Meeting the Nation's Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists: Summary of the 1993 Public Hearings (1994)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX D 30 STATEMENT BY GAIL CASSELL, Ph.D.2 We appreciate the opportunity for the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) to respond with some preliminary comments to the four questions, which you posed in your letter of March 2, concerning the future direction of the National Research Service Awards (NRSA) program. The ASM is the largest single life science society in the world with over 39,000 members. Many ASM members are investigators or trainees in the biomedical sciences. The ASM shares the goal of the NRSA program to help ensure that highly trained scientists are available in adequate numbers and in the appropriate research areas and fields to carry out the nation’s biomedical research agenda. In the short time available, we have consulted with members of ASM’s Public and Scientific Affairs Board (PSAB) and its Committees on Manpower Planning, Status of Minority Microbiologists, and Status of Women in Microbiology in an attempt to provide the following preliminary views on research training issues for your consideration. The ASM has testified previously before the NRC Committee on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel, and we very much appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee at its May 3 hearing. 1. What is the most significant challenge we face today in the United States for maintaining an adequate supply of qualified scientists to sustain and advance health research? Increased attention to research training is required for the existing and emerging needs in health as well as in environmental and agricultural research, and to continue the preeminence of the U.S. academic/ industrial research enterprise as the foundation for national economic competitiveness. With a decade-long pipeline (from college student to beginning scientists), it is crucial that anticipated areas of future shortages be addressed now to ensure an adequate supply of American scientists to conduct scientific research in the next century. Our most significant challenge is to reliably predict training needs in specific areas of the biomedical sciences. To do this we must accurately determine the current number of trainees in different disciplines, as well as the number choosing different career paths, i.e. industry, academics, or health related professions. This information is not presently available. The ASM believes there should be an ongoing evaluation of areas in which training should be intensified and of approaches for NIH and other government funded research training programs to respond to evolving needs. The ASM is currently planning to conduct a survey to assess the needs and current status of training of personnel in the microbiological sciences, with particular emphasis on the needs of industry, academe, and clinical, including hospital, sources for trained microbiologists. We would like to determine where needs exist and whether current training programs are meeting these needs. We believe it is very important to collect data and conduct analyses of the needs of employers to ensure that NIH training programs are matched with existing needs of users, both in academe and industry. We believe that assessment of training needs must take into account opportunities in new and emerging research areas, actual job opportunities, and the effect of funding issues on young investigators and those interested in biomedical research careers. We are also interested in how the NRC studies will be linked to the NIH Strategic Plan. Recruitment of highly talented individuals to fill training needs in biomedical research will continue to be a major challenge. This will depend on competitive stipend levels for trainees as well as assurance of career opportunities. The ASM is very concerned about biomedical research funding issues and the impact of a steady state research training budget on the development of new investigators, particularly in areas where new research personnel needs are emerging, e.g. molecular biology and biotechnology. We are concerned about the negative effect of the current funding climate for biomedical research in the U.S. and the reduced funding rate as well as the number of RO1 grants as a signal of lack of career opportunities for young investigators and for students considering a career in the biomedical sciences. Relative to the research training areas of interest to you, we would also be interested in knowing whether you believe current employment opportunities have resulted in (or might be expected to result in) new research training strategies in the biosciences. What are 2 Co-authored with Kenneth Berns, M.D., Ph.D., John Ingraham, Ph.D., Ron Luftig, Ph.D., and Janet Shoemaker, American Society for Microbiology, and prepared at the request of John Ingraham, American Society for Microbiology. 

APPENDIX D 31 the implications of those new strategies for the NRSA program? The microbiological sciences, which provide needed manpower for the biotechnology as well as pharmaceutical industries, are experiencing a need for well trained, highly qualified scientific personnel. For example, over the past several years there has been a decline of graduates with high quality training in microbial physiology. Training of microbial physiologists has been neglected by academic departments and, in some centers, has been almost entirely supplanted by molecular biology and genetics (R. Hinman, ASM News 5 8:62-63, 1992). This has resulted in a serious shortage of both Ph.D.s and postdoctoral trained to address physiological problems of the type essential to the successful development of fermentation processes. This shortage is felt especially acutely in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, but it is also critical to industries seeking to utilize biotechnology for improving animal health care, agriculture, and environmental remediation. We have made great strides in mastering the use of recombinant DNA and other techniques for genetic manipulation to construct novel organisms, but the full potential for expression by these organisms can be realized only through optimization of physiological conditions. Molecular genetics is the beginning of the industrial process. A microbiologist now working in industry should have broad training that gives a thorough understanding of the microorganisms and their environment. Well-trained microbial physiologists have the tools to advance biotechnology. We place special emphasis on microbial physiology because it is critical to continued progress in the applications of biotechnology in medicine, the environment, and agriculture. Although we agree that there is need for biotechnology to make greater use of new and nontraditional organisms, the full potential of familiar microorganisms of proven value in biotechnology will not be realized until more is known of their physiology. Funding for research training in microbial physiology must be increased to strengthen the foundation on which future advances in biotechnology can be constructed. The ASM wholeheartedly concurs with the February 1992 FCCSET Committee report that training is critically needed in general microbiology and “that the disappearance of general microbiology departments from many American universities has not been compensated by the development of a modern equivalent. As a result, the study of diverse bacterial and other microbial populations is being hampered by a lack of adequately trained researchers.” There also has developed a need for individuals trained in environmental biotechnology. It is important to recognize that need exists for increased attention and support for training at the graduate and postgraduate levels in environmental microbiology and biotechnology. These areas combine traditional learning with recent developments in molecular biology and genetics. Based on data from the ASM Placement Activities report for 1991, there is an increasing need for employees trained in the environmental area, although the totals are not yet large. A few years ago there was no call for individuals trained in this area. Critical manpower needs in specific areas of microbiology that mainly impact biotechnology industries suggest to the ASM that more emphasis should be placed on establishment of training programs which would be jointly sponsored by academic institutions and industry. Such training programs could be directly industry related. 2. What improvements might be made in the National Research Service Awards program to assure a continuing supply of skilled investigators in the biomedical and behavioral sciences in the coming years? Addressing stipend inequities should be a high priority for the NRSA research training program provided the total number of trainees is maintained at or near the target recommended by the NAS. In the absence of adequate stipends, we will not be able to recruit the best young scientists into the biomedical laboratories of the future. At the current time, NIH predoctoral stipends are at $8,800, which is considerably below the current cost of living. Furthermore, it is below the poverty level for an income of two which is presently $9,190. Predoctoral stipends should be increased into a range that is competitive with stipends paid by other federal agencies, e.g., most state university stipends start at $11,000 and NSF currently pays $14,000. Additionally, the NIH conducted a review of its biomedical research training programs in 1989 and concluded that major increases in postdoctoral stipends are warranted. This is particularly true for the first two postdoctoral years for physician trainees when NRSA stipends are considerably below housestaff salaries. It 

APPENDIX D 32 becomes very difficult at this important period of training to entice a clinician into a research career when he or she would have to face a considerable reduction in compensation. To assure a continuing supply of skilled investigators in the coming years, more attention should be given to developing better approaches to identifying individuals with the best potential to become successful research scientists. In comparison to other professions (medicine, dentistry, law, etc.), few studies have been bundertaken to determine the best predictors for successful researchers so that this information can be incorporated into admission criteria to graduate school. Likewise, little hard data are available as to what constitutes the best methods of training successful investigators. 3. What steps might be taken to improve the effectiveness of the NRSA program in recruiting women and minorities into scientific careers? The ASM’s Public and Scientific Affairs Board Committee on Manpower Planning conducted a survey during the 1987-88 academic year to document the demographics of microbiology students and faculty in the U.S. The survey addressed age, gender, race and ethnicity of microbiology trainees and faculties at all levels. It was sent to departments in institutions that offer degrees in microbiology. Of the 363 departments contacted, 125 (34% of the total) responded. However, these 125 institutions account for 72 percent of Ph.D.s in microbiology awarded in 1987. An article published in ASM-News in January 1990, based on the survey, points out that shortages can be anticipated in the future in the microbiological sciences and that minority representation in microbiology departments is very poor. Female representation among microbiology faculties was also shown to be poor, although female representation appears to be better at the lower professional and trainee levels. In answer to this question, we agree with and include the following specific comments from the response to this question developed by the ASM’s Committee on the Status of Minority Microbiologists, chaired by Dr. Gerald Stokes of George Washington University: The structural organization of the NRSA-sponsored minority predoctoral awards is overly restricted, underfunded, and fails to recognize the diversity of highly qualified minority applicants. The NRC should develop a coordinated effort to assist the funding of a greater number of qualified minority applicants than is currently being done. This load could be shared with other federal funding agencies or federally funded university training programs for award considerations. Students should be able to apply for NRSA support, with awards contingent upon being admitted to graduate school. The NRSA award criteria is heavily weighted towards student performance on standardized examinations. Some consideration should be given to the fact that minority student performance is consistently below national averages on such tests. The current process neglects to realize the diversity of personality traits which may factor into the production of a well-rounded academician or scientist. Competitive renewals for 732 NRSAs now must include detailed summaries of minority recruitment, not only at the level of the institution as a whole, but also at the departmental and individual mentor level. All the NIH institutes should rigorously review this information and enforce this requirement which should result in increased recruiting activities and, consequently, in increased numbers of minority trainees. Review criteria should also include efforts to increase retention of minority students. Special support services are needed to retain even the best minority students. The NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health has established a program to encourage women to return to science careers. The ASM’s Committee on the Status of Women in Microbiology, chaired by Dr. Anne Morris- Hooke, notes that although many women are entering the profession of microbiology, a number leave at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels. They suggest one approach to recruiting those who have left research careers for family or other reasons, is to target some NRSA funding directly to women who are trying to reenter science at the graduate level. Also the Committee on Women in Science and Engineering of the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel of the National Research Council recently published a report entitled “Women in Science and Engineering: Increasing Their Numbers in the 1990s,” in which the following recommendation was made: “Government subsidies or grants from private foundations for child care to undergraduate and graduate students and postdocs might also serve to recruit more women into scientific and engineering careers.” Consideration should be given to increasing the length of time allowable for support of females on NRSA awards when adequate time for maternity leave and the ability to receive training at a slower pace during the early phases