National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: STATEMENT BY VINCE J. LICATA, Ph.D.
Suggested Citation:"STATEMENT BY DANIEL LINZER, Ph.D.." National Research Council. 1994. Meeting the Nation's Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists: Summary of the 1993 Public Hearings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4958.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"STATEMENT BY DANIEL LINZER, Ph.D.." National Research Council. 1994. Meeting the Nation's Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists: Summary of the 1993 Public Hearings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4958.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"STATEMENT BY DANIEL LINZER, Ph.D.." National Research Council. 1994. Meeting the Nation's Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists: Summary of the 1993 Public Hearings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4958.
×
Page 63

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 61 tradition of seeing the white male approach to science as being equivalent to an objective approach to science. I would propose that the percentages of NRSAs awarded to men and women should be in exact accord with the percentages of men and women applying during each application cycle--no exceptions. With minorities the question is more difficult because during any one application cycle there may be only one or two applicants of a certain racial minority applying for NRSA support. In this case I would propose that a universal (but relatively low) cutoff level be decided upon (i.e., a cutoff that eliminates only “really bad” applications), and then that all applications above that cutoff level be awarded, again, in exact proportion to the racial distribution of the applicants. The cutoff system would be for the prevention of funding “bad applications” merely to satisfy the racial distribution directive. Since the ratio of men to women applying should generally be somewhat closer to even, the use of the cutoff system in the case of gender balancing would not be justified. Quota-like proposals such as this tend to lead to difficult questions, and often seem to discriminate against white males, but since the primary purpose of the NRSA program is “training” rather than “supporting the ‘absolute best’ research,” it should, indeed must, be utilized as a step toward gender and racial equality in the sciences. 4. As I stated in my opening remarks, I have little familiarity with the operational details of NRSA training grants. I would assume that research training environments must prove themselves to be of at least a certain level of quality in order to obtain NRSA support. I know that there exists a site visit program for evaluating potential training centers and I believe this should continue--it certainly is one of the fastest and most accurate ways of evaluating a training center/graduate program. In the same way that the American Chemical Society requires certain facilities and curricula for a program to be “ACS certified,” perhaps the NRSA program should establish a minimal “NRSA certification” in order to qualify for NRSA support. Such a certification requirement should be kept minimal, however, as too much standardization of programs would not be beneficial since much of the strength of science is in diversity of approach. In reply to your last (un-numbered) question: How do, and how should the current changes occurring in employment opportunities in the biosciences reflect on the training of bioscientists? Answer: not at all. In my opinion, scientists should be trained first and foremost as basic researchers. To train a scientist in a “targeted” way, with an eye toward a specific (read: applied) research setting, is to severely limit that scientist’s potential. The applied bioscientific needs of this country and the world are rapidly increasing. This is wonderful, and it means there will be numerous job opportunities for bioscientists in the future. Well trained scientists will be able to change with the biotechnology industry, if they have been trained in the fundamentals and have been taught how to formulate a question and approach a problem. They will be able to handle any new project that comes their way as we move into what surely will be a biosciences era. Although there will also be jobs aplenty for people trained in specialized biotechnological processes, the “scientist” of the future should continue to be trained primarily in methods of thinking and in understanding of the basic forces and structures of life. The NRSA training program should not be focused toward one or several target areas, but continue to be based solely in terms of scientific merit and broad based training potential. STATEMENT BY DANIEL LINZER, Ph.D. I am an associate professor in the College of Arts and Sciences at Northwestern University, and I am also the Director of our NRSA Training Program in the Cellular and Molecular Basis of Disease. In preparing this statement, I have attempted to integrate the ideas and concerns of my colleagues at Northwestern who are past or present directors of NRSA training programs. Even with this advice, the task of making specific recommendations for changes in the NRSA program is challenging, given the breadth of these programs and the divergent points of view about predoctoral and postdoctoral training held even within this group of faculty scientists at a single institution. The most optimistic point of view that I heard is that the current numbers of predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees should and will increase, and that the long term prospects for professional advancement of these trainees to permanent positions as practicing scientists are good, or at least as good as anytime in the past. A corollary to this viewpoint is that sufficient funds will be available for the training of these students and for their

APPENDIX D 62 research programs as they graduate into independent positions. A further prediction is that biotechnology companies will absorb significant numbers of Ph.D.-level life scientists as that industry continues to expand. Although all of us feel that training of predoctoral and postdoctoral students in the life sciences is a national priority and a sound investment for the future of this country, most of my colleagues believe that the optimistic point of view is not realistic for the short term. Given the present economic conditions, we are unlikely to see the national budget for life science research and training keep pace with an expanding trainee population. Furthermore, the demands on this budget, by large scale directed research in a few areas such as the human genome project and AIDS, and by ever larger numbers of research grant proposals submitted for ever greater direct costs, suggest that it may prove difficult to maintain support for even the current number of trainees in NRSA grant and fellowship programs. Redirecting biomedical research dollars towards training is not a solution, though, since a major disincentive for predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees to continue in research today is the difficulty they anticipate in obtaining sufficient funding to support their research efforts. As to the availability of positions awaiting these trainees, it does seem likely that biomedical research and biotechnology will continue to be areas of economic growth in the future. However, applications for each academic position today generally number in the hundreds, suggesting that there are many more qualified candidates than faculty positions. In the immediate years ahead, the expansion of research and development divisions of pharmaceutical and established biotechnology companies may also be limited due to the slow economy, the recent federal emphasis on reducing pharmaceutical prices, and the adoption of a new national health plan. Also, many of the personnel needs in this industry may be met by hiring mid-level life scientists (masters and bachelors degree recipients) rather than Ph.D.s. Thus, a significant problem will be to train the number of life scientists required to meet this country’s long term needs, while at the same time addressing the short term funding restraints and outlook for jobs. Changes designed to deal with this problem must also be compatible with the major objectives of NRSA training programs. The first objective is to produce Ph.D. scientists capable and determined to become independent investigators in academia, industry, research institutes, or government research laboratories. To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to attract the brightest students to the sciences. For those undergraduates who are interested in science, most go on to medical or other professional schools, rather than graduate school. Several factors may contribute to this decision, including the fixed length of the professional training process, the availability of jobs after completion of the training period, the relatively high salary, the long term prospects for success, and the perception that graduates of medical, law, and business schools have an elevated social status. Graduate school in the sciences offers a stark contrast for each of these factors: the training period (predoctoral and postdoctoral) is of indefinite length, but on average 5-6 years for a Ph.D. and 3-4 years for postdoctoral studies; the job market, especially at academic institutions, is tight; postdoctoral stipends are low, as are starting salaries for independent scientists; those fortunate enough to obtain an independent position find it increasingly difficult to compete for funding and to maintain a long term approach to research; and scientists are routinely portrayed to the public as uncaring, unethical, and out-of-touch. To encourage the brightest students to become scientists, all of these factors must be addressed. One possibility for attacking a few of these problems would be to decrease the number of training positions and increase the stipend level. For example, raising postdoctoral stipends to an attractive level may be an inducement for students to pursue science as a career. NRSA stipends are so low that technicians with a bachelors degree who are working for 1-2 years before entering medical school often have starting salaries higher than for postdoctoral fellows. If a constant amount of funding is available for postdoctoral support, raising stipends would decrease the number of funded positions. In the short term, this would be expected to decrease the number of postdoctoral fellows, which may ease their subsequent job search. Increased competition for hiring postdoctoral fellows might then contribute to a decrease in the average length of the postdoctoral training period. Consideration should also be given to revising the funding for predoctoral trainees by having the federal government pay the real costs for stipend and tuitionagain, causing a decrease in the total number of positions that could be supported. Alternatively, NRSA funds could continue to contribute a share of these

APPENDIX D 63 costs, if the policy that prevents supplementing NRSA trainee support with funds from a federal grant is changed. This policy seems outdated and unfair since NRSA funds no longer approach the normal level of graduate student support. A second goal of NRSA programs is to attract minority students and women to careers in the life sciences. Two issues affect the appointment of minority students to NRSA training programs. First, support for these students can usually be obtained from other sources, providing a disincentive to fill the limited number of NRSA slots with minority appointments. Second, efforts to recruit minority students frequently result in admitting students with relatively weak quantitative records (GPA and GRE scores). Setting aside a fixed percentage of training funds for minority students would encourage appointment to NRSA programs and would enable minority students to be evaluated as a group. Recruitment of women into training programs is not a problem; instead the problem is in the number of women who successfully graduate into independent positions in science and who are promoted into the higher ranks. One contributing factor appears to be a relative scarcity of appropriate role models for women (and for minorities). Furthermore, women (and minorities) may not always receive the same amount of time, encouragement, and consideration for advancement from their mentors as do other trainees. The training environment might be improved if NRSA programs were charged with sponsoring seminars for women and minority scientists, and if, in addition to requiring discussions on science ethics, NRSA programs also included discussions with both faculty and students on the apprenticeship system of research training and the responsibilities of mentors to all trainees. One of the principal effects of NRSA funding is to encourage universities to commit additional resources to life sciences programs. This effect is achieved by evaluating the degree of university commitment to the life sciences as part of the application process. In addition, these awards represent recognition of programs of excellence, and are, therefore, of great value for recruitment of predoctoral and postdoctoral fellows to institutions. Since NRSA funding can influence university spending priorities, it is important that these programs coordinate an effective and fair set of cost-sharing guidelines. A major challenge will be for federal funding to assist universities in maintaining effective research and training environments at a time when life sciences research grows increasingly complex and costly, and investigator initiated research grants become more difficult to obtain. To simplify the funding process, the current policy of dividing faculty and students into many separate but overlapping training programs should also be reconsidered. Historically, training programs were developed for distinct areas in the life sciences, but the boundaries between these areas have almost completely disappeared. An alternative approach is to have a single training program (or at least fewer programs) in the life sciences, by combining training funds from each institute at the NIH. The level of NRSA support could then be based on the recent performance of each institution, taking into consideration the amount of peer-reviewed grant support, the records of the graduate and postdoctoral trainees, and the performance of these trainees after leaving the institution. A potential problem with this approach is that training funds may be even more unevenly distributed than they are today. Since support for predoctoral and postdoctoral training is crucial in attracting the best students and faculty, the success of an institution may be directly related to the amount of NRSA funding it receives. Furthermore, successful academic institutions strengthen their communities and provide valuable resources of graduates, technologies and ideas, and consultants and collaborators for local industry. It therefore seems imperative that federal funding encourage trainees to attend institutions throughout the country. One mechanism for balancing the geographical distribution of NRSA funds is to adopt criteria that increase in difficulty for the awarding of each successive training slot to an institution. Finally, the only way to encourage the best students to embark on careers in the life sciences is to improve the long term outlook for basic biomedical research. No matter how enticing the training program, if predoctoral and postdoctoral students find that their faculty advisers spend much of their time in anxious, and often fruitless, quests for research support, we will be sending a discouraging message that will be difficult to overcome. Although NRSA funding cannot address this issue directly, it can serve to promote and encourage the support of high quality research environments at our training institutions.

Next: STATEMENT BY CAREY NIEN-KAI LUMENG »
Meeting the Nation's Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists: Summary of the 1993 Public Hearings Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $40.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!