There is always a better way.
An annual award for original thinking in facial aesthetic surgery.
Apply nowScholarship informationThe one-page PDFFor circulation and for program noticeboards. US Letter, prints in black and white.Why this award exists
Surgical training works by apprenticeship, and it should. You watch someone who has done the operation many hundreds of times, you do it beside them, and eventually you do it yourself. But reproduction has a ceiling: a trainee can perform a mentor's sequence more fluently than the mentor and still leave the operation exactly where it was found. Advancing the field takes an intellectual move rather than a technical one: asking whether the steps themselves are the right steps.
During my fellowship, Yadranko Ducic often reminded me that there is always a better way of doing something, and that a surgeon should be looking for it. He did not mean established technique was wrong, only that no technique is exempt from examination because it is how we were taught. The surgeons who influenced me most had that quality and none were contrarians: each could say precisely why the accepted approach existed, which is what made their objections worth hearing.
Every technique any of us uses was once somebody's departure from what they were taught. Dorsal preservation was old and discarded until someone asked whether the discarding had been justified. Most of what will be standard in twenty years is being thought about now by someone who has been told it is not the way we do it here.
That habit of mind is rarer than technical skill and far less rewarded. There is no case log entry for having noticed something. This award is a mechanism for the other thing. It does not primarily ask what you have accomplished, but what you have noticed, and whether you can defend it when the strongest objection is put to it.
Asking a trainee to argue against accepted practice, in writing, with their name attached, takes nerve. That is deliberate: a cautious argument safely inside the consensus will not win this.
Send us the idea you have been told it is too early to talk about.
Chair, Selection Committee · New York
Training produces excellent technicians. The field advances on thinkers.
750 words. One idea.
The principal basis of assessment, carrying 60 of 100 points. Everything else on this page is administration.
Identify an accepted principle, technique, measurement, sequence, or assumption in facial aesthetic surgery that you believe deserves to be reconsidered. Make the case for a better way.
The proposition is not a summary of prior research and not a statement of career intent. It is an argument, and it is assessed as one. A position is only worth reading if it is specific enough to be argued with, and ideally specific enough to be tested.
What the 750 words include. The limit covers the proposition, the strongest objection to it, and the answer to that objection. References do not count toward it. References are permitted but not required: this is an argument, not a literature review, and a citation earns its place only where it carries weight the argument cannot carry on its own.
Originality
The argument is the applicant's own, and it is not one the field is already making.
Rigor
The position is specific, grounded in anatomy, evidence, or mechanism, and capable in principle of being tested.
Intellectual honesty
The weaknesses are identified by the applicant rather than left for the committee to find.
Admissible subject matter
The scope is deliberately wide, since advances in the field are not confined to operative technique:
- A modification to an existing technique, with an account of what the standard approach fails to address.
- An anatomic or biomechanical observation bearing on how a step should be performed.
- A proposed outcome measure, or an argument that the measures currently in use are inadequate.
- A method of teaching or assessing a technical skill, with a case for why it improves on current practice.
- An instrument, device, imaging or planning tool, or software application.
- A revision to patient selection, consent, or counseling, argued on evidence rather than preference.
- A technique or idea from an adjacent specialty that this one has not adopted, and an argument for why it should.
- A convention the field maintains without a documented rationale.
The work need not be published, funded, complete, or approved by an institutional review board, and it need not reflect the position of the applicant's program. It must be the applicant's own.
A proposition does not have to prove correct in the end. The committee assesses the quality of the reasoning, the originality of the observation, and whether the argument is intellectually and scientifically defensible. A well-constructed argument later shown to be wrong is scored above a conservative one that was never at risk. None of that excuses a claim that misstates the anatomy or the evidence.
State the strongest argument against your own position, and answer it.
A proposal that cannot identify its own weakness is advocacy. The objection should be the real one: the argument a well-informed surgeon who disagrees would actually make, stated at its strongest rather than in a form convenient to answer.
An answer of this cannot be settled yet, and here is what would settle it is a strong answer. It is stronger than an objection quietly left out.
Who this is for
Trainees who have encountered something in facial aesthetic surgery they believe deserves closer examination: a step performed routinely and justified poorly, a measurement that may not predict what it is assumed to predict, an approach that works and could work better.
Facial aesthetic surgery does not belong to a single training tradition, and the eligible pathways are drawn accordingly.
Terms of the award
$5,000, unrestricted. One recipient annually, 2027 through 2031, presented in person.
Paid on announcement. No receipts, no reporting, and no restriction on use.
The award is unrestricted on purpose. It carries no reporting requirement and no account of how it was spent, because a structure that reads as a grant would measure compliance rather than judgment. The award is not payment for the idea. It is a vote of confidence in the person who had it.
It is paid on announcement, once the recipient has returned a completed Form W-9, and depends on nothing else that follows. The award is presented in person, and where and when that happens is arranged with the recipient once they have been chosen.
Eligibility
Applicants must hold one of the following positions in an accredited program located in the United States or Canada at the application deadline.
Otolaryngology residents
PGY-4 or PGY-5 in an ACGME-accredited or Royal College–accredited program.
Plastic surgery residents
In either of the final two clinical years of an accredited integrated or independent residency.
Oral and maxillofacial surgery residents
In the final clinical year of a CODA-accredited or CDAC-accredited program, with a demonstrated interest in facial aesthetic surgery. Single-degree and dual-degree pathways are treated identically.
Facial plastic surgery fellows
Currently enrolled in an AAFPRS Foundation Fellowship Program.
Aesthetic surgery fellows
Currently enrolled in an Aesthetic Society Endorsed Aesthetic Fellowship.
Oculoplastic surgery fellows
In either year of an ASOPRS fellowship.
Good standing
Confirmed by the applicant on the form. The program director is contacted for verification only if the applicant is shortlisted.
Not in independent practice
The award is for surgeons still in training. See below.
Surgeons in practice are not eligible. Applicants must be enrolled in an accredited training program at the application deadline and must not have entered independent practice at any point. This excludes attending surgeons, partners and associates in private practice, faculty, locum and contract surgeons, and anyone who practiced independently before returning to a fellowship. Moonlighting permitted and supervised by a training program does not affect eligibility. The award exists to reach people before their thinking has been shaped by a practice, and the exclusion is applied strictly.
Eligibility and selection are determined without regard to race, color, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, pregnancy, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, marital or family status, citizenship or immigration status, veteran status, or any other protected characteristic. None of these is requested at any stage and none is provided to the committee. The criteria are the applicant's training status and the location and accreditation of the program.
Applicants may apply in any year in which they remain eligible; an unsuccessful application has no bearing on a subsequent one. There is no application fee. Reasonable accommodations in the application process are available on request and have no effect on assessment.
The terms and conditions set out the selection process, conflict-of-interest rules, payment and tax documentation, intellectual property, and the handling of submitted materials in full.
How to apply
One form on this page, and two letters their authors send directly. No account, no fee.
The form is open now and closes at 11:59 p.m. Eastern on December 15, 2026. It takes three things and nothing else:
- The proposition. 750 words, typed into the form rather than uploaded. The first round is scored blind, and a word processor writes an author name into a document whether or not you put one there. Typed text carries no such trace.
- Your curriculum vitae. PDF, current, no page limit.
- Your details and your declarations. Your training pathway and program, a short note on one thing you have already pushed on, and who to expect the two letters from.
Two letters of recommendation are required. One from a faculty member of your choosing, and one from your program director or chairman. Each is emailed to info@samanmd.com by its author directly, with your surname in the subject line, by the same deadline. A letter forwarded by the applicant is not accepted. Ask both to address how you think, how you reason, how you question assumptions and how you approach a problem, rather than how you perform clinically.
An acknowledgment is sent within three working days, along with a reference for the application. If none arrives, it did not reach us; submit it again.
Nothing else is required. No case logs, no operative numbers, no transcripts, and no personal statement. Beyond the two letters, nothing else is required from your program at the time of application, and enrollment and standing are verified only for shortlisted applicants.
Nothing protected is asked. The form requests no date of birth, no citizenship, no examination results, no taxpayer identification number, and no demographic characteristic of any kind, at any stage. Tax documentation is requested from the recipient only, after selection.
Patient information. No patient photographs and no identifiable patient information anywhere in the application. Submissions containing it are disqualified.
The form is posted on this page when applications open. Nothing on it requires preparation in advance. The only item worth starting early is the proposition.
Rubric
The distribution is deliberate. An applicant with no publications and an original argument will outscore one with a long bibliography and a conventional argument, which is the basis on which this award differs from those keyed to prior output.
The two most common causes of a low score are a proposition that takes no position, and a proposition that omits the objection.
Calendar
The 2027 cycle.
Applications open
The form is on this page. Submissions are accepted until the deadline below.
Deadline
11:59 p.m. Eastern, inclusive of both letters of recommendation, which their authors send directly. Late applications are not reviewed.
Recipient announced
The date is confirmed nearer the time. The recipient is notified privately first, with one week to coordinate with their institution before the public announcement.
Award presented
Presented in person. Where and when is arranged with the recipient once they have been chosen.
Frequently asked questions
How is an application submitted?
Through the form on this page, which is open now. The proposition is typed into it and the curriculum vitae is attached as a PDF. Your two letter writers email their letters separately to info@samanmd.com. There is no account to create and no fee. How to apply has the detail.
Are oral and maxillofacial surgery trainees eligible?
Yes. Residents in the final clinical year of a CODA-accredited or CDAC-accredited oral and maxillofacial surgery program, with a demonstrated interest in facial aesthetic surgery, are eligible on exactly the same basis as every other pathway. Single-degree and dual-degree programs are treated identically. The interest is evidenced through the proposition and the statement of prior contribution; no separate documentation is required.
I have completed training and am in practice. May I apply?
No. The award is restricted to surgeons currently enrolled in an accredited training program at the deadline. Anyone who has entered independent practice is ineligible, including a surgeon who practiced independently and subsequently returned to a fellowship. Moonlighting permitted and supervised by a training program does not affect eligibility.
Are publications required?
No. The proposition carries 60 points; the remaining 40 are split between the two letters and a 20-point assessment of record and trajectory, drawn from the curriculum vitae and the 150-word note. An audit run on the applicant's own service counts there on the same basis as a peer-reviewed paper.
Who writes the letters of recommendation?
Two letters are required. One comes from a faculty member of the applicant's choosing and one from the program director or chairman. Each must arrive from its author directly rather than through the applicant. Both should address how the applicant thinks, reasons, and questions assumptions rather than how they perform clinically.
What if the proposition is subsequently shown to be incorrect?
It does not have to prove correct. Assessment is of the reasoning, the originality of the observation, the identification of the argument's weaknesses, and whether the position is defensible and could be tested. That is not license to be careless: an argument resting on a misreading of the anatomy or the evidence is a weak argument, whatever its conclusion.
What if the applicant's attending or program disagrees with the proposition?
No institutional approval or endorsement is required. A letter from the program director or chairman speaks to the applicant, not to the content of the argument, and neither it nor the attestation of good standing is an endorsement of the position taken. Applicants may note that a proposition does not represent their institution's position.
Is this a rhinoplasty award?
No. The scope is facial aesthetic surgery in full, together with teaching, measurement, planning, and patient selection. A proposition concerning deep plane technique, one concerning the nasal dorsum, and one concerning skeletal contouring are scored on the same basis.
May an applicant submit work already in progress?
Yes. Most competitive applications are expected to be exactly that. The subject need not be new to the applicant, only the applicant's own.
Why is the proposition typed into the form instead of uploaded?
Because the first round is scored blind and a document will not stay anonymous. Word processors write an author name into the file from the account that made it, and that survives every instruction about headers, footers, and filenames. Typed text has no metadata to leak. The form counts the words as you write, which is the other reason.
Is there an application fee?
No.
Is citizenship a requirement?
No. Citizenship is not a criterion and is not collected. The training program must be accredited and located in the United States or Canada. That geographic limit reflects the training and fellowship frameworks used to define comparable stages of postgraduate education, and is not a citizenship requirement.
May an applicant apply in more than one year?
Yes, in any year in which they remain eligible. Prior applications are not disclosed to the committee. Resubmission of a developed proposition is permitted.
Who retains ownership of the proposition?
The applicant, in full. Nothing in the terms assigns intellectual property. A recipient is asked for non-exclusive permission to publish and may decline without affecting the award; materials from unsuccessful applicants are deleted after the cycle closes. Anyone whose proposition concerns potentially patentable subject matter should consult their institution's technology transfer office before submitting.
Is the award taxable?
Recipients should assume so. Recipients are not degree candidates, so the award is generally treated as income rather than as an excludable scholarship. The award is paid once the recipient returns a completed Form W-9, and an information return is issued where one is required. A recipient who is not a US person completes the applicable Form W-8 instead, and the award may be subject to withholding. Nothing of the kind is asked of applicants: no taxpayer identification number is collected at any stage of the application. The practice does not provide tax advice; applicants should consult their own advisor.
Applications close December 15.
The form is open on this page now. Your two letter writers email their letters to info@samanmd.com by the same date. There is no account and no fee.
Enquiries: info@samanmd.com