|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| 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 340
340
THE LIFE SCIENCES
state his first priority; 4,045 scientists provided such information, a fourth
of whom were molecular biologists and biochemists (Table 521.
For some instruments, the response was almost independent of research
area. Lack of electron microscopes conditioned the first-priority requests
of investigators in every research area (9 percent of the total), the highest
percentage frequencies being found among systematic biologists and scien-
tists studying disease mechanisms, developmental and cell biologists, and
morphologists (27, 18, 15, 11, and 14 percent, respectively), and with
biochemists as the largest single source of such requests. The second most
frequently cited instrument was an amino acid analyzer, requested by 317
individuals (8 percent of all respondents), a third of whom were molecular
biologists, the remainder being distributed across all research areas. Small
specialized computers were in third place on this list, requested by 275
individuals (7 percent of the population) among whom were 84 physi-
ologists. Other instruments, for which there was only somewhat less
demand, included analytical ultracentrifuges, mass spectrometers, gas
chromatographs, and telemetering systems.
DEPARTMENT CHAIRMEN
Specialized Facilities
The priorities of these selections, presumably indicative of genuine limita-
tions on current research, were borne out by the equivalent first-priority
selections made by academic department chairmen, who were asked to
indicate the prime unmet requirements of their departments for access to
specialized facilities. Of the 725 department chairmen who provided such
information (Table 53 ), 103 indicated programmed climate-controlled
rooms; 93, instrument design and fabrication facilities; 70, facilities for
growth of cells and tissues in culture; and 61, access to a center for large-
scale production of biological materials (14, 13, 10, and 8 percent of all
chairmen, respectively). Agricultural scientists, ecologists, zoologists, and
botanists were most numerous among those chairmen seeking climate-
controlled rooms; clinical departments, biochemists, physiologists, and
ecologists most frequently sought instrument fabrication facilities; and the
biochemists and microbiologists together accounted for 61 percent of the
requests for centers for large-scale production of biological materials. For
obvious reasons, clinical science chairmen almost uniquely indicated a
serious lack of closed clinical research wards (40 departments); it was also
the clinical departments that felt the most pressing need for access to
OCR for page 341
FUTURE OF THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES
primate centers (21 departments). This need for clinical research wards
was expressed even prior to the recent closing of 20 such wards for
budgetary reasons.
Instrumentation
Eight hundred twenty-five department chairmen reported the first-priority
needs of their departments for instruments (Table 54 ~ . The pattern
was strikingly like that of personal-use priorities of individual scientists;
the most frequently requested instruments were electron microscopes (83
departments), amino acid analyzers (78 departments), small specialized
computers (64 departments), and analytical ultracentrifuges (48 depart-
ments). But, in keeping with all previous indications, no remarkable use
pattern emerged. Biochemistry departments constituted only 14 percent
of the demand for amino acid analyzers, and there were only three depart-
ments of anatomy and four departments of pathology among the 83 depart-
ments seeking electron microscopes! Although there were nine biochemistry
departments among the 28 departments that hoped to find funds to acquire
mass spectrometers, it is more significant that the other 19 departments
so requesting were scattered among eight other disciplines.
It is difficult to know to what extent these priority statements by depart-
ment chairmen and investigators represent significant restrictions on the
quantity or quality of on-going research and to what extent they are mere
"wish lists." Where the indicated instrument or facility is truly unavailable
to the investigators concerned, there can be no doubt that it might well
constitute an absolute restriction on research productivity, a barrier to the
logical pursuit of a research program in the light of information already
obtained. In our experience, such instruments as electron microscopes,
amino acid analyzers, analytical ultracentrifuges, and mass spectrometers
are programmed weeks or months in advance, and it is difficult if not im-
possible either to borrow them or to have runs made on request. And there
can be no substitute for a controlled-climate chamber when it is required.
Few working life scientists have not occasionally encountered the need
for an instrument that is not available through commercial channels, but
only the more fortunate have access to adequately equipped instrument
fabrication facilities managed and operated by skillful, imaginative ma-
chinists, knowledgeable in the fields of electronics and instrumentation gen-
erally. The modern biochemist, molecular biologist, microbiologist, and
geneticist frequently require bacteria, other micro-organisms, or animal
cells in 25-pound to 200-pound lots, unavailable through any commercial
source; hence the understandable requests for facilities for large-scale
341
OCR for page 342
i:
c
Id ~
.= i:
.o o
~-
· -
L
o
Cot
so
o
.- 1
Cot
.= \
U)
Cat
~ \
Cat
Cq
50
o
.~,
Cot
m
342
O4 ~_.
Io ~_
on ~ ~ Cat
~1 1 1 1 ~ ~
~° ~ 1 ~ ~- "~-
j~d ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~_ o ~- ~ | ~ I ~ ~
\ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ it' ~
~ o l l ~
~^ ~ 1 ~ -~-
~b,~-
~' , - \ '
`-:l~b~
~-- ~6 -° ~ 1 ~ ~ °=
-~-~40~
x ~4 0 ~ ~ d. 1 x x
cat ~1
my ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1~ 1
~ X
o ~ to
-
1
I~ ~ Do~ o ~
~_.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~o _ ~ 1 ~ ~
~ 1
1 1 ~° oo
o
~Q
z
x ~
CQ
z-
~ 1
c
:>
z - c~
o t-) ·u]
t
~c
~¢'
, ~·o
-
~¢ -.
1
1 1 1 ~~=
o ~ ~ 1 ~ o
~ l -
~ oo ~ ~1 ~ 1 oo ~
u, - 1
~- 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~
I-
1
~4
1
~1 1 1 -= 1
o o X
_ ~ ~
c
.
o
~n
c
C~> 04
oo ~
r · CD
r ~ ·,-
U) - C~ C) -
C) - ~ ~ C
o ~ - ~ ~
_ ~ C)
, ~c. ~ _ ~
o 4.) - (t C)
{~0 >~ C5 04
;,, ~6 ~ X
_
~_
: - ,,
~o ~ ~ .O
o ~ ==
_ C: C~
~ C ~ ~
o _
~ ~ Ct
_ · _ ~ C)
~o IC
¢ ~ E
C ~ ~
._ ot
~ ~ o
C ~ ~
~ 1 1 1 ~- 1
~ ~ oo ~ o
c
o
~_
.~.° O
~ - ~
o ,_ o
o
U) C)
o ~
~ C Q°
_ ~ O r~
_ I,~ ~O
~ C.) V ~
° caa L~ -° C-: ·Q
~ ~ ~O
.o t0 ~ S
. ~ o C5 o
~ ~Z
-
Cq CD
·~ _
~ C.~ °
_ ~ _
_ 00
O Ct C)
V)
~ ~
Ct
~ Z
O O
C~
~ C.)
C) X
LL
OCR for page 343
°~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~x X o x ~ 1
I - ~
1 ~ - 1 1 ~ -
~1
No ~
1 1 ~ ~1 1 ~1 ~
=~ mm 1 = - 1 1 ~ 1 ~ -
1 ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1
1
= - 1 1 ~ ~1 1 1 1 mm ~
u)
.O
v'
4Ds
s ~
cd ~
~ o
s ~
~ E
-
=8
4)
on C,
.
Cat
Oo
ACE
C) o
~ .
. ~
sir
~ A:
Z
.m
= - ! ' . i Y e ~ ; =
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~X X X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~C ~
O r~ ~ 1 (o ~ ~ ~o~ ~ - et
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I r ~ x
I ~I ~ o~ ~ I ~I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ r I
~ 1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1=
I I r ~
1 m~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ° -
I ~o ~ r ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~x
~ 1 ~
1 1 - ~ - 1 1 ~ 1 = -
1
~ 1 ~
<~ v r ~ I ~ ~ ~ I
1 ~ 1
1 ~ ~oo et _
_'
~1 1 ~- 1 1 1 1 ~
~e' 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~0 o~ ~
~o ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~
-
C)
I 10 o ~ eq | I I I r ~o I
0 ~r ~- ~ ~ d ~ oo 0 ~ ~-
~D 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~
_ _. ~4 ~_4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 ~1=
-
1 X
~ r-
o
~ r
r~ ~
r ~ 0
343
OCR for page 344
\ ~
4
me?
\
~lL X
-F
Con
o
Cal
an
A,
. -
o
.
CD
so
.
U.
Ct
4 -
.
C:
U.
.
-
.
Ct
LM
m
344
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~
_4
~= 1 1 1~ 1~ 1~ 1
o
D
O
O
C-:
Ct .C)
Cal
- C)
'A At:
c:
._
a.=
sm
Gal
00
ore
O ~
=8
oc
C-c.,
o
· >A
E~
~ g
=<
Ct
o.°
Cal Ct
Cow
-=
o c
On
~L)
_ ~ ~ · 5 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ , ~ ~ ~ _
,~,, o ° tc O ·0 ~ ,s,, ~ ~ ~ ~ E E ~ E E E ~ ~ ' ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ E
L t`1 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ¢ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
~ os _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1
oo ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~1 ~1 1 1
° 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~
~ ~1 1 ~1 ~ ~1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~
1 mm 1 ~ - 1 =~ 1 1 - -
-~- 1 ~1 11 1 ~
-, I I I I I I ~ I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ 1 1 1 1=
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~1~1 1~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~= 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 -=
X 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1~- 1 1 ~ 1 1~ 1 1
u. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1
1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1
~, ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I I
~4
~1 1 ~1 1 1 ~1 1 ~1 1 ~
~1 1 1 ~1 1 1 1 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~1 1 1 ~
~4
o
,^
;^
._
.
Ct
o
-
Ct
. _
OCR for page 345
FUTURE OF TlIE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES
preparation of biological materials, now available to only a handful of
institutions. Were it possible to make available these indicated choices of
department chairmen and of individual scientists, both the quality and
tempo of research in the life sciences would most certainly be augmented.
7morovement and Expansion of the Academic
r En,
Research Endeavor
Another set of indicators of what may be required to assure the quality and
magnitude of the research endeavor was obtained from department chair-
men by asking whether, and for what purposes, their departments very
seriously required additional funds to finance their current research en-
deavors. Once again, the question was sharpened by a request to indicate
first-priority needs. One thousand thirty-three department chairmen re-
sponded to this set of questions.
As can be seen in Table 55, funds for graduate student stipends and for
additional faculty salaries were most numerous among such responses (25
and 29 percent, respectively). The stipends were the first-priority request
of almost half of all departments of biochemistry, physiology, and agronomy
and forestry; the need for faculty salaries was about equally urgent
among all disciplines, except for clinical departments, 51 percent of which
indicated this as their first priority. Funds for instruments were the most
acute need of 10 percent of all departments, including six of the 15 report-
ing biophysics departments. Funds to support the research of junior faculty
were listed as the first priority of only 9 percent of all chairmen; strangely,
this was the first priority of the chairmen of 15 of 98 general-biology de-
partments but of only 1 of 73 chairmen of zoology departments. When
the chairmen were asked to indicate their second and third choices as well
this item was selected by an aggregate of 30 percent of departments.
These data must again be regarded with a caveat; they were obtained
before the impact of the current plateau in federal funding, with all its
implications, and it is difficult to distinguish clearly between acute need and
general "wish list."
Some 205 departments indicated that they had no need of additional
funds to improve their current research endeavors, and it was of interest
to examine the pattern of the considered needs of this limited group for
expansion of the departmental research endeavor. These departments were
well distributed among all the disciplines, colleges, and both classes of
universities. Once again, it was salaries for additional faculty that loomed
as the prime requirement, cited by 43 percent of this group of departments.
Again this stipulation was mentioned most frequently by the private medical
schools, in both their clinical and preclinical departments, by an inter
OCR for page 346
ED
z
o ~
I'
z
346
~: 8 -~- ^'-
~ 7 ~:
5 if,:
~ '-'it ~ -_X
Z (Q
A:
C)
CD
so
z
o
o ,
CQ~ c,0 ~
z ~o
z ~.o
o ~° o
-e <~
1 1 ~ 1 1
1 1 1
1~ 1
1 1 1
~ 1 ~
1 1 1
1 1 ~1
1
c%, I, ~ ~ 1 - 1 1
1 1 1 ~ -
X ~ ~X
Can
~ ~ At ,
I,
-
Ct · ~
~ c)
~ O ~ ~ ~ ran 1
_, _4 1
11 ~ 1
~ ~ ~ ~ 11 1 1 -
mm 1 ~1 1 1 ~1
1 1 1 ~ 1
1 ~1 1 1 1 -~
~ ~1 ° ~ ~ ~1 1 1 1
Go ~
1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 ~ 1 1 m ~1 ~1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~- ! 1
~ 1
~ 1
1 1 m~ 1 ~ 1-
1 ~1 ~ 1 ~ 1 -
~ 1
1
- E ~
_! _
~C,, ~
° C.) ~ °
C) - ~ C)
_ _
° E o-°
~ ~ ~E .- ~
·- C~ o4 ° t- s°
~ 1
1 1
oo
oo
E
C~
C'3
._ _
_ o
o
o~
t,._
~s
o CD ~
~ o o
~3
o C)
t l 5)
.~ o
-
o o
_ _
C) ~
_ _
LL ~
~ _'
OCR for page 347
1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~1 1 1
1 1 1 ~1 m ~1 m~ 1 1 ~1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 ~1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 ~1~
1 1 1 ~1 ~1~ 1 ~1 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 ~1 1 1 1~ 1 1 ~m
1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~1 ~1 1 ~1 ~1 ~1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 1
1 1~ 1 1 ~1
1 1 1
1 ~ 1
1 ~ 1
1 ~ 1
- ~
~ 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1~ 1 1~- 1 1 1
1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 _ ~
1 1 ~ ~ ~In ~ 1 ~ ~ 1
- 1 ~ 1
1 1 1 1 1 -- 1 1
~1 m ~1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~1 ~1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
~1 ~1 m~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~1 1 1
~1 = ~1 ~~= 1 1 ~1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1~= 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 -- 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 -~ 1
1
1
1
1 1
~1 ~
~11-1=1 1=1~11 1111-1-111~1~1 ~1-
1 ~ - 1 - - 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~1 ~1 1 - - 1 ~1 ~
I_ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo
_ _ ~ _
8
o
-
~ ~ ~ 8
s ~ , 1~ o 2 ~ _ ~ ~ E
o ~ ~ C5 ~ C~ C: ~ - ~ C) C) _
_ ~ id, _ ~ Z ._ ~ ~ ~ =_
U) ~
V) O
i~
[L] - ~ ,~ 1 ~ ~ ~ O
co
4
. -
CQ
~ -
-
.
sO
ct
c)
C,3
o
c)
-
E
£
o
U.
C)
C~
._
CO
~ o
4D ;-,
E E
P~ ~
C)
.3<
~o eC
o
Ct _
sZ
Ct ~
CD-
C)
V,-
U. ~
~ C)
;r~
- C.;}
. ~ ~
~s;
o ~i ~
,0 5U'
C) _ _ .~
E ~ o ~
~ o ~ ~
ct -
~ o o ,,,
o CO ~ ~
0, E
~ Ck ~ °
o ~ o :~.
= ~ C)
c) :~
,: ;,i
CD ~ C)iC~
~U=o~
__m o
~ ~ ~ V,
347
OCR for page 348
a,
A:
so
ct
· -
ct
c)
o
so
o
A:
ct
Ha
I::
so
3
o
Cal
o
U.
C)
· _
._
-
Cal
so
.=
US
m
348
r ~
Z i\
~~~~he~
~ ~~
Z \j-~
~ ~ Cot
~!9
U~
`~<
LU X
~0
- ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1
Van ~ ~ ~ ~ At so 1 ~- \0
Van ~ ~ 1
_ or ~ .
~_
~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~
~_, _ ~
_ ~ so ~ 1
_ 1
~1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1
x Rae ~ to at ~ ~ ~1
0\ ~ ~ ~ - 1
1
~'I 4 - 1
A\ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
~ _
- 4 r4
~r~
(q ~ V~ 0\
X ~ _ _
1 ~
r ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ v~
~U) \0 0\ ~ ~ O ~0\
0 ~ r~ ~~
-
Z ~ ~
~ Z _ ~ 0,, O
O °) ~ ~ ~ Z ~ S
e 6_ - V~ O O ;t~ ~ ~ D o
Z ~ ~o O ~ ~ ~ ~ D Z
E" ~ Z ~ o ce c~ ~, ~ 0
0~ =~=
-~
V,
C)
.O
V'
C)
._
C)
S
~:
._
S
C~
V,
a~
o
-
£
o
C~
~.
._
cq
o
>~
£
C)
-
o
-
Ct
z
C~
-
£
-
C~
C)
=.O
o
o'
..D c~
C. ·-
Ct Ct
£- "o.''
s o
4_ ~ Ct
c~ £6
co, ~
C) Ct o
o
o 3 C)
C~ Ct _t
C~ ~ C~q
C) ~
·3 ..
~ ~ C)
_ i)
r. ~ ~
__ o
~ .o C~
OCR for page 349
FUTURE OF THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES 349
mediate number of public medical schools, and least frequently by chairmen
of arts and sciences faculties. Predoctoral stipends were again the second
most frequent problem if expansion of the research program was to be
undertaken by this group.
The same query, concerning requirements for expansion of their research
endeavors, was answered by a total of 1,052 department chairmen (Table
561; faculty salaries were cited by 42 percent and predoctoral stipends by
22 percent. The other seven possible uses of additional funds were cited
by 1 to 9 percent of chairmen, the variation among disciplinary departments
being unremarkable. The faculty salary problem loomed as the major
need to 52 percent of chairmen in private universities and to 38 percent in
public universities, as expected from their funding problems. This item
would surely be even more pressing today.
In short, by each form of this examination, if the academic research
endeavor in the life sciences is to be improved or expanded, additional
funds must be provided to assure payment of faculty salaries and predoc-
toral stipends. Until these urgencies have been met, all other considerations
appear to be secondary.
Expansion of the Graduate Education Endeavor
The system was tested in yet another manner; the department chairmen
were asked to state whether they could accept additional Ph.D. candidates
at present; if not, whether their inability was due to lack of space or faculty.
Further, they were asked whether they planned to accept additional num-
bers of graduate students over the next four years and whether this would
require additional space or faculty. Seven hundred seventy-six of 779
chairmen with Ph.D. programs responded to these questions, of whom 565
(73 percent) indicated that their departments were below graduate-training
capacity at that time. These 565 departments, rather uniformly distributed
among all types of colleges and universities, had a current enrollment of
9,397 students. Their chairmen reported an unused capacity of 4,000 stu-
dents, three fourths of which was in public universities and one fourth in
private universities. The total graduate enrollment in all departments was
reported as 14,764.
Of those unable to expand their graduate enrollments, roughly one third
had insufficient space, one third had both insufficient space and insufficient
faculties, and the remainder were unable to expand for a variety of reasons.
Unexpectedly, only 2 percent cannot expand merely for lack of faculty.
In sum, both private and public universities anticipated 50 to 60 percent
OCR for page 350
lo
hi
· -
cd
He
o
o
hi
In
a]
a:
x
o
a:
o
id
as
. -
s~
o
· -
1
~ -
m
350
Representative terms from entire chapter:
electron microscopes
