Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 265


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 264
264 THE LIFE SCIENCES TABLE 19 Types of Research Conducted by Some Life Scientists a DISCIPLINE OF ACADEMIC ORIGINAL TRAINING Basic NONACADEMIC Clinical Applied Basic Clinical Applied ALL BIOLOGISTS 9018 22 79 19 48 Ph.D. in Agronomy 711 91 72 1 85 Fish and Wildlife 54 ~54 80 - 90 Forestry 75 78 71 90 Anatomy 996 1 100 - 11 Biochemistry 997 5 87 14 36 Microbiology 946 23 72 15 62 Animal Pathology 10010 - 100 Pharmacology 975 9 82 15 68 Physiology 975 14 86 15 47 Botany 991 8 89 2 48 Entomology 91< 1 54 77 l 73 Ecology 961 24 80 2 66 Plant Pathology 903 71 86 80 Zoology 99< 1 7 86 3 36 M.D. Only 7665 12 68 59 22 a All numbers represent the percentage of responding scientists in each class of employing institu- tions who indicated their work was, in any degree, basic, applied, or clinical, and horizontal columns are not additive since a respondent may indicate more than one type of research. The figures do not reflect the proportions of their effort. Source: Survey of Individual Life Scientists, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. it as applied, since he hopes to develop a new drug. Taking into considera- tion these broad caveats, the data of Table 19 provide a useful description of the world of biological research. FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH IN THE LIFE SCIENCES Research in the life sciences is a substantial national enterprise in which the United States invested $2,264 million in fiscal year 1967*; of this, 30 per- cent was provided by industry, 4.1 percent by foundations and other private granting agencies, 1.2 percent by academic institutions from their own resources, 0.3 percent by local and state governments, and 60.3 percent * Basic Data Relating to the National Institutes of Healli' 1969, Associate Director for Program Planning and Evaluation and the Division of Research Grants, National Institutes of Health. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, p. 4.

OCR for page 264
THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH by the federal government, principal patron of the endeavor. Table 20 summarizes federal expenditures for life science research in fiscal year 1968. Research supported by industry was largely conducted in-house. In all, biomedical research conducted within federal laboratories required the expenditure of approximately $435 million. In part because of the pro- prietary nature of industrial biomedical research, and largely because the "principal investigator" in industrial and federal laboratories functions with a large supporting organization for whose expenditures he is not responsible, it was patently impossible to obtain, by questionnaire, mean- ingful data concerning research expenditures from individual scientists in these two sectors. Our data, therefore, are restricted to information pro- vided by individual life scientists employed by academic institutions and by academic department chairmen. Only the former are considered in this chapter; the latter are discussed in the succeeding chapter. The col- lected data, summarized in Tables 21, 22, and 23, indicate that in fiscal year 1967 the 4,046 responding academic life scientists, each of whom was principal investigator of one or more research grants or contracts, had available to them, collectively, $162,883,000 in support of the direct costs of research. The growth of this system is indicated by the fact that, in the previous year, the same investigators had available $134,726,000 and, in the prior year, $115,319,000. It is most unfortunate that we have no data for the same group in fiscal years 1969 or 1970, and, hence, no realistic data base with which to examine the consequences of the alterations in federal funding of science that have occurred since our questionnaires were distributed. It will be seen that, using our categorizations of the life sciences, molecu- lar biology and biochemistry commanded one fourth of all reported support, a substantial fraction of which went to individuals with appointments in clinical departments. Following, in rank order, were physiology (17 per- cent) and disease mechanisms (14 percent). Only 1 percent of the total support went to scientists who stated that they were studying morphological problems and 2 percent, each, to those engaged in behavioral biology and in the study of systematic biology and evolution, with other research areas distributed in between. The magnitude of support reported for the research area of disease mechanisms is disturbing in that, proportionally, it is very significantly under-represented. While the relative support per research area for all other areas may be considered a reasonably fair indication of the fraction of total national support that they command, this is surely not the case for disease mechanisms, presumably due to the disproportionately low response to our questionnaire by clinical investigators. Thus, it is highly doubtful that the support of research directly concerned with disease mechanisms 265

OCR for page 264
266 THE LIFE SCIENCES oo Ct a, - C) U. ._ ._ - ._ U. ._ ? C) a' CQ C) Cal V, ._ ._ C) cd U. o o ._ Ct ._ ~ O ~ _ o Ct ~ C) o ~ Cal o ~ ~ at - CC ~ Z U' CQ Lo _ PA ~ Z CC CQ Am _ [M z U' ~ Z it, ~ z oc .o.o m e' o E" z Z ~ ;> am CC cs ~ ~ 1 ~ \~, ~ 8 ~' ~ - .~. ~t ~ r ~0 ~ ~- s:: ~ ~ - _ X c%4 o ~t~) ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ X ~ ~ oo v~ x o ~oo ~ vo o ~ ~r - ~1 1 0 0 ~V) ~- ~ ~U) C~ ~ ~ ~ O O 0\ ~1 1 0 o ~ ~ 0 ~D x r o ~oo ~c~ r- ~ ~ ~ _ o~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~o" ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 _ 0 '.o m. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 o~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 m V) 0 ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~mxx - -- 1 1 ~= - ~ .= .= ~ ~ ~ 1 ~o ~ ~ 1 ~o ~ ~ 1 1 _ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ _ ~ ~ ~0 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~o x ~ 1 1 ce ~` ~r _ ~ x ~ x x ~nt ~ ~ m ~ <~, ~ 0` ~q ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ _ '~' ~ ~ 0 ~ g oo 7; I I ~ m ~ I _ ~ ~ ~00 ~_ o ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ `0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ _ 00 ~ {t ~4 ~ X O O ~ O ~ \0 ~X O ~ ~ 1 ~ -~ O a ~= ~x~~- ~ O _~', . ~ _ O ~ c~ 00 _ ~ Ok _ \~) L~ O o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "o ~o ~ 1 8 _ ~ ~ X ~ X ~_ _ o~ 0 ~o ~i \0 0 ~r ~i ~o ~r- (~] _ t_ ~ ~V) ~ C ~U} ~_l X ~o ~ -o ~ ~ ~ - 0 ~ ~ (q ~V~ ~ ~ - 0Oo 0^ 0` - v ~_ ~0\ r~ ~0 o Ct' .0 .C) m ~I O y i 5 0 5 e _ ~ 8_ o o = ~ E ~ U E.- '^ ,~, ~o ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~C E E E E C ~ ~ ~ ~ C c ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'' o ~ ~ o o o = ~CQ~2~Q ~ ~ ~ zmm E" ~

OCR for page 264
THE WORED OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH 267 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I_ ~, o ~o~ oso 1 ~- oo ~ ~- t.;` Io ~ t- ~1 o \0 ~{q ~ -I 1 0 ~r ~ ~ ~0 I ~4 1 0 ~U] 0\ \0 _1 ~O o0 0 `1 ~t~) oo ~_ ~{q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0\ r~ ~ _ o o _ _. ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ o (q ~ oo o ~ o _ - ~o ~ G C ~l l l l l l l l ~oX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ _ (o ~oo O _ 0 ~ ~ O ~ _ _ ~_ ~r ~_ C) _ U3 ~_, E-' ~ r ~O ::1 n E . u E =, o E = u C o o o o 3 3 o ~ ~ ~ ~ = :' = ~ ~ on ~ ~ m m m m ;~ ~ z 0 1 1 ~ 1 1 o - C~ IX ~o~ o~ ~1 ~ 1 ~ _ _ ~q I_ ~ _4 _ o _ _I ~o - ~o No u] ~v) (o ~v) ~ ~ ~ o~ v~ oo ~ ~r~ ~ -o ~ -- ~ -~ u] oY ~oo ~q oY ~- ~ ~ o ~ ~oo oN oo ~ ~ - tr) i~4 ~ ~ - o o o - . - ~ ~e a .a .= 0 4} ~Ct ~ ~ C) C4, ~U, C S O , ~ e c 0, c c ' ~ E ,~v ':~ =- Z ~ Io _4 o ~o - _~ o~ .o ~s C =~ ~q S . ~o - [.L, ~ o ~ o _ o) . _ ~ ~ ~ C ,o ~ ,o ~ ~%- ~2 ~ 1 1 I ~, ~, - ~o ~4 1 V) _ O ~1 ~ {q ~_ V) U) ~D 1 1 r~ 1 1 Io ~C~ ~C ~ r ~', _, V) x C~ - _. bo o o s .,5 ;~ ~;, o ~ ~ ~ - o o ~S . ~s S ~ ~, o ~ ~ _ o . ~ ~; ~,; o o o ~ ~,.t ~ ~i ~i E O O tq ._ _ ._ _ o V 04 _ ,_ ~ o C) ._ _ ._ ._ ._ ._ V) s c C) o - ~: Ct CJ U, ~n - Ct ~3 C) o Ct C7` ~m _ o ,t,~ . - CQ .= - o E - s C~ Z~ ..> qJ q, o~ C~O

OCR for page 264
~*~ ~< ~oloo~ Id\ W~ ? 1~1 u, 'e - o o v, ~: o . - s: - ~ - ~ c~ c) ~: . - v) c) c40 . - ~s . - ct c~ - cd o - L4 o Q" ~n - ct - c) ct - <: u) z ~ o o z ~ o L~ m 268 o V~ ~ o o~ o _ x ~ X o o X o o o v _. ~o ~o oo _ _ ~ o ~ o _ ~ . .. ~ o_ X ~ C~ ~o . .. o oo ~4 o o I_ o o ~ o o o _ o o o~ ~ o o o o C, U. , CL- ~s _ ._ s s~ 0 ~> ~Pt E oc o ~ _. _ C ._ E E G (_) C~ O C=-~ - {Q O ~ ~ O ~ ~ C~ O O O O .O C O ~ C) =Q O ~Dc~ ~ C., O- - ~ ~ ~ U) C~ _ ~3 o I_- ~S ~ C o ^~ ~C Ct Z C~ s== <._ ~ _.C ~ _ U ~ O [,L, S o O > .~ C~ m . . _ ~> ~ C ~ ~~ O _ ~ ~ C~ ~0 O ~ O O _ - ~0\ ~ O O O O O X - O O ~ O O O O o O eq r~ _ ~ O - O - O O . . . \0 ~ _ Ce S ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ___ ... O O O 0\ ~ V) o - as o __ ~C. _ ~ U, ._ - ._ U' ~o o S

OCR for page 264
In In - a' - c) v, .~ In . - Ct Cat on o A_ Ct 3 C) Ct o A: Ct Cal Ct Cay A) Cat o sat Us z m EM 6 6 6 U' ~s~s;~r ~k ~,, ~~~ a:\ ~e He's z O - At: ~ O Z ; o ~4 _ or Do or ~4 - ~ ~1 to IO ~ 1 _ Us _ _ or~ ~ ~X _ ~ I~ ~O4 Cry X~ X ~X o~ ~ ~ _ rat _ 'it ~- d. - ~0O1 1 of - ~ - O ~-1 _ 1 - ~ - \ 0\ ~ ~0 1 x_ x x so ~ - - ~- 1 ~x - ok ~ ~x ~ ~o ~ 1 o ~ - - ~ o ~- ~1 ~ Ox ~D _ 'l o oS - oK ~ ~ -u) ~u} oo ~ r~o' o' ~ ~- ,0 oo ~ oo ~o ~ - - ~- ~.`~ u ~r~4 ~ 1 ~ ~o ~ - _ A _ _ _ ~ Z -o E , D u ~ _ _ e ~ ~ ' _ z E ~ ~ ~ e a c, ~ _ ~ u _ _ u - E ~ E E 0 ~ _ ~ v E c y c ~j ~D O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ O ~ ~o _ oo ~v~ _ 0 ~ _ _ v~ ~_ ~ c _ .O c,q ~ 43 r U. '~ ~ t> 0= ~ C S .c ~0 o o C ~ . C ~ 60 O C,~ ~ ~V ~ C .~ ._ Cm O ~ U' ~ O_ ~ ~ P4= Ct Ch g C) ~ ~ U. ~~ C ~ ~ o ~ ~ z s u) o - lU - cc~ -o ace) ^= v' ;- CC4 'v ~ .- ~ c~ d E .- - - == O. - c ~4so .- u, ~ ~ == -. - - o c ~ c~ 269

OCR for page 264
\~ 9~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0e: ~ ~ -~ cat i ,:\' ~ ~ ~) =~ _~~ ~ ~~~ -~`o= ,C ~.~ aim oo If\ ~ ~e ~ ~O'? =o \~~ ~\ o C) ._ Ct ~ OZ Z E-. O At<,: O ~ Cal 0 ~4 270 lo _ so ~X Cal ~ ~ ~ED _ ~ lo o~ ~ X _ lo ~ or o Cal o rim Io or ~US d. _ ~ x1 _ ~ o ~x ~_ ~_4 ~_ X ~ X X _4 X X oo ~ O - O _ O ~0` _ ,0 _ ~ o 3 o~ ~ E c =- u ~OD E" ~ Z J _ J E o _ X ~ _ o o ~ ~_ o ~X 4) ._ . ~ =~ CtS ~.= s~ _ Ct o 4) U) ~ P: o E o o _ _ c:- ~ E Ct. ca o ~ c: O _~ o o . E C) ~V o ~ o. C) C) ~- C~ 04 C o ~o ~ Cn-_ s U' o I_- == ~ o C~ -~m ^- C, . e~ ~ Z m~ o ~ ,~-_ t5 E._.= <~= U. ~ O ~`~,co ~q ~ ~ ~ ;^ ~ ~ ~ es == e ~ :, 4, ~ s C: c: - 0 _ __ O O C^~ C) ~ ~ 0 ~- - c ~ ~L Z E ~ s es . 4, 0 ~ 0 o'-~ - C C, = O O ~ C _ E c, E E ~a = _ ~ C ~ ~ E- E-pL Q<~o ~Z ZO U, ._ - & c~q _ U' o - e~ o 4, - ._

OCR for page 264
THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH by the National Institutes of Health is only 15 percent of its extramural research program, since half of its total extramural research support is granted to clinical investigators. Caution is necessary in interpreting these data, however, because of the failure of the questionnaire to be sufficiently precise in guiding the respon- dents. Although "disease," broadly taken, is the concern of clinicians and pathologists, there are no aspects of the study of disease, other than access to human patients, that are unique to their endeavors. In addressing him- self to cardiac disease, the clinician may actually function as a physiologist who studies vector cardiography or analyzes the composition of blood obtained by catheterization of one of the cardiac chambers; or he may be concerned with the etiology and pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and so utilize the techniques and understanding of the biochemist or nutritionist. Concerned with a hereditary disorder, he may consider himself a human geneticist; if studying changes in the architectonics of the brain, he may view himself as a morphologist or even a student of evolution. If engaged in elucidation of the causative agent of an infectious disease, he may func- tion, variously, as a cell biologist or a biochemist, while, if he is testing a drug in the hope of finding a successful therapeutic procedure, he is, at least for the time being, a pharmacologist. Accordingly, it is entirely pos- sible that students of disease, its etiology, pathogenesis, incidence, or therapy, may well have indicated that their current research area lies in some category other than "disease mechanisms," thus unintentionally dis- torting the interpretation that might be applied to these data. The pattern of support from the National Science Foundation contrasts with that from the National Institutes of Health. Both supported molecular biology and biochemistry more heavily than any other category, but, whereas the National Institutes of Health also contributed in a large way to the study of physiology and disease mechanisms, the National Science. Foundation was clearly the principal supporter of systematic biology. The Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of the Interior, while contributing only 4 percent and 1 percent, respectively, to the total support of these life sciences, were particularly concerned with ecology. The prin- cipal thrust of support by the National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion, which contributed only 1 percent of the reported federal total, was in physiology, while only the Department of Agriculture and diverse industrial contributors allocated as much as one seventh of their research funds to studies involving nutrition. Of interest is the fact that, whereas the voluntary societies were organ- ized to combat the dread diseases, only 22 percent of their funds went to scientists who classified their own research as bearing directly on disease mechanisms, whereas one third of their support went to investigators in

OCR for page 264
272 THE LIFE SCIENCES molecular biology and biochemistry, and one seventh each to studies of physiology and cellular biology. Clearly, the administrators of these socie- ties were sufficiently understanding of the problems involved in treating and preventing these diseases to recognize the need for relevant basic research. Table 21 indicates clearly that indeed the federal government is the principal patron of these areas of scientific endeavor. Three fourths of all funds in direct support of research derived from the federal govern- ment, while one sixth of such funds was provided out of the academic institutions' own resources. The low figures quoted for support by state and municipal agencies refer to direct granting activity, but the state budgets for the public universities contributed in major degree to the 16 percent of all directly research-supporting funds that are stated to have come from the institutions' own resources. Particularly disappointing is the low order of contribution to research support provided by industry, private foundations, voluntary societies, and individual contributors shown in Table 21. This is the consequence not so much of a low frequency of granting activity as it is of the relatively small awards actually made by these sources, as shown in Tables 22 and 23. Thus, the average grant from industry was only $4,000, that from the voluntary societies, $10,000, and that from private foundations, $13,000. These figures are in contrast to grants from the National Science Founda- tion ($14,000), the National Institutes of Health ($30,000), and the federal average of $25,000. Of some interest is the pattern of support by discipline. Typical grants in nutrition, ecology, and systematic biology are of the order of $15,000 per year, whereas grants to investigators in most of the other research areas were about twice as large. Utilization of Research Grants Typically, a research grant is utilized to provide consumable supplies, major and minor equipment, salaries of technicians and clerical staff, travel and publication costs, stipends for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting investigators, as well as a variable fraction of the salary of the principal investigator not to exceed that fraction of his annual effort in- vested in the research project in question. Uniquely, research grants to clinical investigators may require expenditures in support of the basic costs of maintaining patients in hospitals; other grants may provide for unusual purposes such as ship time, international travel either to meetings or for work in the field, and, increasingly frequently, computer time. The relative

OCR for page 264
THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH TABLE 24 Utilization of Funds from an Average Two-Year Research Grant in the Life Sciences-National Science Foundation-1968 DOLLARSPERCENTAGE GRAND TOTAL39,961100.0 Total Direct Costs32,18480.5 Salaries ~ Wages, Subtotal19,69949.3 Principal + Coinvestigators3,9019.8 Research Associates3,5298.8 Graduate Students3,2648.2 Other Professional Personnel3,5518.9 Technical Personnel3,5738.9 Clerical Personnel5881.5 Fringe Benefits on All Above1,2933.2 Equipment4,12310.3 Supplies4,37411.0 Travel, Subtotal1,3463.4 Within the United States9782.5 International3680.9 Publication5051.3 Computer Time1520.4 Other1,9865.0 Total Indirect Costs7,77719.5 distribution of expenditures among these various areas from research grants in support of research In the life sciences was not ascertained by the present study. However, data describing the general patterns of funding by the National Science Foundation are summarized in Table 24. Research Support as a Function of the Investigator's Age In a general way, increasing research support comes to the academic in- vestigator as he gains seniority in the system. As shown in Figure 34, this is clearly true for investigators supported by the National Institutes of Health

OCR for page 264
274 THE LIFE SCIENCES 50 i_ In = o 40 c In o ~ 30 CD s Cut a) In a, ,;5 20 10 _ 25 / / / - - / - - - / - . 1 1 1 / National \< Institutes / \ of Health \ You roes / ~ National Science Foundation . . . 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 1 65 Age of I nvestigator (Yea rs) FIGURE 34 Research support of life scientists as a function of their age. (Source: Survey of Individual Life Scientists, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences.) and most other sources. The figures shown for "all sources" represent the simple arithmetic means for all grants from all sources. Because of the relatively large number of small grants from the National Science Founda: lion, industry, foundations, and voluntary societies, the mean grant size for all sources is decidedly less than that shown for the National Institutes of Health. Nevertheless, the trend is quite apparent: individual research support attains a maximum at 50 to 60 years of age and declines thereafter. This phenomenon is scarcely visible for the National Science Foundation, largely because this beleaguered agency strives to stretch its available resources as far as it can to support all qualified applicant investigators whose proposals fall within its purview, thus markedly reducing the amount of money available per applicant investigator.