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 1
OCR for page 3
OCR for page 4
OCR for page 5
OCR for page 6
OCR for page 7
OCR for page 8
OCR for page 9
OCR for page 10
OCR for page 11
OCR for page 19
OCR for page 20
OCR for page 21
OCR for page 22
OCR for page 23
OCR for page 24
OCR for page 25
OCR for page 26
OCR for page 27
OCR for page 29
Representative terms from entire chapter:
services research
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF NUMERICAL
RECOMMENDATIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1980-82
OB ELECTIVES OF THE 1978 REPORT
The Committee' s broad ob jectives for this year's report are to
expand its analysis of the role of and need for federal training
programs and, as a result, to reassess or modify and extend its
recommendations of previous years. The continuing objectives of
this report are to ~ ~ make numerical recommendations for predoc-
toral and postdoctoral support for broad training areas and for
the support mechani sms appropriate to these levels and areas of
training and 2) identify, where possible, fields where training
needs deserve special emphasi s .
Beyond these continuing objectives, the Committee in this
year ' s re por t at t empt s to e xt end i t s knowl edge of the tra i n i ng
process in several new directions. First, the Committee examines
the impact that red uct ion s i n tra in i ng grant support in the ear ly
1970's have hat on full-time enrollment levels and program activ-
ities in the basic biomedical and behavioral sciences (Chapters 2
and 3 ) . Related to th i s d i scussion i s the i ssue rat sed in the
National Research Service Award (NRSA) Act of the adequacy of
alternat ive support me chant sms to prov ide suf f i c lent numbers and
quality of personnel.
Second, the Committee begins to address training needs as
they pertain to nonacademic settings. In the past, the Committee
has concentrated its analysis of demand almost exclusively on the
market in academia for trained personnel. This year, in response
to comments made at the public hearing the Committee discusses
the employment opportunities available in the nonacademic sector
Chapters 2, 3, and 5 ~ .
Third, the Committee begins an in-depth investigation into
the needs for training in the clinical sciences. Stud ies have
been commissioned to clarify the composition of the clinical
research pope ation and their special training needs. Limited
attention i s given to fields of veterinary and dental research
training ~ Chapter 4 ~ . In the area of the behavioral sciences,
the special situation of the clinical invest igator in mental
health research is explored ~ Chapter 3 ~ .
Fourth, further progress i s made in
Finally, the Committee again discusses the role of federal
support in the provision of high-qua1 ity research training.
Prior to treating these issues9 the Committee bed ieves the
following section, bight ighting past Committee reports, will be
helpful in providing a framework for this year's report.
SYNOPS IS OF PREVIOUS REPORTS
The first report of the Committee was issued in June 1975, onl y
four months after the National Academy of Sciences had accepted)
the task proposed for it by Congress under the NRSA Act of ~ 974.
Because of time constraints, the Committee devoted its initial
report to a description of the organization of the study, an out-
line of the issues involved, and a presentation of the limited
data avail able at that time. Each subsequent report has updated
or enlarged the scope of previously addressed topi as and has in-
cluded some that are di scussed for the f irst time .
In organ) zing this study, the Committee ~ ivided the biomed-
ical and behavioral f ields into four areas: 1 ) basic biomedical
sciences, 2 ~ behavioral sciences, 3 ~ clinical sciences, and 4 ~
heal th serv ices research . A panel of experts was formed to as-
sist the Committee in each area, and an additional panel was
created to guide the data collection and analyses. It was rec-
ognized very early in this study that the ~ egislative request to
specify the nation's personnel needs in the fields of biomedical
and behavioral research would be impeded by the di f f icult prob-
lems of def inition and classif ication. An attempt was made in
the f irst report to def ine each of the four broad areas in terms
of the disciplinary fields included within- them. These initial
definitions have been revised in subsequent reports, but the
problems of taxonomy and determining need at the discipl inary
level continue to be among the most intractable ones facing the
Committee. The ma jor problem, as pointed out in the 1975 report,
is that the boundaries between discipl ines are (lifficu~ t to craw.
This problem is compounded by the aciaptabi~ ity of biomedical/
behavioral scientists and their capacity for Mobil ity within and
across fields. This is especial ly true for transfers from more
fundamental to more applied fiel ds, and for transfers that are
facil itated by postdoctoral training . Lastly, there is the dif-
ficulty of predicting ma jor scientific Revel opments and their
potential impact on personnel requirements.
In view of these considerations, the Committee's recommen-
clations have been directed almost excl usiveJ y to broad areas
rather than the disciplinary subgroups, although, as noted be' ow,
some of the 1 atter were given special consideration in the 1977
report . - -
The 1975 report provided def initions for the key concepts
basic to this stucly--training grants, fellowships, insitutional
suppc,~-t, predoctoral and postdoctoral training--and di soussed
2
their relationship with the quality of biomedical and behavioral
research conducted in this country. A short history of the
relevant federally supported programs was provided along with a
summary of career outcomes of former trainees and fellows who
participated in them.
The Committee's second report (1976) assessed the current
academic labor market and near-term outlook for biomedical and
behavioral scientists. In most of these fields, the Committee
found that an ample supply of Ph.D.'s was available. In fact,
because the rate of growth in biomedical and behavioral research
and development (R and D) expenditures had slowed perceptibly
since 196B, and because college enrollments were expected to
stabilize by 1980 while Ph.D. production continued at a high
level, the Committee concluded that a slower rate of growth in
the labor force in these fields was advisable. Accordingly, the
Committee recommended a modest reduction in the number of fed-
erally supported predoctoral students in the basic biomedical and
behavioral areas.
Postdoctoral support, the Committee believed, should be held
constant in the basic biomedical sciences and increased in other
areas. In the behavioral sciences, the recommended shift to pre-
dominantly postdoctoral training represented a significant reori-
entation of federal support and graduate training patterns in
this area. This recommendation was developed partly in response
to the growing need for more specialized investigators capable of
dealing with the increasingly complex research questions in the
area of behavior and health. On the other hand, the clinical
sciences area was seen as needing increased support to help
stimulate the flow of M.D.'s into clinical research careers.
These initial recommendations were intended to remain in effect
until the Committee's impressions about the market could-be
confirmed or modified by further analyses and additional data.
In 1977, the Committee found evidence that newly trained
biomedical and behavioral Ph.D.'s were encountering increasing
difficulty in obtaining permanent faculty positions. The number
of these Ph.D.'s on postdoctoral appointments (which the Commit-
tee considers to be temporary positions) had been rising at a
rate of over 13 percent per year between 1972 and 1975 in the
biomedical sciences. Furthermore, the Committee's 1977 Survey of
Recent Doctorate Recipients showed that more than 40 percent of
these postdoctoral appointees in biomedical fields had prolonged
their appointments because they could not find suitable employ-
ment. These indications of a tight job market facing new Ph.D.'s
in these fields prompted the Committee to recommend an additional
10 percent reduction from the number of predoctoral trainees in
the biomedical sciences supported by the federal government in
1976. The postdoctoral recommendation was unchanged.
Certain fields within the basic biomedical sciences exhibited
evidence of better-than-average employment prospects and were
3
cited as exceptions to the recommendation for reduced predoctoral
-
support. The f ields of biostatistics/biomathematics and epicle-
miology showed no postdoctoral holding pattern and appeared to be
attracting peopl e from close] y related fiel cis, such as statis-
tics, that are outside the biomedical sciences. For these
f ields, the Committee recommended no reduction in predoctoral
support 1 evels.
In its 1977 report, the Committee presented for the f irst
time a systematic treatment of heal th services research training
needs, providing a definition for this emerging research area and
a preliminary ~ ist of training difficulties that face it. In
ad<3itior~ to calling for a continued expansion of mental heal th
services research training, primarily at the predoctoral 1 evel
through the programs of Alcohol ~ Drug Abuse,, and Mental Heal th
Administration (ADAMHA), the Committee called for an extension of
the NRSA authority to permit training in the- general area of
health services research especially through the programs once
provided by the National Center for Health Services Research
(NCHSR) .
Nursing research training was officially brought under the
purview of the study by amendments made to the NRSA Act in 1976.
In its ~ 977 report, the Committee provided the results of its
survey of nurses who had compl eted their doctoral training be-
tween 1971 and 19750 The findings suggested that opportunities
for employment for doctorally trained nurses was favorabl e, and
led the Committee to suggest an expansion of research training
support, predominantly at- the predoctoral lever.
The Committee's 1977 report al so discussed the issues of mid-
¢:areer training and the participation of minorities and women in
biome<3 ical and behavioral research ' the admini strat ive problems
of the 3-year limit on awards, the payback provisions announce-
ment fields, and multidisciplinary awards; the education and
training process by which most biomedical and behavioral scien-
tists are procluced; and the importance of federal support in
sustaining the research training system.
Earlier reports of tile Committee have been distributed to
university ~ ibrar-ies and graduate school deans. Limited copies
are al so available upon request to the Committee .
Within the context of these previous efforts, the Committee
will now proceed to discuss the issues pertinent to this year's
report .
TRAINING GRANTS AND THE
QUALITY OF TRAINING
Most training grant programs were or iginally focused on the ap-
parent need for increasing the number of well-trained research
Personnel. Ilc)wever, in developing a stable continuing policy for
ov~?rslment support of tra i n i nq prog rams i n the b iomec] i Cal sc i-
4
ences, it is essential to consider other effects that may be less
obvious than the contribution of mere numbers. Many experienced
observers believe, for example, that training grants have been
just as important in improving the quality of training as in
providing for increased numbers. It must be admitted at once
that it is not easy to provide absolutely convincing proof that a
given sum of money has resulted in a specific increment of qual-
ity in research training. This difficulty of evaluation pervades
the entire education process. Repeated attempts to identify the
various factors which contribute to effective education at any
level from first grade through graduate school have provided
embarrassingly little evidence that any of the well-known factors
that educators, parents, students, and taxpayers argue about so
vehemently make much difference. Perhaps the major difficulty
facing the evaluator is the very strong correlation between the
ability of the students at entry and their ability at graduation.
Thus, it has been shown that children with a good command of
spoken language and who score high on "reading readiness tests"
before entering first grade are found to be reading increasingly
above grade level as they proceed through primary and secondary
school. This effect is so large as to overwhelm the effects of
such variables as teacher training, teacher/student ratio, the
number of books in the library, and so on.
Similarly, graduate schools that have a reputation for turn-
ing out the best graduate students tend to attract the best en-
tering students. They are also, generally speaking, the same
schools to be judged most worthy of training grants by peer
review bodies. One cannot therefore demonstrate the effect of
training grants in improving graduate education simply by point-
ing to the quality of the emerging student or the high rating
giver to the training programs by surveys of qualified judges.
This problem will be discussed later in an attempt to outline how
certain rather special aspects of graduate education may be ex-
ploited by programs of evaluation designed to aid future policy
making in the wise and efficient use of training funds.
In the meantime, and in the absence of precise facts or val-
idated educational theory, serious attention must be paid to the
overwhelming opinion of informed observers that the training
grant programs have very importantly improved the quality of re-
search training. In support of such opinion one may also cite
certain specific uses of these grants, the significance of which
appeals immediately to common sense.
First, one of the most important uses of training grant funds
is to provide research equipment and supplies for use by the
trainees. Research training is unlike many other forms of educa-
tion in that it cannot be learned solely from books. Indeed it
may be the example par excellence of "learning by doing," espe-
cially in the biological sciences' where almost all advances
depend upon new observations in the laboratory rather than theo-
retical reasoning. It is simply a matter of fact that, when
5
training grants were started, very few institutions in the
country could af ford to provide their graduate students or even
their postdoctoral fellows with suitable scientific apparatus and
supplies.
Research supp] ies include such items as expensive experimen-
tal animal s and unusual chemicals, which put a heavy stress on
any departmental budget. Much biomedical research depends al so
upon the availability of special) zed apparatus, costing in the
tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unfortunately from the
financial standpoint, but not from the point of view of the prog-
ress of science, such apparatus tends to become obsolete rather
rapidly and must be frequently re placed i f st udents are to re-
ceive training in the technologies of the future. Many of these
instruments require special training for their use, and it is the
custom in good training laboratories to assign a high ~ eve, tech-
nician to protect the apparatus from misuse and train the grad-
uate students and vi siting investigators in its proper handling .
Such personnel are often at least partially paid from training
grants and certainly play an essential role in the training
process .
Second, training grants have almost certain! y improved the
qual ity of training by providing a portion of the salaries for
addi t tonal facul ty members. One of the maj or purposes of train-
ing grants has been to encourage interdepartmental training
programs. The field of genetics provides an excellent example.
In many institutions the geneticists may be- found in several
di fferent departments--plant geneticists in the botany depart-
ment, animal geneticists in the zoology department, insect genet-
icists in the department of entymology, bacterial geneticists in
the department of microbiology, and medical geneticists in the
medical school--and in universities with an agricu~ tural collate,
they may be found additionally in the departments of agronomy and
plant breeding. In many institutions, training grants have
served to br i ng such scattered teachers together to provide broad
training to graduate students and postdoctoral fel lows in impor-
tant f ields that transcend departmental boundaries. More often
than not, however, some important ~ i sc ipl ines may be mi ssing, and
training grant funds may be used to f ill the gap on either a
permanent or vi siting basi s. The need for such additions to
faculty is particularly important in rapidly advancing fiel ds.
In several areas of biology, for example, the older facul ty may
not have rece Ives much training in mathemati as, but current
developments in popul at ion biology, for exampl e, demand a good
working knowledge of statistics. Simile arly, the important area
of ecology rel ies increasingly on mathematical modeling and on
advanced methods of analyzing small amounts of air and water
pollutants. Training grants play an essential role in rounding
out the faculty to provide instruction in such rapidly developing
areas.
Third, training grants contribute to excellence simply by
provic] ing an increased number of graduate students to a hinh-
6
quality department. Many newer departments, staffed with ex-
cellent young teachers in some of the rapidly developing parts of
the country, have not yet developed a reputation sufficient to
attract a critical mass of graduate students. Training grants,
by providing a reasonable number of traineeships, help these
departments to overcome this deficiency in a much shorter time
than would otherwise be the case. By careful adjustments of such
support, a more equitable distribution of students may be effect-
ed without any net overall increase in numbers.
Fourth, there has been so much discussion, both among the
public and in the Congress itself, about the importance of im-
proving scientific communication, that perhaps one need only
mention the importance of training grants in providing for the
purchase of essential printed materials and forwarding the in-
fonmal communication which is such an important part of the
scientific process. Training grants have been widely used for
paying the traveling expenses of visiting investigators, who may
come for 3 or 4 days to present seminars on subjects of particu-
lar interest or to participate in laboratory work designed per-
haps to resolve difficulties or contradictions that have arisen
in the work of two different research groups. Modest use has
also been made of training grant funds to help send graduate
students to scientific meetings where they have a chance to pre-
sent their own work and to meet the distinguished leaders in
their field.
As a point of caution, however, it should be noted that the
role of program support has been altered with the phasing out of
the "old" training grant awards and the phasing in of the new
NRSA awards beginning in 1975. The significance lies in the fact
that the amount of training grant support devoted to improving
the training environment is falling from the 50 percent level
present in the late 1960's and early 1970's to an administrative-
ly mandated upper limit of 25 percent. While all areas of pro-
qram support have been affected by this cutback, faculty support
in particular has practically been eliminated.
In summary, although this Committee is well aware of the
difficulties of proving the-effects of any specific parts of the
training process, it believes that training programs, especially
at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and ADAMHA, are impor-
tant in upgrading the quality of departmental and especially
interdepartmental training programs. Indeed, it regards the main-
tenance of such quality as a major reason for the maintenance of
the training grants program, although the primary need is no
longer for increased numbers (except for a few fields highlighted
elsewhere in the report). If numbers of trainees are to be re-
duced, it would seem wise to retain quality by increasing the
percentage of grant funds allowed to be used for upgrading and
maintaining the quality of training, since otherwise the absolute
amount of such funds is quite likely to fall dangerously short of
the national need as numbers of students decline.
7
Future Research
As suggested above, however, we remain dissatisfied with the lack
of quantitative evidence for the effectiveness of del iberate mod-
ifications of the educational process and recognize that more
carefully designed research must be undertaken in this area.
Several unusual features of education at the graduate level sug-
gest that it may be more amenable to the evaluation of specific
factors than one might at first suppose. For example, the qual-
ity of the entering students, though variable, is much ~ ess so
than at earlier levels of the educational process. For example,
the range in I.Q. of students in graduate school i s probate' y only
about hal f that of students at lower levels. Thus the effects of
native ability or of previous environment are less overwhelming,
and correlations between input and output may be expected to be
less. On the other hand, the schools themselves differ widely in
the number of degrees conferred, students enrolled, student/
teacher ratios, the availability of advanced instrumentation, -
experimental animals, library fact' ities, and so on.
It is also known that the research output of trained inves-
tigators varies equal ly widely. Some publish many papers . Others
may pubs ish relatives y few papers, but of such a quality as to be
everywhere recognized as of great importance. The most difficult
problem is to determine the qual ity of output of the large number
of biological scientists who publish at a more or less normal
rate of one or two to f ive or s ix papers a year . Substantial
efforts have been made to eval uate such outputs by finding out
how often each paper is cited by other authors and to what
purpose . These ad j usted citation indices are being constantly
refined and are beginning to be used, at least tentative! y, as
suggested measures of the significance or qua' ity of scientific
output of part icular research units or ind ividual invest igators .
There are other ways in wh Itch excel fence is recognized by the
scientific community. In this category are Nobel prizes, other
awards, and inv itations to give di stinguishe<3 ~ ectures or to
serve on boards of h igh qual i t y , 0 urna 1 s or peer r ev i ew groups .
All these contribute to an assessment of the standing of partic-
ular scientists . In the more applied areas, some inferences can
perhaps be drawn by the number of patents granted.
In summary the Committee believes that there may be ways of
identifying and measuring several of the most important <3iffer-
ences in graduate education at various institutions and there are
nascent methods for measur ing resul ts in terms of the research
output of the persons trained in such institutions. In the not
too distant future, therefore, i t may be possible to correlate
training proced ures with results and, by means of such analyses ,
aid the po ~ icymakers in the ~ i f f icul t task o f dec id ing how much
8
of the federal budget to invest in research training and where it
is best to invest it.
The Committee will continue to search for methodologies ap-
propriate to evaluating training program quality. It also notes
that support of research to develop such methodologies would ap-
pear to be a proper function of government agencies such as NIH
and the National Science Foundation (NSF) with their very large
stakes in the effectiveness of research training.
TRAINING FOR WOMEN
During the Committee's deliberations, including the public hear-
ing, the issue has been raised of increasing the participation of
women in biomedical and behavioral research. In its 1977 report
the Committee presented the results of a study it conducted, us-
ing available data sources, on the career and training patterns
of women. While it was noted that much progress has been made in
the past decade in increasing the representation of women in bio-
medical and behavioral research, it was also pointed out that
many continuing hindrances remain to their full participation.
The special problem of family responsibility resulting in inter-
ruption of or late entry into training and careers (see section
below on midcareer training), financial burdens, and greater re-
liance than men on part-time study, point to the particular dif-
ficulties of increasing the number of women researchers.
In December 1974, the National Research Council (NRC) ap-
pointed a Committee on the Education and Employment of Women in
Science and Engineering to examine the social, structural, and
institutional constraints which limit the participation of women
in science and engineering, giving special attention to problems
of sex discrimination in education and employment. Its goal is
to increase official and public understanding of these issues and
serve as a focus for efforts to improve opportunities for women
in science and engineering, thereby increasing utilization of a
largely untapped reservoir of talent. Initially the Committee is
examining the utilization of women doctoral scientists in three
areas: 1) postdoctoral positions; 2) academic employment; and 3)
federal advisory boards and ad hoc committees. Because of the
relevance of these studies to assessments of supply and demand
for research personnel in the biomedical and behavioral sci-
ences, the findings of that Committee will be studied with much
interest.
9
MI DC AREER TRAI NING
Although in last year' s report the Committee made a specific
recommendat ion to provide up to 50 percent of health services
research fellowships for mid career training for quad if fed persons
interested in entering this new research area, the issue of mid-
career training has arisen across a broad spectrum of the Commit-
tee's deliberations. Each of the training areas for which the
Committee is responsible has experienced probe ems associated with
late entry, reentry, or retraining after the traditional period
of graduate and postdoctoral training. Retraining often is re-
quired because of the rapid pace of developments in science and
the early obsol escence of techniques and instruments in almost
eve ry f i e ld .
In the clinical sc fences, this problem is acute because of
the lengthy schooling and residency requirements invoke ved prior
to entering full-time research training and particul arty because
of the many demands placed upon the t ime of M. D. -invest igators,
particu~ arty those in academic medical centers and major hospi-
tals/clinics, to provide health care services. Such persons
general ly are unable to devote the majority of their time to re-
search and, by virtue of the conditions and responsibi~ ities of
their empl oyment, either are ineligible for support for, or
otherwise unable to take, a sabbatical leave of absence to ac-
quire new research skit 1 s and knowledge.
Midcareer training needs are particulars y relevant to the
probe em of attracting and retaining minorities and women in
research. Providing opportunities for minorities and women in
fields in which their participation has heretofore been minimal
will require midcareer opportunities for training in these
fields. For minorities, the attractiveness of immediate emit oy-
ment opportunities following receipt of the doctorate may divert
some from needed postdoctoral training and, once they are em-
ployed, abnormally high administrative and student counseling
demands become obstacles to achieving high research productivity.
For women, family responsibilities often create training problems
because of 1 ate entry into training and careers, limits to full-
time study, and obsolescence of research skid Is due to a mid-
career hiatus. For example, i n the area of nur sing research
these problems frequently exi st for ind ivicluals already engaged
in professional careers who desire to enter research in thi s
e xpand i ng are a .
It is not yet possible to describe a sing le program that
would be s imple, yet comprehend ive enough to encompass the
variety of training needs demonstrated by such a varied group of
individuals. Adequate stipend level s may be critical to permit-
ting those in midcareer to undertake additional training. Part-
time study may be essential to those with continuing famine y
responsibilities. In addition, predoctoral training will be
required for those f irst entering research training, whit e post-
doctoral training may be suf f icient for those retool ing for a
resumption of research or an upgrading of research skil Is.
10
The Committee bel ieves that these problems associated wi th
the need for midcareer training need to be explored in greater
depth. It therefore will seek to address these issues in future
studies in order to def ine them more preci sely and to determine
the nature and extent of the efforts needed for amel iorat ion.
The Committee also urges the federal agencies to devote add i-
tiona' attention to these problems for the purpose of better
defining aspects of agency responsibil ity for meeting these
needs .
OVE RALL RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FEDERAL SUPPORT
In the following sections, the Committee wil 1 summari ze its
recommendations wi th regard to the mechanisms of support and the
numbers of ind ividuals to be supported .
Me chan i sms o f Support
The Committee wishes to reaffirm its recommendation of last year
that both teas i c me chant sms of suppo rt--fel ~ owsh i ps and tra i ning
grants--be maintained. The Committee believes that these two
mechanisms are complementary in their support of high qual ity
training--the individual support of high quality students through
fellowships and the bolstering of superior training programs
through tra in i ng grant s . Because the needs and probI ems of re-
search training differ among the various scientific areas with
which the Committee is concerned, the type and magnitude of sup-
port provided mc~st be made appropr iate to the area and level of
training involved.
Recommenclation. As in last year's report the Committee
recommends that t~he federal government continue to support and
maintain both training grant and fel~ owship programs in the bio-
rnedical and behavioral sciences. Specific recommendations for
each of the broad areas are reported in the fo~ lowing chaoters.
Numer i cal Recommendat ions
The Committee has adopted the pract ice of making its recom~nenda-
tions for 3 fiscal years (FY) in acivance of the year of publi-
cation of its reports. This practice is intend~d to provide
Congress and the agencies with sufficient time for consideration
and implementation of the recommendations which in this year's
11
\
TABLE 1.S Authorization, Appropriation, and Column ttee Recommendations for Training
l:~penditures, 1975-82 (millions of dollars)
Fiscal Year
1975 1976a 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Authorized
NRSA Act 208 165 185 185
House 220 240 260
Senate 175 180 185
Appropriated 171.5 152.0 146.5 168.8
NIH 154.9 132.3 127.4 149.9
ADAMHA 16.6 19.7 19.1 18.9
Committee
Recommendations 168 167 167 164 167 174 182
Includes the transition quarter.
See NRSA Act in Appendix A.
CFrom budget off
of NIH and ADAMHA.
See Committee reports for 1976 and 1977
19
1
ADDENDA
REVI EW OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES
Sol i c i tat ion of Vi ews
from the Publ ic
For the second consecut ive year, the Committee conducted a pubI ic
hearing to solicit comments from individuals and organizations
about the Committee's work ~ see Appendix C3 for the program) .
The purpose was to continue the dial ague established at the first
public hearing between the Committee and the public. Once again,
the hearing was schedu~ ed several months after the widespread
distribution of the Committee's annual report.
The hearing proved educational for both Committee and public.
The Committee rece ived comments, critic) sms, and suggestions
direct, y from interested parties and sought clarification of
stated positions through direct questioning. Speakers and other
attendees ~ earned through the Committee' s questions some of the
larger issues that continue to emerge from the congressional
charge to the Commi ttee. A f ul ~ schedule of 35 speakers covered
a broad range of topi cs including the need for minority fellow-
ships, midcareer training for women, nonacademic demand for
researchers, the need for problem-oriented interdiscip~ inary
training, predoctoral versus postdoctoral field specialization,
and field-switching at the postdoctoral level. Attention was
also directed to predoctora, priority training areas and to
training needs in such areas as epidemiology, toxicology, and the
eva~uat ion of heal th serv ices. Particul ar considerat ion was
g iven to the special needs of research in the clinical sciences
carried on by investigators wi th professional degrees in med-
icine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, clinical psychos ogy, anti
nur sing .
The Committee was particularly pleased that some groups
heeded the Committee's request of the previous year to provide
concrete evidence of future demand for researchers. In par-
ticular, data were provided concerning the empl oyment and utili-
zation of Ph.D. 's in psychology and microbiology. In addition,
attempts were made to demonstrate the increasing demand for
tox i colog i st s . Wh i 1 e the Commi thee ' s interpretat ion of the
s ig n i f i cance of these data may vary somewhat from that of the
presenters, these sources do further the Committee's goal of
providing a sounder basis on which to make judgments about
tra in i ng needs .
The transcript of the hearing together with written- state-
ments submitted prior and subsequent to the hearing were con-
s id ere<3 by tile Commi ttee and its advi very panels . Wh i] e no
attempt has been made to address speci f ically every statement
Maintained in this extensive documentation, the Committee and
panels leave g iven these vi ewpoints serious attention in making
the i r own f i nd i ng s and recommendat ions.
22
N
Dissemination of Market Information
In its 1977 report the Committee recommended that students
contemplating research careers in the biomedical sciences "be
provided access to-the most current and valid data about the
state of the labor market and career opportunities." An article
(Coggeshall, et al., in press) has been been prepared on the
changing employment situation for recent Ph.D recipients in the
biomedical sciences, based largely on data collected in the Com-
mittee's 1976 survey of recent graduates. The article focuses on
the postdoctoral buildup in these fields and its implications for
graduate students planning careers in biomedical research. The
following two questions are specifically addressed:
1) To what extent does the continuing increase in
postdoctorate reflect a diminution in permanent
positions available for young scientists to enter
academic and other careers?
2) How many of those now on postdoctoral appointments
will be able to find suitable employment when they
complete their training?
In an effort to disseminate data describing the current
market for behavioral science personnel, gapers have been deliv-
ered at the annual meetings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the American Psychological
Association (APA) ( Ebert-Flattaul 1978a and b).
Survey of Biomedical and Behavioral
Science Departments
This survey, hereafter referred to as the Department Survey, was
designed to serve a variety of purposes relating to training and
labor market issues in the basic biomedical and behavioral sci-
ence areas. The entire population of doctoral granting depart-
ments in these areas was surveyed--l,324 biomedical and 474
behavioral sciences departments. A response rate of 77 percent
was achieved. The department was selected as the survey unit
because of its unique locus as training center, research center, ~~c=~ ,`~m
and ^~'~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1~ ~ ~ ''—
and by various department characteristics: -quality ratings pub-
lic or private institution, graduate or medical school, and age
of the department.
The Committee was particularly interested in three major
issues. The first is how departmental policy affects admissions
y~r . Responses were ant veto h`, A i ff=~ ; ~ ¢; ~~ ~ ~ i--
23
(
and full-time enroilmentsO Are some types of departments more
1 ikely than others to restrict enrol Iments based on available
stipend support or perceptions of the labor market? A second
issue was the current perceptions of the 1 abor market. Is the
market seen as being in bad ance or as having shortages or sur-
pluses? What are anticipated trends in ful 1-time enrollments and
demand for faculty through 1981 ? Is there any evidence of a
postdoctoral holding pattern due to a worsening job market? The
third issue is the impact of lost training grant support on
full-time enrol Iments and programs. To what extent can alterna-
tive sources and mechanisms of support substitute for the Joss of
tra i n i ng supper t? Are there un ique progr am bene f i t s a s soc i ated
with the training grant that would be lost with the demise of
this program?
Resuits from the Department Survey pertaining to these issues
are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 as appropriate to the basic
biomed i Cal and behav ioral sc fences . Data from the survey are
provided in Appendix E.
Several departmental site vi sits were conducted by the Panel
on Basic Biomedical Sciences to supplement resul ts from the De-
partment Survey. These site vi sits were designed to help assess
the rol e of training grants in university programs; special em-
phasi s wa s pi aced on the impact of the loss of such support on
the quality of departmental programs. While these site visits
were prel iminary in nature and therefore not conclusive, they ~ id
add valuable insights to the f indings of the Department Survey.
Surveys of Doctoral and Pending Doctoral
Programs for Nurses
In response to a continued need for data describing the current
c] imate for doctoral training in nursing research ~ the Committee
and its Ad Hoc Advi very Group on Nursing Research Personnel con-
ducted surveys of selected! doctoral and pending doctoral programs
in school s of nursing throughout the United States.
In conj unction with a survey form used to col1 eat basic in-
formation describing enrollment trends, faculty activities, and
research devel opment, deans at ~ 5 school s of nursing were inter-
viewed by Commi ttee staff ~
Findings from these surveys ~ Appendix I ~ suggest that doc-
toral programs have been proli ferating at a rate faster than that
at which research and the number of research faculty have been
growing at these institutions. These findings, together with
Committee recommendations, are presented in Chapter 6.
24
Survey of Health Services
Research Per sonnet
The Committee, together with its Panel on Hearth Services Re-
search, initiated a survey in June 1978 of approximately 2, 000
ind ividuals who were identi f fed as health services research
personnel on the basi s of hav ing received federal research grant,
contract, or training support in related areas. Findings from
this survey were not available in time for inch usion in this
year's report.
At a time when a concerted effort is under way by the federal
government to review and assess its involvement in health serv-
ices research and its support of research training ~ see Chapter
5), the Committee believes that the findings from this survey
wil ~ provide important information regarding the past research
training experiences and current employment opportunities for
these investigators.
Conference on Heal th
Services Research Personnel
On May 1 7, 197S, the Committee and its Pane] on Health Services
Research convened a I-day invitational conference in Washington,
D. C ., to di scuss with representat Ives from a variety of employ-
ment settings current and anticipated empl oyment opportunities
for thi s type of invest igator. Evidence provided by conference
participants led the Committee to conclude that there is an ur-
gent need to provide skill ed investigators to conduct research
relevant to the implementation of such federal ly mandated oro-
grams as Health Systems Agencies (HSA) and Community Mental
Health Centers (CMHC). ~ full discussion of the conference is
found in Chapter 5 ~ see Appendix C4 for program and conferees) .
fleet i ng on Veter i nary Re search
On April 20, ~ 97S, an ad hoc Working Group on Veterinary Research
Personnel, under tile aegis of the Panel on Clinical Sciences, met
to discuss training and employment problems in this area. Pro-
fessional society representatives presented information on the
employment of individuals in the veterinary sciences. In addi-
tion, the work group ~ iscussed financial and institutional con-
straints to entrance into research careers by D.V.M. students.
P1 ens were formulated for future studies to clarify training and
personnel needs for veterinary scientists. (See Appendix Cl for
program and part ic ipants. ~
25
Meeting on Dental Research
A work g roup on dental research personnel, under the Panel on :
Clinical Sciences, met on May it, 1978, to discuss problems in
defining the dental research popul ation and estimating personnel
needs in dental research. In particu~ ar, the work group dis-
cussed the un ique dental research training problems created by
the ~ ink between research and clinical specialties and partic-
u~ arly the important issues of the inadequate amount and duration
of stipend support. The meeting resulted in an agreement to
cooperate with the American Association for Dental Research in
undertaking a study of the dental) research population . ( Append ix
C2 contains the program and list of participants. ~
Meeting on Psychiatry Research Personnel
On January 2 1, ~ 9 7 ~ a the Commi ttee and i ts Panel on Behav ioral
Sciences convened a ~ -day meeting in Washington , D. C., to iden-
tify the most pressing challenges confronting the recruitment of
psychiatrists into mental health research. In addition to the
need to strengthen research training sites and to recruit person-
ne1 at critical career choice points, the ad hoc steering commit-
tee pointed to the need to foster more interdiscip~ inary research
through research training.
The conclusions drawn by the steering committee served as
guided ines for the discussion found in Chapter 3. (See Appendix
C5 for program and participants. ~
RELATED STUDIE S
Study of Postdoctorals
The Committee is al so for lowing the work of the MRC Committee on
Postdoctorals and Doctoral Research Staf f in Science and Eng i-
neering, which is studying the changing rol es of these personnel
in science and engineering fields and the imp1 ications for fed-
eral and institutional pot icy decisions. This study wit ~ address
a number of issues pertinent to the need for biomedical and be-
havioral research personnel incl uding ~ ~ the character of the
contribution of postdoctoral appointees to the research ef fort of
their host departments and laboratories; 2) the desirabil ity,
from the student ~ s perspective, of taking a postdoctoral appoint-
ment; 3) the appropriate mix of postdoctoral funding mechanisms;
26
4) the contributions and costs of foreign nationals on post-
doctoral appointments at United States institutions; 5 ~ the
advantages and
received predoctoral or postdoctoral training support some time
between 1948 and 1968 (ADANHA, 1977 ) ~
Published as a profile of the- "Professional Characteristics
and Work Patterns of Mental Health Personnel Supported Under NIMH
Training Grants, 1948-1968, " this report provides useful data
regarding recent work act ivities, types of employment, -and -re-
lated characteristics for a significant portion of the total num-
ber of ind ividuals having niece ived such support over the years.
The Committee looks forward to the continued availabil ity of such
information from the Division of Manpower and Training Programs
of NIMH.
28
FOOTNOTE
I. - The NIH training programs in the field of mental health are
small compared to those of ADAMHA. For ~ 977, onl y the National
Institute of Chin ~ Health and Human Dewed opment (NICHD) supported
training in this field ~ 45 trainees) .
\
29
