|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 90
4
T· e
raining
INTRODUCTION
To initiate and implement advances in biotechnology for agri-
culture will require more than appropriate institutional structures
and funds. A strategy for biotechnology also requires a work force
of agricultural research scientists trained to apply molecular biol-
ogy techniques critical to solving agricultural problems. Because
biotechnology research spans a continuum from basic science to
practical application, its practitioners must be conversant with
the general biology of an organism and with the biochemical and
genetic details of its life cycle. This new breed of researcher must
understand the techniques of molecular biology and possess the
skills to modify these techniques to suit particular organisms.
Scientists, administrators, faculty, and policymakers should
be aware of the importance of sound education and training to the
progress of agricultural biotechnology. Programs are needed to at-
tract young scientists to modern agricultural research and to effec-
tively train these scientists. Other programs are needed to retrain
traditional agricultural scientists in biotechnological methods, so
they can apply these powerful tools to two of the long-standing
goals of agricultural research: improving food quality and pro-
duction efficiency. Four types of programs merit increased federal
support: pro- and postdoctoral fellowships, training grants, career
90
OCR for page 91
TRAINING
91
development awards, and retraining opportunities. To be most ef-
fective, these programs should be administered on a peer-reviewed,
competitive basis.
Training in agricultural sciences shares many features with
training in other biological sciences. Therefore, for this report the
committee examined existing biological and biomedical training
programs that could prove helpful in improving programs for agri-
cultural sciences. The following section discusses issues relevant
to training in agricultural biotechnology.
PERSONNEL REQUIRED FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY
Demand for Scientists
As biotechnology industries grow, so grows the demand for
trained employees. Scientists competent in biotechnology tools are
in increasing demand not only by the industries serving medicine
and agriculture but also by the educational system. Academic
institutions need to expand the expertise of their faculty to provide
training in biotechnology. Several recent independent estimates
substantiate this demand.
Although it is difficult to know the precise number of trained
personnel required by the U.S. biotechnology industry, which listed
1,471 companies in business in 1985 (Sitting and Noyes, 1985),
employment in the biotechnology industry has been increasing by
about 25 percent per year since 1973 for Ph.D.s in biomedicine
(Institute of Medicine tIOM], 1985~. Based on a survey, the TOM
estimated that 12,000 scientists were employed by the U.S. biotech-
nology industry in 1985 and that just under half of them (4,00
5,000) had Ph.D.s (IOM, 1985~.
There are indications that the number of scientists practicing
biotechnology in agriculture has also increased. A 1983 survey
by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of 219 selected
biotechnology companies showed that 28 percent of these compa-
nies were working in animal agriculture and 24 percent in plant
agriculture (OTA, 1984~. Clearly, agriculture is a major benefi-
ciary of biotechnology research.
The unmet demand for researchers in agricultural biotechnol-
ogy is substantial. In a survey conducted by the American Council
on Education (ACE), academic, government, and industry labo-
ratories all cited shortages of personnel trained in plant molecular
OCR for page 92
92
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
biology, biochemistry, and genetics (Anderson, 1984~. In addi-
tion, the 1985 TOM biotechnology questionnaire found that firms
looking for plant scientists cited shortages of (1) plant molecu-
lar biologists with solid training in plant science (vs. training
in bacterial or animal systems); (2) plant tissue culture experts;
(3) plant geneticists or breeders with expertise in a second area
such as tissue culture, cell biology, or molecular biology; and (4)
bioprocess engineers (IOM, 1985~.
A survey by the Division of Agriculture Committee on Biotech-
nology of the National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges (NASULGC) projected 35 percent growth for Ph.D.-
leve! scientists and 53 percent growth for B.S.-/M.S.-level scien-
tists in agricultural biotechnology over the next 3 years (NASULGC,
1985~. Companies cited many areas of expertise they required, but
comments were also made about the importance of a broad ed-
ucation to cope with rapidly changing science and the need for
agriculturalists who understand techniques in biotechnology. The
survey reported that 1,244 scientists were working at 38 responding
companies. Assuming 35 percent growth, 1,678 scientists would be
needed by these companies alone by 1987. Our committee has es-
timated that at least 3,000 scientists are now needed in the public
agricultural biotechnology sector.
The TOM has pointed out that "while industry may provide
an increasing share of employment opportunities . . . universities
will still be counted on to provide most of the training" (IOM,
1983~. This statement applies to agricultural biotechnology, but
as noted in a recent report by the National Agricultural Research
and Extension Users Advisory Board (1986~:
Basic science curriculums in colleges of agriculture must be brought up to
the same standards as those in the colleges of science. Many agricultural
colleges over courses to agriculture majors in the basic sciences that are not
as stringent as those offered by colleges of science.
Although the demand for trained personnel is clearly growing,
only a few federal training programs exist to help fulfill these needs.
To make progress in agricultural biotechnology, federal support for
graduate education must be increased to ensure the future supply
of scientists. In addition, increased postdoctoral opportunities in
agricultural research are needed to attract, train, and keep young
Ph.D. scientists in agricultural biotechnology.
OCR for page 93
TRAINING
93
The Report of the White House Science Council Pane! on the
Health of U.S. Colleges and Universities (1986) noted, "the fed-
eral government is the primary supporter of basic research in this
country." The report called for "a substantial program of merit-
based, portable scholarships . . . by the federal government at the
undergraduate level.... ~and] Substantial programs of multiyear
merit-based fellowships . . . at the graduate level." These types
of scholarships and fellowships are needed in many fields. Allo-
cating some of them to modern agricultural research would help
to ensure the nation's supply of scientists trained in agricultural
biotechnology.
Demographic bends
Another justification for increasing federal support to gradu-
ate education in agricultural biotechnology as well as science in
general is demographic: The college-age population is declining,
and this decline will decrease the pool of graduate students and
could lead. to a shortage of research personnel (Figure 4-1~. In an-
alyzing the ejects of demographic factors on biomedical research,
IOM recommended maintaining federal support of graduate train-
ing to offset possible future shortages of research personnel (IOM,
1985~.
Graduate education not only produces scientists, it also con-
tributes to U.S. research productivity by the experimental work
students perform for their Ph.D. theses and by their later research
as mature scientists. Graduate students cannot be replaced by
technicians, who usually do not design experiments or train to be-
come research leaders. If the number of graduate students declines
because of demographics (e.g., a declining college-age population
pool) and decreased funding (for both educational and research
programs), research productivity will suffer unless there is a com-
pensating rise in the number of postdoctoral researchers. However,
because postdoctoral researchers are supplied from the graduate
student pool, their numbers will likely shrink as well.
A decline in the college-age population will have another effect
on training: Decreased revenues from tuition will support fewer
permanent faculty. IOM has concluded that biomedical science
faces a Tong-term prospect of fewer graduate students, more post-
doctoral researchers with longer term, semipermanent positions,
OCR for page 94
94
300,000
an
IIJ
a 200,000
In
a:
o
I
m 1 00,000
50,000
o
/
l
I
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Protected
22-Year-Olds
~ a`
' _
Sciences ~
TO
1960 1965 1970 1975 19801985 1990 1995
YEAR
4,000,000
In
3,000,000 9
O
I
at:
2,000,000 c`'
1,000,000
~ Engineering
FIGURE 4-1 Science and engineering Bachelor's degrees and the 22-year-old
population. Source: Bloch, E. 1986. Basic Research: The Key to Economic
Competitiveness (Fig. 10, p. 93. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
and more technicians (IOM, 1983). Because these conclusions
are likely to apply to agricultural science as well, it is impor-
tant to note the status of postdoctoral study in the two fields.
In 1983, 59 percent of new Ph.D.s in the biological and health
sciences planned postdoctoral study, contrasted with 18 percent
of agricultural science Ph.D.s (National Research Council iNRC],
1983~. These figures reflect the fact that postdoctoral training in
biomedicine is considered a necessary transition between graduate
education and a faculty or equivalent position, but the same is not
OCR for page 95
TRAINING
95
generally true for the agricultural sciences (Anderson, 1984~. In
bypassing postdoctoral study, agricultural scientists may receive
tenure faster, but at the same time they may find that they have
limited exposure to modern developments in research.
Another notable demographic trend involves the number of
foreign students in the United States. The 1985 Science Indicators
report (National Science Board tNSB], 1985) shows an increase
in the percentage of foreigners receiving doctoral degrees in the
United States for most scientific fields (Figure 4-2~. The trend
is attributed to both a decrease in the number of U.S. students
earning Ph.D.s and an increase in the number of foreign graduate
students in the United States. The high percentage of foreigners
earning Ph.D.s in agriculture in the United States is noteworthy.
In 1983, 20 percent of all graduate students and 33 percent of
all postdoctoral researchers in plant biology in the United States
were foreigners (Anderson, 1984~. Half of the foreign graduate
students and one-third of the postdoctoral researchers received
major support from their governments. These researchers are
highly productive while training in the United States. In addition,
many continue their scientific careers in this country, rather than
returning home on completing their training.
More training opportunities and incentives are needed to at-
tract U.S. students and scientists to work on problems in agricul-
ture. Without these new opportunities and incentives, the United
States runs the risk of losing its leadership role. Therefore, federal
support for training U.S. scientists in agricultural biotechnology
must be increased.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Sound, comprehensive education is a prerequisite for scientific
training. Furthermore, breakthroughs are often made by scientists
who may specialize in unrelated fields but have a breadth of knowI-
edge and an appreciation of several disciplines. Such individuals
can bring fresh insights to bear on research problems. Some of
these scientists will also act as innovators and guide important
transitions in research.
Numerous studies have documented problems in American sci-
entific education: High school and college students show declining
test scores in science and mathematics, the academic competency
OCR for page 96
96
60
55
50
45
40
35
Z `2n
LLI he
25
20
15
10
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Mathematics and
/ Computer Sciences
-
-
Englneerlng /
-
~Agriculture
Chemistry
-
Biological Sciences
-
1960 1 965
1970 1975 1980 1984
YEAR
FIGURE 4-2 Doctoral degrees awarded to foreign students as a percentage of
all doctoral degrees granted by U.S. universities, by field. Source: Adapted
from National Science Foundation. 1985. Science Indicators. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Of many science and mathematics teachers is questionable, and
patterns of undergraduate majors are changing that is, 50 per-
cent fewer arts and sciences degrees are awarded compared with
business and management degrees (National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics, 1985~. The NSB has recommended several ways to
upgrade the quality of science education in America, including in-
creasing science and mathematics instruction in secondary schools
and raising college entrance requirements in science and mathe-
matics (NSB Commission on Precollege Education in Mathemat-
ics, Science and Technology, 1983~. We agree that these actions
are needed, as well as an earlier and greater emphasis on science
and agriculture in elementary, junior high, and high schools.
OCR for page 97
TRAINING
97
Agricultural research must be able to attract top-quality sci-
entists. Appropriate institutional structures and funding patterns
can help make agricultural research a more attractive career. How-
ever, a sound scientific education should begin at the undergradu-
ate level, when students are taught the fundamentals of the many
basic disciplines that underlie biotechnology. These disciplines in-
clude chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, physiology, and cell and
developmental biology. Students need rigorous education in these
basic sciences if they hope to go on to graduate study and later
research using the sophisticated techniques of biotechnology.
Specialized training in narrow research areas is more appro-
priate to graduate and postdoctoral work, after students have
acquired the breadth of knowledge that allows them to think cre-
atively about research problems. Thus, there is a distinction be-
tween education and training. Both are essential to the progress
of research, but the latter cannot be effective without the former.
Several types of programs can attract and train top-quality
scientists for careers in agricultural biotechnology research. Pro-
grams can adciress needs at several stages of research training:
education at pre- and postdoctoral levels, developing careers in
research for young faculty, retraining established agricultural sci-
entists to use biotechnological techniques, and facilitating interdis-
ciplinary projects that are critical to the success of biotechnology.
Industry could play a more active role in retraining scientists by
initiating and funding courses and collaborative projects.
Federal and state funding of university laboratories is instru-
mental in training scientists. Clearly, more training in biotechnol-
ogy must be provided by agricultural schools to fulfill the personnel
requirements of academic, government, and industry laboratories.
However, the ability to attract graduate students and faculty to
agricultural molecular biology and biotechnology will depend on a
perception that job opportunities exist and that funding is avail-
able. Current U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) competi-
tive grants average $50,000 per year for 2 years, and National Sci-
ence Foundation (NSF) grants in plant sciences average $70,000
per year for 2-3 years. However, applicants to both programs
have a success rate of only 15-20 percent. This fact, and the low
level of funding compared to National Institutes of Health (NTH)
grants, does not encourage students or faculty to enter the field
of agricultural biotechnology. In the mid- and long term, this
OCR for page 98
98
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
situation could hurt the United States' competitive advantage in
biotechnology and its application to agriculture. The following
section discusses the status of programs in government agencies
that include training in agricultural biotechnology.
Programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
PREDOCTORAL
In 1984, the USDA initiated a program with $5 million that
supported 302 predoctora] students through peer-reviewed, com-
petitive training grants awarded to university departments. These
training grants covered four areas (each area's share of funds is
given in parentheses): food science and human nutrition (20 per-
cent), agricultural engineering (20 percent), food and agricultural
marketing (25 percent), and biotechnology (35 percent). The 302
students received $5 million in funds again in 1985, but no new
grants were awarded because no additional money was available.
Appropriations for 1986 were cut to $3 million, which was used to
cover the existing students (albeit at reduced levels), who had been
guaranteed 3 years of support. A new crop of students will be so-
licited in 1987, under a new $2.8 million appropriation. However,
full funding for 3 years will be allocated from this 1987 appro-
priation to each new student accepted. The major reduction in
funding coupled with the new policy of "forward funding" means
that support will be available to substantially fewer students.
POSTDOCTORAL
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of USDA also initi-
ated a competitive postdoctoral program in 1984 that supported
21 people for 1-2 years working on specific projects at ARS lab-
oratories. The number of award recipients increased in 1985 and
1986 to 50 and 100, respectively. The 1986 appropriation for the
program was $4 million, with about half of the fellowships sup-
porting researchers in agricultural biotechnology. ARS fellowships
pay $26,000-$31,000 per year, compared with NTH postdoctoral
appointments, which pay $16,000-$30,000 per year, depending on
the individual's experience. The ARS program is an important
incentive in attracting young scientists to agricultural research.
OCR for page 99
TRAINING
99
LAND-GRANT SYSTEM
Most research in plant biology is conducted at land-grant
universities, which also support 80 percent of the nation's plant
biology faculty and graduate students. As training centers in plant
biology, land-grant universities must continually update programs
to reflect trends in biotechnology and must equip students with
the knowledge to apply biotechnology to important problems in
agriculture.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PEER REVIEW
The importance of peer-reviewed, competitively awarded fed-
eral grants in supporting talented pre- and postdoctoral students
has been demonstrated. Follow-up studies on recipients of NTH
grants show that they outperform nonrecipients in their subse-
quent careers in biomedical research (IOM, 1983, 1985~. Yet only
60 percent of postdoctoral researchers in plant biology receive
federal support (Anderson, 1984), compared with 85 percent of
biomedical postdoctoral researchers (IOM, 1983~.
Furthermore, plant science is underfunded in proportion to the
number of students in the field. The $98 million in federal funds
used to support plant biology research was only 4 percent of federal
funds for life sciences in 1982, although plant biology graduate
students accounted for 12 percent of all graduate students in life
sciences and 17 percent of the doctorates awarded (Anderson
1984~.
Given the small number of postdoctoral fellowships awarded
by USDA and the fact that they are restricted to ongoing research
programs at ARS laboratories, it is not surprising that three-
quarters of the new Ph.D.s In agricultural science do not plan on
any postdoctoral training (NRC, 1983~. This situation is particu-
larly discouraging for biotechnology, which relies more than many
other agricultural disciplines on basic research. An intensified na-
tional effort is needed to identify promising graduate students and
postdoctoral researchers for agricultural biotechnology and award
them peer-reviewed, competitive grants through USDA programs.
1'
OCR for page 100
100
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Programs at the National Science Foundation
P REDOCTORAL
NSF has supported peer-reviewed, competitive predoctoral
fellowships in the basic sciences and mathematics since 1952.
About 450-540 new 3-year awards are made each year from an
annual appropriation of approximately $27 million; 25-35 percent
of the awards are in the biological and biomedical sciences.
POSTDOCTORAL
NSF has peer-reviewed, competitive programs that fund post-
doctoral fellows in plant biology, environmental sciences, and
mathematics. The plant biology postdoctoral fellowships attempt
to foster retraining for an interdisciplinary approach to plant sci-
ence. Initiated in 1983 at an annual cost of about $1.2 million,
these fellowships are awarded to about 20 recent Ph.D.s each year
to encourage them to explore a new research direction in plant
science for example, to help a bacterial molecular biologist switch
to plant molecular biology or a plant tissue culturist to investigate
plant biochemistry. NSF's environmental biology fellowship pro-
gram began in 1984 and supports about 20 people each year at a
cost of about $1 million. Similarly, the mathematics postdoctoral
fellowships have supported about 30 people each year since 1979
at a cost of about $1.5 million per year. In addition, NSF funds
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) fellowships for post-
doctoral study in science and engineering by U.S. citizens working
in NATO countries and NATO-affiliated countries. NSF awards
about 50 NATO fellowships per year at a cost of around $1 million.
SUMMER COURSES
Since 1981, NSF has funded a summer course on plant molec-
ular biology at Cold Spring Harbor I.aboratory in New York that,
like the plant biology postdoctoral fellowships, aims to give scien-
tists educated in related disciplines a foundation in this relatively
new field. Sixteen people are accepted into the course each year
out of about 50 applicants. Seventy-five percent of the applicants
are Ph.D. scientists. The remainder are graduate students or non-
Ph.D. scientists from industry.
OCR for page 101
TRAINING
101
CAREER DEvELoPMENT
NSF contributes to the newly conceived Presidential Young
Investigator Awards, which support the independent research of
outstanding young faculty scientists nominated by their depart-
ments or deans. The purpose of this program is to help universities
attract and keep outstanding young Ph.D.s who might otherwise
pursue nonacademic careers. In 1984, 200 Presidential Young In-
vestigators were named, and 100 more were appointed in 1985 and
again in 1986. NSF funds the awards for 5 years at a base rate
of $25,000 per year. NSF will also provide up to an additional
$37,500 each year to match funds provided to the award recip-
ient by industry. The awards are divided among the disciplines
of NSF's research directorates. The number of award recipients
in the biological sciences were 25 in 1984, 21 in 1985, and 10 in
1986. At least one-third of these scientists are carrying out ba-
sic research with potential relevance to agriculture. Examples are
studies of growth-related peptides in livestock animals and the ge-
netics, physiology, and biochemistry of productivity and water-use
efficiency in crop plants.
Programs at the National Institutes of HeaIth
The NTH research and training system for biomedical science
is perhaps the most effective system of its kind in the world. It is
by far the major source of biomedical research training support in
the United States and has been instrumental in America's leading
role in basic biomedical research since World War II. The extensive
NTH programs contrast markedly with the very limited programs
and support provided through USDA for research training.
EXTRAMURAL
NIH National Research Service Awards (NRSA) support sev-
eral types of extramural fellowships. NRSA predoctoral trainee-
ships support graduate education in basic biomedical science;
about 5,000 such positions were funded in 1985 at a cost of $73
million. Similarly, NRSA funded about 5,700 postdoctoral awards
in basic biomedical science in 1985 from an appropriation of $145
million. NRSA awards are adrn~nistered either as institutional re-
search training grants or as individually awarded fellowships (the
OCR for page 102
102
A GRICULTUR^AL BIO TECHNOL OG Y
latter for postdoctoral researchers only). All awards are competi-
tive and peer-reviewed.
In addition to predoctoral traineeships and entry-level post-
doctoral traineeships and fellowships, NRSA extramural awards
are given for Senior Postdoctoral Fellowships, Mid-Career Con-
version Awards, Academic Investigator Awards, Clinical Investi-
gator Awards, Physician Scientist Awards, Research Career De-
velopment Awards to aid young scientists setting up indepen-
dent research laboratories, and Special Emphasis Research Career
Awards to develop an individual's multidisciplinary capacity for
research.
INTRAMURAL
NTH appoints Intramural Staff Fellows through a different
peer-reviewed, competitive program. There are three categories
(the number of fellows selected in 1985 is given in parentheses):
(1) entry-level Staff Fellows, who have less than 3 years experi-
ence beyond the Ph.D. (318~; (2) Senior Staff Fellows, with 3~
years experience (2833; and (3) Medical Staff Fellows (327), who
take on both research and clinical duties. Staff fellowship po-
sitions are nontenured and may last up to 7 years. The three
categories respectively allow (l) valuable training in NTH labs for
junior researchers, (2) more advanced researchers to learn the lat-
est biomedical techniques at NIH labs while bringing in their own
expertise, and (3) the integration of clinical and basic medical
research.
Intramural programs also sponsor Visiting Fellows (577) and
Associates (228) at NTH labs. These temporary personnel ex-
changes involve foreign citizens and promote both retraining and
the exchange of ideas between countries and laboratories.
Other Government Programs
The NRC administers a peer-reviewed, competitive Research
Associate Awards program, under which scientists work as guest
investigators in U.S. government laboratories. About 500 Research
Associates are supported by more than 30 laboratories, including
those of the National Aeronatics and Space Administration, NBS,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and re-
cently, NTH. ARS, however, has not participated in this program
OCR for page 103
TRAINING
103
since 1977. The program attracts high-quality scientists, both re-
cent Ph.D.s and senior investigators, who can bring stimulating
ideas and new techniques to their sponsoring laboratory.
Private Support
Private support for basic research and training has generally
been limited compared with federal support. Some private firms
do fund fellowships, but such programs are quite limited. Recently,
the privately funded McKnight Foundation broke new ground: it
initiated a Midyear program to award a total of $15 million for
interdisciplinary, problem-oriented university training grants in
plant biology related to agriculture and a second 10-year program
to award $3.5 million to outstanding young plant biologists. Both
types of grants are awarded through a peer-reviewed, competitive
process, and each grant lasts 3 years. The interdisciplinary grants
of $300,000 per year pay mainly for pre- and postdoctoral fellow-
ships, and similarly, the individual awards of $35,000 per year are
often used to support a research fellow within the young faculty
member's laboratory.
Some private firms also fund fellowships. The Federal Tech-
nology Transfer Act of 1986 (see Chapter 5) facilitates support of
training positions in federal laboratories by private firms.
Conclusions
Training opportunities in biotechnology for agriculture are
very limited. The USDA has recently put programs into place,
but the number of trainees and the level of funding are small in
contrast to the biomedical and basic research efforts of NIH and
NSF (Table 11~. Expenditures given in Table 4-1 do not include
USDA Hatch Act support to the Agricultural Experiment Stations
that fund predoctoral trainees as graduate research assistants.
Likewise, they do not include the portions of NIH and NSF basic
research grants that support pro- and postdoctoral trainees, nor
NIH's intramural programs. The latter mechanisms of support are
considerable. Total NSF funding of pre- and postdoctoral trainees
is 3- to 12-fold higher than shown in Table 4~1 if figures for students
supported by their sponsor's research grants are included.
Private support for research training is also limited and does
little more than supplement government programs. Major federal
OCR for page 104
104
AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
TABLE 4-1 Federal Agency Expenditures for Training Research Scientists
(millions of dollars)
-
Agency
Year USDAa NSF b NIH c
Predoctoral programs
1983 - 15.0 61.8
1984 5.0 20.3 61.0
1985 5.0 27.3 73.0
Postdoctoral programs
1983 0.6 3.2 102.8
1984 0.7 4.7 105.6
1985 2.0 4.6 145 ()
NOTE: The table includes all funding through specific training programs but does not include
support to pre- or postdoctoral trainees provided under individual research grants.
a The USDA predoctoral program was initiated in 1984 and provides funds in the forth of
training grants to university departments. From 1981 to 1983 the 1-year postdoctoral
appointments required the same civil service hiring practices used for permanent staff; beginning
in 1984, special authority under the Office of Personnel Management's Schedule B has been used
to expedite postdoctoral appointments.
b NSF predoctoral fellowships cover all scientific and engineering disciplines; postdoctoral
fellowships exist under four programs only: Mathematics, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Environmental Biology, and Plant Biology.
c NIH training grants to university departments support both pre- and postdoctoral recipients.
Individual NIH fellowships are only available for postdoctoral recipients.
SOURCE: Personal communications from agency program directors, 1986.
increases for training programs in agricultural biotechnology are
urgently needed to stem the erosion of U.S. agricultural research
capability and to meet the growing need for trained scientists.
These programs must include four types of support: pre- and post-
doctoral fellowships, training grants, career development awards,
and retraining opportunities. They should be administered on a
peer-reviewed, competitive basis.
INTERDISCIPLINARY C O OPERATION
Traditional agricultural researchers are often unfamiliar with
recent advances in molecular genetics and biotechnology. Con-
versely, molecular biologists and other scientists with expertise in
modern techniques usually have little background in agricultural
OCR for page 105
TRAINING
105
research. Insufficient interaction between basic and applied re-
searchers impedes training and thus inhibits practical applications
of biotechnology to agricultural production.
Human health-related research provides another route of in-
terdisciplinary information flow into agricultural research. The
development and application of biotechnology have progressed
faster in health research, because of larger public and private
investments. Agricultural scientists should keep in contact with
the latest achievements in biomedical research, which often have
direct and/or indirect significance for animal and plant research.
Agricultural scientists and research institutions need to reach
out and develop new links with basic science disciplines. These
new links could take a variety of forms.
Curricula. Universities can promote interdisciplinary coop-
eration by two complementary tactics. They must first provide a
broad education for undergraduates that covers the basics of all the
sciences. This should include agricultural science as well, which is
often orn~tted from curricula in non-land-grant institutions. Con-
versely, colleges of agriculture should strengthen their curricula
in other basic sciences. Universities must then create graduate
curricula and graduation requirements that include coursework
complementary to students' specialties (for example, courses in
physical chemistry to understand the physiology of plant stress).
Training Grants. Peer-reviewed, competitive training grants
for research areas spanning several disciplines are another way to
electively educate pre- and postdoctoral students and at the same
time promote interdisciplinary cooperation. These grants provide
stipends for students and may also cover the costs of equipment
and research. By bringing common goals to several different fields
of research, such training grants can encourage young scientists
to creatively apply ideas and methods from complementary disci-
plines.
Career Development. Similarly, career development awards
for young, independent faculty contribute both to the advance-
ment of research and to the education of students. The NTH,
NSF, and NRC fellowship and career development programs show
OCR for page 106
106
AGRIOULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
the effectiveness of federally supported peer-reviewed, competitive
awards for educating and training researchers.
Retraining. Faculty sabbaticals and senior postdoctoral ap-
pointments that cross traditional disciplinary lines are very impor-
tant avenues for the exchange of ideas and personnel retraining.
Providing established researchers with opportunities to learn new
biotechnological methods capitalizes on their existing expertise in
agricultural systems. Furthermore, these established agricultural
scientists will be instrumental in educating the next generation of
researchers. Their adoption of biotechnology will allow them to
teach students about agricultural science in a way that integrates
classical and modern approaches.
Biotechnology relies on large-scale team approaches, orches-
trated both within and among laboratory groups. Thus, inter-
disciplinary cooperation is needed for the growth of agricultural
biotechnology and its application to real-world problems. This
is true not only for industrial R&D but also for solving complex
problems in the underlying biological sciences. For example, com-
munication and cross-training among laboratories studying ento-
mology, neurochemistry, and molecular biology are essential for a
modern approach to pest control through biochemical modifica-
tion of insect behavior. These types of interdisciplinary projects
must be supported with new sources of funding and new rewards.
They also require curricula and educational programs that give
collaborating researchers an understanding of each other's fields.
REC OM~NDATIONS
Scientists, administrators, faculty, and policymakers in all
sectors should be aware of the importance of state-of-the-art ed-
ucation and training to the future development of agricultural
biotechnology. Specifically, the comrn~ttee makes the following
recommendations.
INCREASED FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR TRAINING
Major increases in federal support for training programs are
urgently needed to provide a high-quality research capability that
ensures the future of U.S. agriculture and meets the growing need
for scientists trained in agricultural biotechnology. Four types of
OCR for page 107
TRAINING
107
programs must be supported: pre- and postdoctoral fellowships,
training grants, career development awards, and retraining oppor-
tunities. These approaches, used successfully in the biomedical
sciences, have put the United States in the forefront of human
medical advances. These programs should be administered on a
peer-reviewed, competitive basis. USDA should support at least
400 postdoctoral positions at universities and within the ARS,
which represents a quadrupling of the present number, and main-
tain strong support for graduate-level training.
INCREASED RETRAINING PROGRAMS
For the short term, highest priority should go to increasing the
retraining opportunities available to university faculty and federal
scientists to update their background knowledge and provide them
with laboratory experience using the tools of biotechnology. This
retraining will expand the abilities of researchers experienced in
agricultural disciplines. USDA should take the lead in adminis-
tering a program to supply at least 150 retraining opportunities a
year for 5 years, starting in FY89.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
training grants
