|
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 403
Biology Research Infrastructure and
Recommendations
In the United States the positive links between basic research and the health
of citizens and the economy have always been appreciated. This realization has
been justified, as for example in the research findings that have led to improved
health care and agricultural efficiency, as well as to the development of a substan-
tial data base of useful biological knowledge. Many components contribute to the
overall strength of the field of biology, and these must be considered individually
and in combination in order to ensure the health of the field over the next decade.
Among these components are training, employment, equipment and facilities, and
funding. In addition, the role of large data bases and repositories needs special
consideration, as do the relative merits of developing large research centers
compared with additional support for individual investigators.)
U.S. Scientists Are Finding It Increasingly Difficult to Maintain Their Leading
Position in Biological Research
On He basis of the number of publications and citation rates, the United
States continues to be the dominant force in biological research. In 1982,
American life scientists (clinical, biomedical, biological, and agricultural sci-
ences) published about 87,549 research articles, representing 40 percent of all
biology articles published that year. This is a decrease from 42 percent in 1973 2
An estimate of the quality of U.S. publications can be measured by comparing the
number of publications in the top 10 percent of citations (Table 12-1~. In 1980,
the United States had nearly 13,000 publications in the top 10 percent, while the
next most prolific countries-the United Kingdom, Japan, West Germany, and
France-had only a small fraction of that (Computer Horizons, Inc., unpublished
data, 1987~. However, Japan and West Germany are increasing their shares
403
OCR for page 404
404
OPPORTUNITIES IN BIOLOGY
TABLE 12-1 (~ of Biologic Reteach ~ Measured by Uhe Number of PubEca~ons in She
Top 10 Percent of Papers Ciao
United United West
Sates Kingdom Japan Germany
%of %of
No. Tom
% of% of % of
No. TomNo. ToadNo. Tom No. Tow
1973 8,795 74 1,965 17 342 3 430 4 318 3
1980 12,869 70 2,641 14 1,081 6 1,058 6 618 3
Source: Conapu~r Horizons, Inc., 1987.
relative to the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. These data pose
many interesting questions. For example, is the percent increase demonstrated by
Japan a reflection of improved publication quality, increased quantity, or both?
Can Japan continue to increase at this rate? To what extent are these numbers
merely a function of the level of research investment by governments?
Patent activity in areas related to biology is another measure of our interna-
tional research position. Two recent reports produced by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office analyze patent data on genetic engineering and on molecular
biology and microbiology. A tabulation of patents of foreign origin granted in
genetic engineering shows that patents of U.S. origin have increased from 25
percent of the yearly total (both domestic and foreign origin) in 1973 to 78 percent
in 1986.3 For molecular biology and microbiology, the percentage of patents of
U.S. origin has remained steady at about 56 percent of the total since 1973.4 Since
these data were compiled from patents filed in the United States, they may not
precisely reflect the international patenting situation. However, in the highly
competitive U.S. patent system, the United States is maintaining its leadership
role.
The United States has long encouraged and benefited from
international cooperation in biological research. As other
countries increasingly emerge as valuable sources of quality
research, this policy of cooperation should be strengthened.
OCR for page 405
BIOLOGY RESEARCH INFRASIRUCrURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRAINING
The Number of PhD.s Awarded Each Year in the Biological Sciences in the
United States Is Leveling Off
405
The number of Ph.D.s awarded in the biological sciences increased sharply
between 1965 and 1970; the total number in 1985 was 3,766, compared to 3,361
in 1970 [National Research Council (NRC), unpublished data, 19881. The num-
ber of biology Ph.D.s earned in 1985 is more than twice that earned in either
chemistry or physics (Figure 12-1A); in this year, an additional 1,982 Ph.D.s were
awarded in the agricultural and health sciences.
It currently takes about 6.4 years of registered time to complete a Ph.D. in
biology after receiving a bachelor's degree; this is an increase of about a year
since 1970 (NRC, unpublished data, 1986~. In comparison, it currency takes
about 6.5 years to obtain a Ph.D. in physics and about 5.5 years in chemistry
(Figurel2-lB).
Support for around 70 percent of the total number of biology students comes
from federal and university sources ARC, unpublished data, 1986~. In 1986 there
were 36,916 biology graduate students in doctorate-granting institutions (exclud-
ing agricultural and health sciences); of these, 8,606 were supported by fellow-
ships and traineeships, 12,059 by research assistantships, X,609 by teaching assis-
tantships, 5,516 were self-supported, and 2,126 had other types of support.s
For postdoctoral support, the government contribution has remained at ap-
proximately 60 percent of the total number of postdoctoral positions and the
contribution by universities at about 15 percent from 1967 to 1985. However,
private foundations have doubled their postdoctoral support, from 8.9 percent
between 1967 and 1980 to 17.7 percent between 1981 and 1985. Chemistry and
physics Ph.D.s obtain a larger percentage of their support from colleges and
universities than do biology Ph.D.s. ARC, unpublished data, 1986~.
As measured by Graduate Record Exam (ORE) test scores between 1964 and
1982, the verbal skills, but not the quantitative skills of students entering graduate
school have declined. The GRE Biology Advanced Exam scores have changed
little between 1973 and 1986. Students intending to pursue an advanced degree in
biology or physical sciences have similar verbal and analytical scores. However,
physical science majors score appreciably higher on the quantitative section of the
exam.
The proportion of "A" high school students intending to major in biology has
dropped from 11.7 percent in 1974 to 6.6 percent in 1983.2 Concomitantly, the
number of biologists being trained at the bachelor's and master's levels has
sharply declined in the past decade. In 1983, the number of bachelor's degrees
conferred was down 26 percent from 1976, and the number of master's degrees
was down 13 percent.6
OCR for page 406
406
o
by
-
4000
3000
In
~ 2000
a)
._
Q
._
C'
a)
CI:
1000
7
Cal
._
a)
a)
a)
a)
C]
6
En
~5
- A
- B
-
OPPORTUNITIES IN BIOLOGY
4T
1960 1 965
Biology
0 Physics J
Chemistry /
1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR OF DOCTORATE
FIGURE 12-1 (A) Number of Ph.D. recipients in natural sciences. (B) Time required to fulfill
requirements for the Ph.D.
OCR for page 407
BIOLOGY RESEARCH INFRASIRUCIURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
407
In an attempt to assess the institutional training quality of universities grant-
ing Ph.D.s in the life sciences, the top 25 institutions in total federal obligation to
research and development supports were compared with the top 25 institutions in
numbers of Ph.D.s awarded in the life sciences ARC, unpublished data, 19863.
Of the top 25 research and development institutions, 11 are top producers of life
science Ph.D.s.
Funding Support for Training Falls Short of Covering Future Needs
to
Biological sciences in general and biomedical sciences in particular have
enjoyed more support for training at the pre- and postdoctoral levels than most
other fields in the natural sciences. This support has been rewarding; it has been
one of the important ingredients leading to the spectacular vitality of U.S. biology
in recent times. The majority of funds for training have come from the National
Institutes of Health (NIH); from the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration; and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Of the 10,382 NIH training positions awarded in 1986 (5,011 predoctoral and
5,371 postdoctoral), 83 percent were in institutional training grants and the
remainder were awarded to individuals. Competitively awarded NIH institutional
training grants are a good way to provide training support at quality institutions.
Training-grant programs such as this should be encouraged, especially for pre-
doctoral students.
The number of NIH-supported trainees has apparently leveled off after a
decrease after 1975 (Table 12-2~. Table 12-3 gives the total number of full-time
training positions supported by NIH for 1980, 1984, and 1986; it provides a
breakdown by the three NIH units most heavily involved in training [National
Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), the National Cancer Institute
(NCI), and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)~. At the
predoctoral level, most NIH support has been allocated to interdepartmental
training programs. In 1986, NIGMS provided funds for approximately 55 percent
of all NIH predoctoral trainees and for about 9 percent of all NIH postdoctoral
trainees, the rest of the support being divided among the other units of NIH
(William Pittlick, NIH, personal communication, 1987~. In total, about one-third
of the predoctoral training positions are in molecular and cell biology. The
corresponding fraction for postdoctoral fellowships is more difficult to assess.
The decline in training support since 1975 is alarming, especially when the
following points are considered. NSF awarded only 760 predoctoral fellowships
for 1988, which are distributed over all fields of scientific study. In addition, NSF
granted only 40 awards per year for postdoctoral fellowships in plant biology and
environmental studies, fields that have not been traditionally covered by NIH.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture CODA) offers 100 postdoctoral fellowships
per year in the Agricultural Research Service's Research Associates Program for
work with USDA scientists. USDA has also recently initiated a small predoctoral
OCR for page 408
408
OPPORTUNITIES IN BIOLOGY
TABLE 12-2 NIH Support of Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Fellows
Full-iime
(Millions of training
Year dollars) positions
1975 154.9 12,272
1980 176.4 10,664
1985 217.5 10,370
1986 212.8 10,382
1987 232.7 11,226a
19886 235.6 10,992
aEstimated.
Proposed.
Gaining program that provided 57 awards in 1987 Jane Coulter, USDA, personal
communication, 1988~. The NIH budget for 1988 allocates funds pnmanly for
continuing NIH training grants; support is not generally available for either
competitive renewals or new grants. Moreover, the majority of NIH Paining
grants are now funded below the levels recommended by NIH advisory councils.
Despite impressive advances and great opportunities in bi-
ology, we are rapidly approaching a crisis in training bio-
logical researchers. Current levels of support appear in-
adequate in the light of the shortages of trained personnel
predicted for the late l990s (see Employment section).
TABLE 12-3 Training Support (pro- and postdoctoral) for NIH as a Whole and for the Three
Largest Sources of Support within NIH
Number of Full-Time Training Positions
Year Total NIGMS NCI NHLBI
1980 10,664 3,765 1,530 1,549
1984 10,514 3,581 1,465 1,688
1986 10,382 3,238 1,394 1,633
NOTE: NCI = National Cancer Institute; NHLBI = National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and
NIGMS = National Institute of General Medical Sciences.
OCR for page 409
BIOLOGY RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Women and Minorities
The Number of Women Receiving PhD.s in Biology Has Been Steadily
Increasing, but Minorities Are Still Underrepresented
409
Approximately 1,000 women received Ph.D.s in the life sciences in 1976,
versus 2,020 in 1987.8 In 1987, women received 35 percent of all Ph.D.s awarded
in the life sciences.8 However, in a 1983 survey of academically employed life
science Ph.D.s reporting tenure status, only 64 percent of women reporting tenure
status had tenured or tenure-track positions, compared with 8X percent of men.9
Women generally earn less than men in every field of science, although there is
some recent evidence that this trend may be changing for women hired within the
past decade.
The recent employment and educational advances made by
women in the life sciences must be fostered and encouraged
in order to provide an attractive research and career envi
ronment.
In comparison with the figures for women in biology, the number of minor-
ity-group students (U.S. citizens or foreign minority-group students with perma-
nent visas) receiving Ph.D.s in this field has changed little, with minorities
receiving between 7 and 8 percent of the degrees in 1975 and 1987.8 to The exact
percentage of Ph.D.s awarded to minority groups is difficult to determine since
the number of Ph.D.s reported with unknown ethnic or visa status is large. The
number of foreign students receiving doctorates in the life sciences has remained
constant at about 2Q percent between 1962 and 1987.8 In the life sciences, the
visa status of foreign students has also remained fairly constant, with about 4
percent of all students having permanent and 16 percent having temporary visas.8
This is in contrast to engineering, where the number of students with temporary
visas has increased from 18 to 41 percent of total students between 1962 and
1987.8
Every attempt should be made to encourage complete rep-
resentation of members of minority groups in the biological
sciences. This will require in turn that greater attention be
paid to their precollege education so that equal Paining
opportunities will exist in college.
Current Training Needs
Training Mechanisms Need to Optimize Research Opportunities
In addition to a general increase in postdoctoral training, interdisciplinary
training is also needed in most areas of biology. Sophisticated research requires
OCR for page 410
410
OPPORTUNITIES IN BIOLOGY
not only knowledge of many areas of biology, such as molecular biology, devel-
opmental biology, and ecology, but also knowledge of other scientific disciplines,
such as chemistry, physics, and engineering. For example, developmental biol-
ogy requires expertise with several experimental systems. Other areas of research
can be studied effectively only at the interface between two or more traditionally
separate lines of research: We are now gaining insights into both plant and animal
pathogens through pioneering work involving molecular biology and microbial
pathogenesis.
Another example is the interface between molecular biology and neuro-
science. Here, a synergistic effect between classical neuroscience and molecular
biology has created one of the most exciting areas of biology today.
Biology is becoming more chemically and physically oriented, and in many
areas training requires an increasing focus on chemical and physical technologies.
This is especially important for research in structural biology, which provides an
atomic level of analysis for much of modern molecular biological research.
Similarly, evolution and diversity, systematics, population biology, and ecosys-
tem studies require an increasingly interdisciplinary approach that includes train-
ing in molecular biology, computer sciences, and mathematics.
Structural Molecular Biology Requires Scientists Expertly Trained in the
Physical and Biological Sciences
The blend of molecular genetics and structural analysis that will be needed
for the next decades of structural biology poses some serious problems for
training the next generation of scientists. Today it is relatively rare for an
individual to receive intensive training in both physics and biology. In fact,
rigorous structural and molecular genetic studies are frequently not even available
in the same academic department. One can deal with this problem within existing
formats by encouraging individuals to do predoctoral training in one field and
postdoctoral in another. However, creating unified programs that blend both
disciplines at an early stage in training is worth serious attention as a way of
producing the most highly skilled and innovative future investigators. It may be
possible to develop curricula that require less mathematics and physics than is
common in traditional structural biology, while still providing enough back-
ground in these areas to enable a biologically oriented scientist to use structural
tools and to appreciate the significance and limitations of structural results.
Another approach is to develop joint undergraduate programs between biology
and chemistry departments where students can learn about the many opportunities
for applying these techniques.
The major advances in developing new nuclear magnetic resonance ~MR)
and x-ray diffraction techniques are made by scientists trained in physics. Nu-
clear spin engineering-the production of sequences of radio frequency pulses-
is crucial to the simplification of the complex, overlapping NMR spectra from
OCR for page 411
BIOLOGY RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
411
large biological molecules. New methods to exploit anomalous x-ray scattering
to solve the x-ray phase problem require both experimental advances in x-ray
detection and the development of new computer algorithms. Thus, the future of
structural molecular biology will require interdisciplinary cooperation between
molecular biologists and highly trained and specialized x-ray diffraction and
Now specialists. Some of this need may be met by scientists trained in both
molecular biology and physics. Some of it, however, requires the participation of
those with a rigorous background in traditional physics. Currently, the students
and postdoctoral-level scientists trained in the physical sciences needed for the
development of structural molecular biology are in short supply.
Ecological and Evolutionary Sciences Require More Scientists Trained in a
Greater Variety of Subjects and More Manpower in General
The broad interdisciplinary nature of the modern training required in ecologi-
cal and evolutionary sciences must be recognized. Not only should evolutionary
biologists be conversant with the rapidly developing areas of genetics, molecular
biology, cell biology, and biomechanics, but they must also function in the
evolutionary framework of thought that emphasizes variation, interaction, history,
and the question of why rather than merely how an organism functions as it does.
In addition, ecologists routinely rely on statistical models that require an under-
standing of computer science and mathematics. The perspectives of evolutionary
biology, ecology, and systematics could be profitably incorporated into instruc-
tion in other areas of biology, with beneficial effects for the entire field. Because
the support of postdoctoral personnel by individual research grants is often
inadequate, a program of individual or institutional postdoctoral training grants
should be developed and targeted toward these areas.
Training at the predoctoral level is also a problem. The individual predoc-
toral fellowships now available are vitally important for attracting gifted young
men and women into these lines of research. In addition, to attract good students
it is also important to maintain the promise of the field in terms of availability of
future positions and funding for research.
An example of a problem area is systematics. In North America about 4,000
systematists work on 3,900 systematics collections. These numbers are mislead-
ing because a large fraction of these specialists, perhaps the majority, are engaged
only part time in systematics research. More to the point, few can identify
organisms from the tropics, where the great majority of species exist. Probably no
more than 1,500 professional systematists in the world are competent to deal with
tropical organisms, and their number may be declining because of decreased
professional opportunities, reduced funding for research, and assignment of higher
priority to other disciplines.
Favorable educational developments should be encouraged by special train-
ing-grant programs targeted toward these areas of biology. Moreover, additional
attention should be given to the concept of bringing together specialists from
OCR for page 412
412
OPPORTUNTTIES IN BIOLOGY
relevant fields to investigate ecological and evolutionary problems of mutual and
overlapping interest. In recent years, this approach has proven highly effective in
some areas of evolution and diversity, both as a research strategy and as a tech-
nique for training graduate students.
Training in the Plant Sciences Is Largely Restricted to Land-Grant Universities
Almost nowhere is the need for interdisciplinary training exemplified more
dramatically than in the plant sciences. Not only are there traditional disciplinary
barriers to research that are experienced by all areas of biology, but also there are
institutional barriers. Most departments of biology, for example, have little or no
expertise in the plant sciences. Therefore, most research and training activity in
plant biology is carried out in land-grant universities in conjunction with colleges
of agriculture-thus, land-grant universities employ 80 percent of all plant sci-
ence faculty. Many outstanding biology departments at private universities have
no plant scientists on their faculties. The lack of plant scientists in many biology
departments and the consequent lack of exposure of many biology students to the
plant sciences seriously limits cross-fertilization by interdisciplinary activity and
also limits the influx of talented scientists and students into plant biology re-
search. An interdisciplinary approach to the plant sciences that incorporates them
fully into the activities of strong biology departments and research groups is
needed to stimulate plant biology research as it has research on microorganisms,
Drosophila, nematodes, mice, and humans. To some extent, this is happening
now, but it must be encouraged and supported.
As biological research becomes more sophisticated, the need
increases to develop interdisciplinary and flexible training
programs for students, postdoctoral fellows, and established
scientists.
EMPLOYMENT
The employment profile for doctoral life scientists is changing. In 1973,
approximately 13 percent of all life science Ph.D.s were employed in industry, 67
percent in educational institutions, and 10 percent in government. However, by
1985, employment by industry had risen to 19 percent while employment in
educational institutions and government had decreased to 61 and ~ percent,
r,espectively.5
It Is Difficult to Forecast the Future Demandfor Biology PhD.s in Academia,
but Some Shortages May Be Experienced in Some Fields
Generally, three sources of Ph.D.s fill academic positions: new Ph.D.s,
employees previously supported by grants such as postdoctoral fellows, and
OCR for page 413
BIOLOGY RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
413
Ph.D.s working for industry. In 1983, slightly fewer than 50 percent of all new
hires in academia (3,179 total) were of new Ph.D.s (63 percent of these in a
tenure-track position. That year, the new hires represented 6.S percent of the
46,566 full- and part-time Ph.D.s employed in life-science fields at these institu-
tions; of those, turnover accounted for4.3 percept end new positions 2.5 percent.
It has been estimated that for every 100 job openings in academia, there are about
156 new life science Ph.D.s.~ In general, this discrepancy between Ph.D.s over
academic positions will persist through the 1990s. At about the turn of the
century, however, individuals in existing positions will retire in increasing num-
bers (about 20 percent of the science faculty will reach age 65 in 10 years. At
the same time, the undergraduate enrollment rate is projected to increase. Whether
or not there will be enough Ph.D.s to fd1 the projected demand depends largely on
the needs of industry during this period. For example, in 1987, 24 percent of new
life science Ph.D.s (U.S. citizens and permanent residents) were hired by indus-
try; in 1977 that figure was 17 percent.8 If industrial hiring trends continue,
shortages of faculty members in some subdisciplines of biology may develop.
Industry Has Become a Major Employer of Biologists
In 1985, industry employed 19,200 life-science Ph.D.s, in 1973, 7,100.5
Industry has always offered an attractive employment option for biologists be-
cause of higher salaries and larger research budgets. However, working for
industry was generally viewed by many university biologists as intellectually
stifling. Such is no longer the case; industrial research and development pro-
grams are now contributing to major scientific discoveries. In addition, discover-
ies in basic biology are leading to practical applications at an increasing rate. As a
result, industry is now in direct competition with academia for some of the best
biologists in the country.
Biotechnology Research and Development Programs in Irulustry Are Growing
Biotechnology, as defined by NSF and the Office of Technology Assessment,
is a technique that uses living organisms or parts of organisms to make or modify
products, to improve plants or animals, or to develop microorganisms for specific
uses.
The five main areas of research and development in the U.S. biotechnology
industry are health care, plant agriculture, chemicals and food additives, animal
agriculture, and energy and the environment. According to an NSF survey, the
biotechnology industry spent about $1.1 billion in 1985, which was an increase of
20 percent from 1984. Of the 94 companies responding to the survey, health care
accounted for 66 percent of the total spent, whereas plant agriculture-the next
highest area in terms of research and development expenditures-accounted for
only 13 percent of the total. The biotechnology industry employed approximately
8,000 scientists and engineers in 1986, which is an increase of 12 percent from
OCR for page 414
414
OPPORTUNITIES IN BIOLOGY
1985.13 Thus, the biotechnology industry is a viable employment option, espe-
cially for scientists with expertise in biochemistry, cell biology, microbiology,
immunology, molecular genetics, and bioprocess engineering, as well as for
technicians trained in instrumentation. There is a growing concern that recruiting
scientifically competent people at the bachelor's, master's, and doctoral levels is
going to become increasingly more difficult and that this difficulty may impede
the growth of the industry. In support of this concern, is the fact noted earlier that
the number of students receiving B.S. degrees in the life sciences decreased 26
percent between 1976 and 1983 and the number receiving master's degrees by 13
percent. In contrast, however, the number of Ph.D. degrees awarded remained
relatively stable.6
Shortages of trained technical personnel in biology are now
occurring at the bachelor's and master's levels. Attempts
should be made to enhance university training programs at
these levels, especially in biotechnology-related areas (bio-
chemistry, cell biology, microbiology, immunology, molecu-
lar genetics, and bioprocess engineering).
Shortages of Ph.D s in biotechnology-related areas are an-
ticipated in the late 1990s. Therefore, appropriate educa-
tional programs should be initiated and supported immedi-
ately.
At the same time that we recognize the importance of biotechnology indus-
tries as important employers of life-science graduates, it is crucial to realize that
many fields of biology are not represented, or poorly represented, ~ industry.
Systematics, evolution, and ecology, for example, are all central to our ability to
manage He global ecosystem for sustained productivity. If the U.S. scientific
enterprise is to continue to be strong, it must continue to find ways to utilize the
talents of biologists of all kinds, not simply those who are working in fields Tat
offer immediate rewards in terms of commercial prospects or major grants.
LABORATORY COSTS AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS
More Attention Needs to Be Directed to the Increasing Requirements for Quality
Research Equipment and to the Increasing Expense of Laboratory Operation
As biology experimentation becomes more sophisticated, the research equity
ment and facilities needed often become more advanced and therefore usually
more expensive. Currently it takes between $100,000 and $200,000 to adequately
equip a laboratory for molecular biology research. For example, a centrifuge can
cost about $70,000, a spectrophotometer about $20,000, a liquid scintillation
OCR for page 415
BIOLOGY RESEARCH INFRASTRUClURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
415
counter about $20,000 and these are only part of the equipment needed to equip
a modern biology laboratory. It can cost three to four times that amount to equip a
laboratory for x-ray crystallography studies. Once a laboratory is assembled,
operation and maintenance costs (excluding salaries) can approach $50,000 per
year for a modest research program. Therefore, modern biologists must have a
source of research funds adequate to meet the high costs of equipment and
research supplies.
The amount of money spent on equipment for the life sciences at colleges and
universities increased about 10 percent between 1983 and 1984 and 18 percent be-
tween 1985 and 1986.S The total amount spent for research equipment at colleges
and universities was $318 million in 1986.5 Results from a national survey,~4 is
which focused on equipment costing from $10,000 to $1 million, indicated that, in
biology, approximately 35 percent of actively used research equipment systems
are located in shared facilities.~4 The 1983 national stock of such academic
research equipment in the biological sciences and deparunents of medicine was
estimated to have an aggregate original cost of $555 million and a replacement
cost (in constant 1982 dollars) of $863 million.tS
Results of the survey indicated that fewer than 20 percent of biological
science department heads characterized the adequacy of their current research
instrumentation as "excellent," and nearly 60 percent reported that researchers in
their departments cannot conduct critical experiments because of a lack of neces-
sary equipment. In addition, of the equipment in active use in 1983, half of the
systems were in some degree of disrepair; 80 percent were not state-of-the-art.tS
It is clear from this survey that the condition of much of the research
equipment used in biology laboratories throughout the country is less than desir-
able. Even worse, a considerable number of scientists have limited their research
programs because they lack crucial equipment.
Because of the ever-increasing need for and expense of LAbora-
tory equipment, funds to provide for specific pieces of equip-
ment should be available. This is especially true when re-
quested equipment is to be placed in a shared facility.
The development of instrumentation and general technology should be en-
couraged nationally to further both basic science and its applications to socially
and economically important problems. Specific encouragement by funding agen-
cies should be given to the development of new areas (such as tunneling electron
microscopy and fast computation technologies) and techniques that can improve
productivity (such as robotics applied to biological and chemical systems).
The development of instrumentation to be applied to a vari-
ety of biological problems should be accelerated.
OCR for page 416
416
OPPO~I7JNITIES IN BIOLOGY
FUNDING
It Is Crucial That Limited Funds Be Spent in Such a Way as to Ma~cirruze the
Progress of Biological Research
In the United States, the vast majority of biological research support has
come from the federal government in the form of research grants, formula funds
such as Hatch funds for agricultural research, and intramural research programs.
Probably the most important component contributing to the success of U.S.
biological research is funding. The U.S. government has made a sustained effort
to provide appropriate support for research in the life sciences. From 1970 to
1985, federal funding for life science research increased from $1.44 to $6.37
billion. Although the effects of some of this increase have been offset by
inflation, the percentage increase in constant 1972 dollars is still about 72 percent.
For 1987, an estimated $2.84 billion was spent on general biology, $263 million
on environmental biology, $612 million on agriculture, and $2.18 billion on
medical sciences.
In an attempt to evaluate the level of federal support for U.S. biological
research (in 1972 dollars), Ph.D. biologists employed in scientific and engineer-
ing jobs for 1973 and 1983 were compared with the level of federal support
provided during those years. In 1973, approximately $34,000 per Ph.D. was
provided, whereas in 1983, approximately $28,000 was provided. This does not
mean that each scientist received that much support, but rather that the federal
contribution supported, in part, that number of scientists.) The actual level of
support per biologist has decreased over the years as increasing numbers of
scientists have been added to the biology work force and even as the average costs
of research have increased. Biology is a growing field, and the number of
biologists is expanding; it is therefore important that the federal government
continue to keep an adequate supply of research money available to reflect both
the growth of biology and the increasing costs of doing research.
How research funds are allocated in the future is a matter of prime impor-
tance. To what extent should limited funds be used to support research centers
versus individual investigators? To what extent should high-priority areas be
funded over those of lower priority? To what extent could the funding of
individual investigators be made more stable and longer term? Biological re-
search is becoming more complex and therefore more expensive, and long-term
commitments are often required if the desired results are to be obtained. This has
tended to increase the level of funding needed to support individual research
projects. Therefore, along with the overall increase in the number of scientists
needed is an increasing need for greater research support. The 72 percent increase
in constant dollars for the field as a whole over the past 15 years has not made it
possible to attain all the potential results that might have been produced. In
addition, there is an increasing demand for research projects that require long-
term funding for 5 years or more; funding of this sort has traditionally been rare.
OCR for page 417
BIOLOGY RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
417
Some granting agencies are now providing long-term support, and it is hoped this
trend will continue. If additional long-term support for research becomes avail-
able, new and imaginative ways need to be developed to review results of long-
term projects.
Funding for new faculty members is also a problem that needs immediate
attention. New faculty members are faced with enormous research start-up costs
and have considerable pressure to acquire external funding before their research
programs have even begun. For many, this is a catch-22 situation; often prelimi-
nary data to justify funding are not available, but funding is required if these data
are to be obtained. Therefore, most new faculty members are either forced to
continue research initiated while in graduate school or as postdoctoral students or
to undertake an underfunded research program. Similarly, established scientists
find it difficult to obtain funding in areas of research that are not directly con-
nec~d with their main area of expertise. This greatly limits the growth and
diversity of research programs of individual investigators and the level of innova-
iion possible in the system as a whole. The NSF Presidential Young Investigator
and the NIH First Awards Programs are good examples of support mechanisms
for quality research by new faculty members.
Agencies should increase their programs that provide long-
term and start-up funding and should look with favor on
innovative projects by qualified investigators that propose
research in new, creative directions.
In reviewing the progress of biology over the past 40 years, two things
become clear that must be taken into account when considering future funding
initiatives. First, throughout this enormously successful process of federal fund-
ing, the driving force never came from the granting agencies or from great
insights of an individual authority. Second, the role that the funding agencies play
is that of the ardent listener, the support role. Inventiveness, creativity, and
productivity are rewarded with peer-reviewed infusions of support. The driving
force is the individual investigator staking career and reputation on the pursuit of
novel insights with the funding agency more or less supporting these individual
efforts. Therefore, research opportunities that merit funding should rise from
within the research community, from individual investigators, and should not be
predetermined. For example, the track record of most prophets of the use of
recombinant DNA is dismal. A reading of some of the older literature shows a
consistent underestimation of the rate of progress of molecular genetics and a
tendency to be blindsided by breakthroughs.
Engineering and the Biological Sciences Need to Develop an Interface
Opportunities exist in instrumentation development and bioprocess engineer-
ing, which require engineers and biologists to interact closely. For example, the
development of automated procedures, such as those for DNA purification and
OCR for page 418
418
OPPOI{TUNITIES IN BIOLOGY
sequencing, would greatly facilitate the large-scale sequencing efforts that are
currently being contemplated. However, limited funds are available at this time.
In the NSF biotechnology program, which funds joint proposals of engineers and
biologists, many meritorious proposals are not currently being funded because the
money is unavailable, yet such projects are probably some of the most significant
for the development of science as a whole. In 1987, this program supported 14
proposals at $200,000 per year per proposal (Frederick Heineken, NSF, personal
communication, 1988~. A new thrust is needed in technology development for the
biological sciences so Hat engineers can work in an interactive environment with
biologists. Training programs could provide engineers a working knowledge of
the needs of biologists, and vice versa.
Industry Funding and Research Is Playing an Increasing Role in Basic
Biological Research
Besides being a key employer of biologists, industry contributes substantially
to important basic discoveries and is increasingly involved in funding extramural
research projects, both basic and applied, at universities. Industrial support and
research collaborations with the academic community provide a mechanism for
more rapidly converting basic biological discoveries to the solutions of major
industrial and social research and development problems.
Research in the Ecological and Evolutionary Sciences Has Traditionally
Been a Relatively Low-Budget Enterprise
Traditionally, the funding of research in these areas involves one or a few
investigators working in the laboratory or field, and present funding mechanisms
and levels of support reflect this history. The increased need for modern technol-
ogy in many areas of research has not been matched with increased support, with
the result that many research projects are carried out less efficiently or completely
than they might be, solely because funds are lacking.
The typical terms of support, which range from 3 to 5 years, are often
inconsistent with the long-term nature of some studies in ecology. Investigators
may be discouraged from committing their careers to a long-term study when
faced with the risk that their funding may be terminated at the end of any 3- or 5-
year term of support, even when the project is still incomplete. This is especially
true when research funding is tight, as termination of support may not reflect on
the quality of the overall research project, but rather the lack of available funds or
shifted priorities in the granting agencies.
Some aspects of ecology and related fields are subject to an organization of
funding that may be less than optimal. For example, research proposals in
population or evolutionary genetics are often reviewed by panelists who, while
expert in the genetics of the relevant organism, lack knowledge in the field of
OCR for page 419
BIOL£:)GY RESEARCH INFRASlRUCTURE APID RECOMMENDATIONS
419
population genetics and are therefore unable to review the proposal in its appro-
priate context. Peer review is thereby ineffective. Because of the composite
nature of many of the subdisciplines of ecology and evolution, proposals may be
unusually difficult to review adequately. Funding is scarce and provided mainly
by a single agency (NSF); it is particularly important that the relevant panels in
this area function optimally.
Another problem concerns the neglect of traditional areas for the sake of
emerging new ones. Without a revision of such attitudes, we are likely to simply
allow a major fraction of the earth's species and their inherent biological diversity
to pass into extinction without ever seriously attempting to learn about its exis-
tence. The completion of biological surveys of selected groups of organisms for
the entire world, and of all groups of organisms for certain areas, is a priority of
fundamental importance that can be realized better now than will ever again be
possible, owing to the rapid pace of extinction. Such activity may also make
possible the preservation of a greater proportion of the organisms than would be
possible otherwise. The organization and mechanisms of federal grant support of
research in evolutionary biology and diversity should be seriously examined,
especially since opportunities are being lost so rapidly.
Plant Sciences Require a Stronger Funding Base to Ma~czmzze the Current
Interest and Excitement in This Area
The funds available to support basic plant sciences on a competitive basis are
very limited. In 1985, competitive grants from federal agencies for basic biologi-
cal and medical research amounted to $2.2 billion. Of this, only about 5 percent
was awarded to the plant sciences. The main competitive grant support for basic
plant sciences is provided by NSF (43 percent in 1986), with USDA, NIH, and
DOE providing about 19 percent each. It was hoped that He Competitive
Research Grants Office of USDA, established In 1978, would assume a major role
in funding of basic plant research. This has not been the case. For 1987, the total
funding for basic plant sciences was about $25.6 million (excluding forestry).
The awards granted by the USDA office are usually for not more than 2 years at
an average of $46,200 per year in 1986. This can be compared with an average of
$70,000 per year for 3 years for an NSF award.
Parasitology Is an Underfunded Research Area of Great Importance in
Tropical Medicine
Parasitology is conventionally limited to the parasitic families of protozoa,
helminths (worms) and arthropods, and ectoparasites that include several insect
families owing their significance to their role as transmitters of important dis-
eases. For two main reasons, this group of infectious agents remains the premier
cause of global ill health. First, human parasitic diseases primarily afflict the less
OCR for page 420
420
OPPO~UNITI~ IN BIOLOGY
developed nations, especially in the tropics. Second, parasites are technically
tedious organisms to work with. The basic conditions for growth and experimen-
tal study have often not been defined.
LARGE DATA BASES AND REPOSITORIES
Problems in Information Handling Are Becoming Critical
The exponential increase in biological data has produced information back-
logs and overwhelmed data bases. Macromolecular sequencing-the sequencing
of the components of proteins and nucleic acids-represents one area in which
current information-management systems are inadequate. Therefore, data-base
systems and scientific networks need to be established to increase the flow of
information among scientists and to allow for the rapid input, manipulation, and
update of data. Some additional areas that require attention to information
management are ecological modeling, genome mapping, structure-function rela-
tionships of macromolecules, and biological inventories.
As more information from diverse sources accumulates, the need to apply a
matrix approach or other advanced data-handling methods to max~nize the knowl-
edge potential of each item of information will increase. Therefore, it is becom-
ing imperative that biologists receive the necessary education and training in
information science. Although some information management issues are being
addressed, such as practical aspects of the management of nucleic acid sequence
data, other issues, such as information science education for biologists, are not.
An assessment of the information-handling requirements
for biology should be made. Special emphasis should be
given to the training needs of biologists in the information
sciences and to the maintenance and enhancement of large-
scale data bases.
Another important source of biological information consists of the resources
of systematics collections, mainly held in museums. Comparative biology, evolu-
tion, and ecology require such collections, properly curated and preserved and
actively studied so that the information in them is readily available. More than a
billion samples of plants, animals, and microorganisms are preserved in the
museums of the United States, and huge numbers are housed elsewhere. Yet
these collections represent only a fraction of the biological diversity on earth, and
for the most part even the specimens in them have been inadequately studied. The
museums and similar institutions where they are housed are usually inadequately
funded. NSF's program on Biology Research Resources, which contributes
major funds, provided $5.5 million in 1987 -tames Edwards, NSF, personal
communication, 1988~. When a collection is located in a university, its potential
is often neglected. For society as a whole and for the advance of biological
OCR for page 421
BIOLOGY RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
421
knowledge generally, such collections are literally priceless, and ways must be
found of funding their needs adquately and making the information in them
available. The diverse nature of systematics collections makes it difficult to
determine the total funding needed to provide adequate support, but clearly they
are currently underfunded.
Collections of living organisms, such as those housed in zoos, botanical
gardens, aquaria, seed banks, and tissue culture centers, urgently require in-
creased funding for their proper preservation. The particular strains of organisms
used for specific biological experiments should be preserved for future studies;
genetic material that has the potential of enhancing either scientific research or the
economic potential of our industry likewise merits preservation. National fund-
ing for such collections is low (for example, only $1.5 million in 1987 from
NSF's program on living organisms genetic stock centers), while the collections
themselves are growing rapidly in size and importance. In addition, living
organisms from international sources are becoming increasingly difficult to im-
port as a result of strict federal regulations. With as many as a quarter of the
earth's species at risk over the next several decades, the selective preservation of
species demands a high priority: Our actions now will determine in many in-
stances which kinds of organisms will still exist in the future. Existing centers
should be supported, and new efforts should be initiated to gather adequate
samples of critical taxa that are approaching extinction. Tissue culture centers,
repositories of DNA clones, and other facilities are likewise growing, yet our
national effort in preserving them is minimal and must be systematized soon for
the common good of science and society.
A unified approach needs to be adopted in organizing and
maintaining collections of preserved and living specimens
and other biological materials. This will require increased
funding and attention.
RESEARCH CENTERS AND THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATOR
Research Centers Should Provide a Valuable Addition to Individual
Investigator Research
The past several years have witnessed a move toward the establishment of
government-funded, university-based research centers. NSF funds various cen-
ters at a total expense that reached $115 million in fiscal year 1987. These centers
focus on a wide array of topics, including materials research, engineering, and
biology. NSF also launched a presidential initiative on science and technology
centers in 1987.~7
Centers should be established in such a way as to enhance the efforts of
individual investigators. In the United States, it has often been the individuality
OCR for page 422
422
OPPORTUNITIES IN BIOLOGY
of particular scientists that has made advances possible; some fear exists that the
creation of centers might stifle such individual efforts by consuming research
funds once used by individual investigators and by institutionalizing an uncrea-
tive environment within the center itself. This need not be the case; the research
environment in centers is largely a matter of the ways in which the goals of the
center are expressed and pursued and the roles that individual investigators play in
them. Also, NSF seems committed to keeping their support for centers at 10
percent of the foundation budget. Therefore, it appears that NSF-funded individ-
ual investigators will not experience new funding shortages as a result of the
creation of NSF centers. It is hoped that centers will allow interactions between
scientists representing many different specialties to create something greater than
could have been achieved by any number of individuals working in isolation,
even if funded generously.
Centers can provide a valuable approach to research, but
the operation of a center should not interfere with the fund-
ing or creativity of the individual investigator.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Because of differences in methods of presentation among our sources
of information, data are presented in this chapter for either the biological
sciences or the life sciences. Generally, the life sciences consist of biological,
agricultural, and health sciences.
2. National Science Board. 1985. Science Indicators: The 1985 Report.
Washington, D.C.: NSF 85-1, National Science Foundation.
3. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, The Office of Documentation.
1986. Technology Profile Report Genetic Engineering. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Commerce.
4. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, The Office of Documentation.
1987. Technology ProfUe Report Class 435-Chemistry: Molecular Biology
and Microbiology, Washington D.C.: U.S. Deparunent of Commerce.
5. NationalScience Board. 1987. Science and EngineeringIndicators-
1987. NSB87-1. Washington,D.C.: NationalScience Foundation.
6. Grant, W. V., and T. D. Snyder. 1986. Digest of Educational Statistics
1985-86. Washington,D.C.: U.S.Depa~entofEducation.
7 x7~. In ~ _ ~ _ ~ ^- ~ ma_ ~ ~
1~a"~l=1 o`;l`;ll~;t; rounuanon. l Yd / . ~eaem Support to Universities,
Colleges, and Selected Nonprofit Institutions: Fiscal Year 1986. NSF 87-318.
Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
8. National Research Council. 1989. Summary Report 1987: Doctorate
Recipients from United States Universities. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
OCR for page 423
BIOLOGY RESEARCH INFRASIRUCIURE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
423
9. National Science Foundation. 1986. Women and Minorities in Science
and Engineering. NSF 86-301. Washington, D.C.: National Science
Foundation.
10. National Research Council. 1976. Summary Report 1975: Doctorate
Recipients from United States Universities. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
11. Syverson, P. O., and L. E. Forster. 1984. New Ph.D.s and the
Academic Labor Market. Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel Staff
Paper No. 1. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.
12. Lozier, G. G., and M. J. Doons. 1987. Is higher education
confronting a faculty shortage? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Baltimore, Md., November
21-24, 1987.
13. NationalScience Foundation. 1987. Biotechnology Research and
Development Activities in Industry: 1984 and 1985. NSF 87-311. Washington,
D.C.: National Science Foundation.
14. Burgdorf, K., and H. J. Hausman. 1985. Academic Research
Equipment in Selected Science/Engineering Fields, 1982-83. Washington, D.C.:
National Science Foundation.
15. Hausman, J., and K. Burgdorf. 1985. Academic Research Equipment
and Equipment Needs in the Biological and Medical Sciences. Bethesda, Md.:
National Institutes of Health.
16. National Science Foundation. 1987. Federal Funds for Research and
Development Federal Obligations for Research by Agency and Detailed Field
of Science/Engineering: Fiscal Years 1967-1987. Washington, D.C.: National
Science Foundation.
17. Panel on Science and Technology Centers. 1987. Science and
Technology Centers: Principles and Guidelines. Washington,D.C.: National
Academy of Sciences.
OCR for page 424
Representative terms from entire chapter:
biological research
