives that are beginning to shift the landscape. NIHR Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs) are building research capacity within local authorities and strengthening links between academia and practice. Joint appointments, research-active service roles and portfolio careers offer routes into academic public health that do not require following a traditional university pathway, and raising awareness of these models may help more professionals recognise that engagement with research is neither all-or-nothing nor dependent on leaving practice.
Supportive leadership matters too. Where senior public health leaders have championed research, created space for staff to contribute to teaching or supervision, and built genuine partnerships with universities, participants described markedly different experiences of what an academic career could look like.
What needs to change
The workshop made clear that visibility, mentorship and networking, while necessary, will not be sufficient on their own. If academic public health is to attract and retain talented professionals from across the full breadth of the workforce, career pathways must also be financially and professionally sustainable. The challenge is to make the opportunities we heard described, including joint posts, embedded researchers and portfolio careers with protected research time, available consistently rather than depending on individual circumstance or institutional luck. As Gillespie and colleagues argue for clinical academia more broadly, pragmatic attempts to tackle these problems without understanding their systemic roots risk being ineffective or creating unintended consequences.
Academic public health has never been more important. The talent is there, across all professional backgrounds and career stages, and our job is to ensure that the support, visibility and opportunity are there too.
Three Calls to Action:
- Champion the development of a national academic public health mentoring, sponsorship and professional network.
- Guarantee meaningful research exposure and protected academic opportunities throughout public health training.
- Create sustainable research-active careers through expansion of joint academic–practice posts and protected research time in service roles.
