National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Summary
Suggested Citation:"STATEMENT BY DAVID L. BRAUTIGAN." 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 28
Suggested Citation:"STATEMENT BY DAVID L. BRAUTIGAN." 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 29

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 28 “with” rather than “for” physician scientists should be encouraged. At a time when basic science offers unparalleled opportunities to understand disease, it is remarkable that the goals of most graduate students are unfulfilled, and their talents are not directed to biomedical science. REFERENCES Arias, Irwin M. 1989 Training basic scientists to bridge the gap between basic science and its application to human disease . New England Journal of Medicine 321 : 972-974 . STATEMENT BY DAVID L. BRAUTIGAN Good morning. Ladies and gentlemen, I am here representing the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), a non-profit, scientific, and educational organization with over 9,000 members. Currently I serve as the Chairman of the Human Resources Committee, the largest committee for ASBMB, which deals with education issues in general as well as particular problems faced by women and under- represented minorities. We are organized into three subcommittees focused on each of these areas. A majority of our members teach and conduct research at colleges and universities. Sustaining the quality of biomedical and behavioral research is a critical issue of great concern to us. I was a recipient of both predoctoral training grant support at Northwestern University and a post-doctoral NRSA award with Edmond Fischer, the 1992 Nobel Laureate, at the University of Washington, Seattle. I believe these mechanisms of support for those in training goes hand-in-hand with the government’s role in financing fundamental research in the life sciences. This combination of research and training support has considerable and continuing benefits to the health and welfare of the citizens of our country. Now I will respond, in turn, to the four questions posed by the committee. First, what is the most significant challenge we face today? It is the lack of funding available to support the scientists currently in the field who are capable of excellent research. A telling statistic is the declining success rate for research applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health. In 1991, the average NIH success rate was 29.3 percent. It is likely that less than 1 in five applicants for an NIH research grant will actually be funded this year. The impact on NRSA programs is obvious. The best and the brightest students see little incentive for them to take up life sciences research as a career. They suspect that after years of rigorous training, funding for research may be as scarce as it is today. Sadly, this decision is often made even before they gain enough exposure to research to become committed to it, as happened to most of us here today. Rather, many opt to enter some other career, such as the practice of medicine, where the likelihood of reward and recognition is greater. The number of quality students interested in research is small; we have to encourage them and provide them with opportunities. We need to sustain our training programs. As the large cadre of older life scientists in universities retire and life sciences-based industries continue to expand, the current surplus pool of life science researchers will evaporate. We have to remain aware that quality training programs take years to assemble and mature. These programs do not need to continue to grow in size, but they cannot survive if their support goes up-and-down in cycles. That brings me to question 2, about improvements in the National Research Service Awards program. Let me make 4 recommendations: First, do not expand, but do maintain most programs at their present levels. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) has conducted a consensus conference on biomedical research funding, and recommends that the NRSA program support 14,020 training positions. As Professor Gerbi has pointed out, this number of students actually is a small fraction of total Ph.D. production, but represents our best programs, chosen by merit. Second, support measured and prudent growth in the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) which awards both M.D. and Ph.D. degrees after a rigorous course of study. This is recognized as the most successful NIH training program. The MSTP should be provided with funds to add 250 trainees over the next six years to bring the total number to 1,000 trainees. Third, increase stipends for all pre- and postdoctoral trainees. Current stipends are inadequate; awardees are supported below the poverty line and

APPENDIX D 29 require some supplementation to stipends to meet basic needs. Fourth. FASEB supports the creation of a predoctoral fellowship program, for individual predoctoral students, to eventually support about 1,000 fellows per year after five years. Such a program will allow the best students to train with the faculty of their choice, whether or not there is an institutional training grant. Question 3. What steps might be taken to improve the effectiveness of the NRSA program in recruiting women and minorities into scientific careers? Women. The number of women in the life sciences has increased dramatically in the last 20 years, from a few percent to more than a quarter of all life scientists. However, women in life sciences are faced with problems associated with career advancement such as the so called “glass ceiling. ” One suggestion for the NRSA would be to specifically encourage applications from women who have taken time off in early or mid-career to raise children. When women return to the laboratory after an absence for child-rearing (which can amount to years) they need some time to come “back to speed” on a research project of their own. Individual fellowship support for these women would be especially effective in providing them with opportunities. Underrepresented Minorities. African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans account for no more than a couple of percent of all Ph.D.s in the life sciences. These numbers have been constant for two decades, and show few signs of improving. Most under-represented minorities with a desire to work in life sciences are not entering Ph.D. programs, but instead are going to medical school. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has reported that in 1991, 918 black Americans, 46 Native Americans, and 362 Hispanic Americans graduated from medical school (total 1326). By comparison only 6 black Americans received Ph.D.s in biochemistry in 1991, according to the National Science Foundation, and only 44 Ph.D.s were awarded to black Americans in all the biological sciences combined. Likewise, 10 Native Americans and 78 Hispanic Americans received a Ph.D. in the life sciences (total 132). So there were 10 M.D.s for every Ph.D. earned by members of these groups. My suggestion is to promote aggressively the Medical Scientist Training Program, especially to minority students in premedical programs. Many observers are concerned over the decline in the number of M.D./Ph.D. researchers, and FASEB has recommended that this program be expanded. Promoting the MSTP program to minority undergraduates would be a way to solve two problems at one time. Minority students could attain their medical degrees, but would also be trained to do research. One could also promote the MSTP to minority students after they have entered medical school, and this is an especially promising way to capture them for careers in research. Lastly, Question 4. What features of the NRSA training grant might be strengthened? I believe that concentration of NRSA recipients, especially postdoctorals, in a few laboratories is a problem. The selection process picks the best students from an elite group of programs and puts them in a few laboratories of the most readily recognized sponsors. These groups swell in size because salaries are provided. With this system postdoctoral trainees become concentrated in laboratories with many other postdocs, and they do not receive much attention and have limited interaction with faculty. There are, in fact, many top caliber laboratories that would be excellent training environments. I might go so far as to “cap” the number of postdoctorals awarded to any individual sponsor. You also asked whether “significant changes that have come about in employment opportunities for bioscientists in industry and other types of non-traditional research settings” have affected, or will affect, how students in the biosciences are trained. It is the view of ASBMB that the best training students can receive is broad-based. Students are attracted to interdisciplinary training programs in the life sciences, and I think we should encourage this. The ASBMB Educational Affairs Subcommittee conducted a national survey of both graduate schools and industry for information on what course work they like prospective students or employees to have taken at the undergraduate level. A solid background in general biochemistry and molecular biology is very much desired. Focused programs such as biotechnology can be obsolete before the degree is awarded and these are not considered the best investment. Overall, the research community supports the efforts of this Committee and we depend on you being effective as our representatives.

Next: STATEMENT BY GAIL CASSELL, Ph.D. »
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!