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 R1
--> Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists Committee on Dimensions, Causes, and Implications of Recent Trends in the Careers of Life Scientists Board on Biology Commission on Life Sciences Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel National Research Council National Academy Press Washington, DC 1998
OCR for page R2
--> NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competence's and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This project was supported by Contract No. N01-OD-4-2139 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institutes of Health, Grant No. BIR-9512867 from the National Science Foundation, Grant No. APP 0589 from the Burroughs Welcome Fund, and by the Academy-Industry Program of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 98-87338 International Standard Book Number 0-309-06180-6 Additional copies of this report are available from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Box 285 Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 202-334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
--> Committee on Dimensions, Causes, and Implications of Recent Trends in the Careers of Life Scientists Shirley Tilghman (Chair), Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Helen S. Astin, University of California, Los Angeles, California William Brinkley, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas Mary Dell Chilton, Ciba-Geigy Biotechnology, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Michael P. Cummings, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Mary Frank Fox, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia Kevin Glenn, Searle, St. Louis, Missouri Pamela J. Green, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Sherrie Hans, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Arthur Kelman, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Jules LaPidus*, Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, DC Bruce Levin, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia J. Richard McIntosh, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado Henry Riecken, University of Pennsylvania (emeritus) Paula E. Stephan, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia Commission on Life Sciences Liaison Ursula W. Goodenough, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri Adviser Douglas E. Kelly, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC Staff Porter E. Coggeshall Karen Greif Charlotte V. Kuh Alvin G. Lazen, Staff Project Director Molla Teclemariam James A. Voytuk Norman Grossblatt, Editor Kit W. Lee, Senior Project Assistant * until March 1997
OCR for page R4
--> Committee on Dimensions, Causes, and Implications of Recent Trends in the Careers of Life Scientists Liaison Group National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia Jim Edwards Joanne Hazlett Carlos Kruytbosch National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Jeffrey Evans John Norvell Walter Schaffer Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies, Nashville, Tennessee Georgine Pion Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC Jennifer Sutton Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Bethesda, Maryland Howard Garrison Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, DC Peter Syverson The American Society for Cell Biology, Bethesda, Maryland Elizabeth Marincola
OCR for page R5
--> Commission on Life Sciences Thomas D. Pollard (Chairman), The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California Frederick R. Anderson, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Washington, DC John C. Bailar III, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois Paul Berg, Stanford University, Stanford, California Joanna Burger, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey Sharon L. Dunwoody, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin John L. Emmerson, Fishers, Indiana (retired) Neal L. First, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Ursula W. Goodenough, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri Henry W. Heikkinen, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado Hans J. Kende, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Cynthia J. Kenyon, University of California, San Francisco, California David M. Livingston, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC Donald R. Mattison, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Joseph E. Murray, Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts Edward E. Penhoet, Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, California Malcolm C. Pike, Norris/USC Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California Jonathan M. Samet, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland Charles F. Stevens, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California John L. VandeBerg, Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, San Antonio, Texas Staff Paul Gilman, Executive Director Alvin G. Lazen, Associate Executive Director
OCR for page R6
--> Board on Biology Michael T. Clegg (Chairman), University of California, Riverside, California David Eisenberg, University of California, Los Angeles, California Gerald D. Fischbach, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts David J. Galas, Darwin Molecular Corporation, Bothell, Washington David V. Goeddel, Tularik, Inc., South San Francisco, California Arturo Gomez-Pompa, University of California, Riverside, California Corey S. Goodman, University of California, Berkeley, California Margaret G. Kidwell, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona Bruce R. Levin, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia Olga F. Linares, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Miami, Florida Elliott M. Meyerowitz, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California Robert T. Paine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Ronald R. Sederoff, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Daniel Simberloff, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee Robert R. Sokal, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York Shirley M. Tilghman, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Raymond L. White, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Ex Officio Thomas Pollard, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California Staff Paul Gilman, Acting Director Tania Williams, Program Officer Amy Noel O'Hara, Project Assistant
OCR for page R7
--> Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel Advisory Committee M. R. C. Greenwood (Chair), University of California, Santa Cruz, California David Breneman, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia Nancy Cantor, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Carlos Gutierrez, California State University, Los Angeles, California Stephen J. Lukasik, Los Angeles, California Barry Munitz, California State University, Long Beach, California Janet Norwood, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC John D. Wiley, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Tadataka Yamada, SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A. Thomas Young, North Potomac, Maryland Ex Officio William H. Miller, University of California, Berkeley, California Staff Charlotte V. Kuh, Executive Director Catherine Jackson, Administrative Assistant
OCR for page R8
--> The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council (NRC) was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing service to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R9
--> This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's (NRC) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the Research Council in making their published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Michael Clegg, University of California, Riverside, California Marye Ann Fox, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas Donald Fredrickson, former director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Lyle V. Jones, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Thomas J. Kennedy Jr., formerly with the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, and the Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC William Lennarz, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York Jeremy Nathans, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland John Perkins, University of Texas Southwest Medical Center, Dallas, Texas Ann Peterson, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, East Battle Creek, Michigan Thomas Pollard, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California Ann Preston, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York Paul Risser, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon Lee Sechrest, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona Allan Sprading, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland Michael Teitelbaum, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, New York, New York Raymond White, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah John Wiley, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin William Zumeta, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Although the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the National Research Council. Several of the reviewers listed above have published papers on PhD workforce issues; see, for example, Dr. Kennedy's 1994 paper, "Graduate Education in the Biomedical Sciences: Critical Observations on Training for Research Careers," in Academic Medicine (69:10).
OCR for page R10
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R11
--> Preface The National Research Council has regularly reported on issues of the scientific and engineering workforce, including questions related to the education, training, and deployment of scientific personnel. It actively maintains files on doctoral awards and periodically surveys their employment in science. The Council's interest in this arena is based on the importance of scientific research to the nation's welfare, and that is also the reason for interest in support of the education and training of life scientists. That support has chiefly come from three federal agencies: the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the US Department of Agriculture; numerous private foundations and public and private universities have also contributed. The US Congress has manifested interest in questions of supply of and demand for trained scientists in biomedical and behavioral science by establishing the National Research Service Award program at NIH, which provides funding explicitly for training scientists, and by requesting a periodic report from the National Academy of Sciences on national needs for biomedical and behavioral research personnel. Other agencies support life-science education and research through separate programs. Thus, this report, by the Committee on Dimensions, Causes, and Implications of Recent Trends in the Careers of Life Scientists, in the Board on Biology of the Research Council's Commission on Life Sciences, deals with issues that are pertinent to the agendas of a very wide array of agencies and institutions. The committee was charged to examine trends in research careers of life scientists in training, at the conclusion of training, and in the years immediately after training and to examine the implication of these trends for the persons involved and for the health of the life-science enterprise. The committee's goal was to frame recommendations that would be beneficial both to the young aspirants to scientific careers and to the enterprise they had committed to. The committee recognized that it was dealing with interdependencies among educators, trainees, investigators, funders, and entrepreneurs that truly constituted a sociotechnical system of great complexity. The importance of established stakes in the status quo quickly became apparent, and the committee recognized that there was no single locus of power to make changes in the system that has produced undesirable outcomes for some young scientists. If change is to occur, it will be through the uncoordinated action of many persons at many institutions who try to consider what is best for their students and their profession and then take appropriate action. Those insights tempered any ambition that the committee might initially have had to "reform" the system overnight by taking bold measures. The risk of doing more damage than good is great, given the complexity of the educational system, the size of the enterprise, and its importance for the nation's long-term interest. Accordingly, the committee's principal recommendations are measured rather than dramatic. The committee appointed to prepare this report was intentionally composed of individuals with a broad range of backgrounds and experience. To be sure, 10 of them were life scientists, but their occupations and scientific expertise were diverse. Five of the 10 were tenured full professors at major universities, one a postdoctoral fellow, and one a graduate student at the time of their appointment. Two were employed in industry. Among the nonbiologists, bringing experience in studies of the scientific labor force and scientific careers and a distance from direct interest in life-science research were two
OCR for page R12
--> economists, two psychologists, and a sociologist. The age range of the members was from the middle twenties to the middle seventies. Two department heads, a vice president for academic programs and planning, a dean of a graduate school, and a director of a research institute brought academic administrative viewpoints to the deliberations. (See appendix A for biographic sketches of the committee members.) In short, the interests of very nearly all the ''stakeholders" in the life-science enterprise were represented on the committee. Such diverse outlooks richly widened the arena of discussion and were mutually educative. They also tended to slow any rush to judgment until a true consensus could be achieved. To ensure that even the broad spectrum of views found among the committee members was enriched by outside views, we invited representatives of government and professional associations to testify before us. And we convened a public meeting at which 18 speakers presented their views and more than 50 other persons attended the meeting or made their views known through written comments. Appendix B contains the names of the speakers and other participants in this activity. A liaison group of government and scientific-organization data experts was asked to provide reactions to our early collections of data; we established contact with institutions performing relevant studies and used the information they provided. The members of the liaison group are listed after the committee roster. Attached to this report is an alternative perspective on the committee's recommendation 3, regarding training grants. All members of the committee except the author of the alternative perspective endorsed recommendation 3 after extensive discussion at several committee meetings. We have many other people to thank for assistance in accomplishing our task. Persons who in many instances gave up parts of their weekends to share their knowledge with the committee are Ruth Kirschstein, Walter Schaffer, John Norvell, and James Onken, of NIH; Mary Clutter and Joanne Hazlett, of NSF; Douglas Kelly, Jennifer Sutton, and Stanley Ammons, of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Mary Jordan, of the American Chemical Society; and Roman Czujko, of the American Institute of Physics. Participants in and contributors to our public meeting are listed in appendix B. Walter Schaffer, of NIH, and James Edwards, of NSF, were extremely helpful in their roles as program officers on behalf of their agencies. Data were made available by and useful discussions held with John Norvell, of NIH; Lawrence Burton of NSF; Lisa Sherman and Brooke Whiting, of AAMC; Georgine Pion, of Vanderbilt University; and Thomas J. Kennedy Jr. Edward O'Neill and Renee Williard, of the University of California, San Franciso (UCSF) Center for the Health Professions, provided us with their report on Pew scholars in the biomedical sciences, and the BioMedical Association of Stanford University, and the Postdoctoral Scholars Association of UCSF shared the results of their surveys of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.
OCR for page R13
--> The committee's task would have been immeasurably harder without the constant logistic, managerial, and professional support of Al Lazen, Porter Coggeshall, James Voytuk, Karen Greif, Charlotte Kuh, and Molla Teclemariam. At every stage of our work, these dedicated National Research Council staff prepared material for our enlightenment, responded to requests for more help, and took a constructive part in our meetings; they deserve no blame and much credit for our report. Shirley Tilghman Chair, Committee on Dimensions, Causes, and Implications of Recent Trends in the Careers of Life Scientists
OCR for page R14
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R15
--> Contents Executive Summary 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 11 Chapter 2 Education and Research Training of Life-Science PhDs 21 Chapter 3 Early-Career Employment Profiles of Life-Science PhDs 33 Chapter 4 Opportunities, Constraints, and Future Needs 49 Chapter 5 Implications of the Findings 63 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 79 Alternative Statement on Recommendation 3: Henry Riecken 91 Appendixes A Biographic Information 95 B Participants in Public Meeting 97 C Sources of Data 99 D Doctoral Fields Included for Data Analysis 103 E Data Tables for Chapter 2 105 F Data Tables for Chapter 3 129 G Getting Started on the World Wide Web: Web Sites of Interest to Young Scientists 175
OCR for page R16
This page in the original is blank.