Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 317


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 316
316 THE LIFE SCIENCES students. The major problem in educating foreign graduate students relates to making their experience relevant to conditions they face at home. Learn- ing to use elaborate equipment in the United States does not prepare them to deal successfully with problems at home, where equipment and facilities are often limited. Ideally, these foreign students should do their thesis research in their homelands to avoid this danger; this is being arranged by some agricultural schools. The relative and absolute numbers of postdoctorates in agricultural schools are small compared to those in arts and sciences and medical schools. This reflects both the great demand for trained life scientists in agriculture, with vigorous recruitment of young investigators directly into their first positions, and the lack of available postdoctoral fellowships for those engaged in this area of applied research. Finally, we should note that agricultural schools have a large concentra- tion of life scientists with special interests in environmental biology. A special effort is required to intensify the research and teaching efforts of these scientists and to engage them in coordinated fashion with the en- deavors of those in other units of the university and in other institutions concerned with the physical, biological, and social environment. FINANCING ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN THE LIFE SCIENCES The department chairmen reported a total of $304,000,000 in support of the direct costs of research in 1966-1967, of which $253,000,000 was derived from federal sources. These figures should be related to the reported total of $2,264,000,000 * for biomedical research from all sources in all categories of performing institutions, both direct and indirect costs, in that year, and $1,459,000,000 ~ of federal funds for this purpose. Again, it would appear that our questionnaire responses revealed approximately one half of the total academic universe from which they were derived. Of the reported total, 22 percent went to support research in the colleges of arts and sciences, 12 percent to the agricultural schools, and 63 percent to the medical schools, divided approximately evenly between preclinical and clinical science (Table 381. Approximately half of all these funds (47 percent) went to the private universities, and half (52 percent) to the ; Basic Data Relating to the National Institutes of Health 1969, Associate Director for Program Planning and the Division of Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1969, p. 51.

OCR for page 316
THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES 317 TABLE 38 Distribution of Research Funds from All Sources TOTAL FEDERAL NONFEDERAL TYPE OF SCHOOL $ M % $ M % $ M % . TOTAL, ALL SCHOOLS 304.0 100253.1100 50.9100 Agriculture a 36.3 1223.59 12.825 Arts and Sciences b 68.4 2260.624 7.715 Medical 192.9 63163.365 29.558 Preclinical -90.8 3081.632 9.318 Clinical 102.1 3381.833 20.240 Other Health Professional c 6.5 25.62 0.91 TOTAL, PRIVATE 145.6 47124.749 20.941 Arts and Sciences b 30.7 1027.311 3.47 Medical 113.6 3796.338 17.334 Preclinical 48.4 1643.817 4.69 Clinical 65.2 2152.521 12.725 Other Health Professional ~1.4 1.2 0.2 TOTAL, PUBLIC 158.3 52128.451 29.958 Agriculture a 36.3 1223.59 12.825 Arts and Sciences b 37.7 1233.413 4.38 Medical 79.3 2667.027 12.224 Preclinical 42.4 1437.715 4.79 Clinical 36.8 229.312 7.515 Other Health ProfessionalC 5.1 24.52 0.61 a Includes schools of forestry. b Includes schools of engineering and schools of graduate studies. c Includes schools of dentistry, pharmacy, public health, and veterinary medicine. Source: Survey of Academic Life Science Departments, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. public universities. This division was even closer when only federal re- search funds are considered. Support of clinical research exceeded that of Preclinical research in the private schools (21 percent and 16 percent, respectively, of the overall total), whereas this relationship was inverted in the public medical schools

OCR for page 316
318 THE LIFE SCIENCES TABLE 39 Distribution of Research Funds by Class of Department TOTAL FEDERAL NONFEDERAL CLASS OF DEPARTMENT $ M %$ M % $ M % GRAND TOTAL 304.0 100253.1 100 50.9 100 Agricultural Sciences Anatomy Biochemistry and Nutrition Biology and Ecology Biophysics and Bio medical Engineering Botany Genetics Microbiology Pathology Pharmacology Physiology Zoology and Entomology 17.9 Clinical Sciences 103.3 21.9 10.3 12.6 3 9.4 33.7 11 29.3 33.1 11 29.6 8.0 3 7.8 3.8 21.6 14.6 12.1 15.9 34 s 4 12 12 7.6 6.4 3.7 19.3 5 12.7 10.6 13.9 15.2 82.9 9.3 0.9 4.4 3.5 3 3 0.4 1.4 0.1 8 2.3 5 1.9 4 1.5 3 2.0 4 18 2 9 7 4 s 6 33 2.7 20.3 40 Includes ~ college of pharmacy. h Includes ~ department of oral biology. Source: Survey of Academic Life Science Departments. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. (12 and 14 percent). Moreover, the support of research in the colleges of arts and sciences was also divided approximately equally between private and public schools, despite the wide disparity in the numbers of faculty and students involved. Table 39 summarizes the distribution of research funds among discipli- nary departments. The clinical sciences received slightly more than one third of the total; roughly equal amounts went to departments of bio- chemistry and of biology/ecology, with other disciplinary departments receiving lesser amounts. The data reported here were gathered from both individual scientists and department chairmen in the last fiscal year ~ 1967 ~ during which appropriations for these purposes received a significant increment. Since then, the overall federal appropriation has remained essentially constant, while the number of mature scientists, postdoctoral fellows, graduate stu- dents, graduate departments, medical schools, and even universities has continued to increase and the dollar has depreciated steadily. Assuming

OCR for page 316
THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES that a rational growth rate would be about 12 percent per year in absolute dollars, by fiscal year 1971 this appropriation should be greater by 56 percent than that for fiscal year 1967. Clearly, this will not be the case. The consequence, in our collective experience, has been a significant decline in the mean size of individual grants and a lengthening list of competent scientists whose research is limping along for lack of supplies, equipment, and assistants. The absolute extent of this problem has not been docu- mented; its effects are only now becoming evident on every campus and in every medical school. Failure to exploit the capabilities and talents of the scientific personnel on whose educations the nation has spent great sums while the major prob- lems of human biology in health and disease remain unsolved, the human brain is still mysterious, the principles of ecology imperative to manage- ment of our renewable resources are still unrevealed, the essentials of the process of differentiation in the development of an organism are still obscure, the menace of pollution is inadequately evaluated, and overpopu- lation and mass starvation are in the offing is, in our view, woefully false economy. At a time when understanding of the living state may provide enormous benefits to the average citizen, public funds in support of the efforts to achieve that understanding are actually being reduced. And the succeeding generation will be penalized. It may reasonably be assumed that the overall pattern of utilization of these funds conforms to the gross pattern of National Science Foundation grants, described earlier. Whereas in the early history of federal research- grant programs investigators had great latitude in the disposition of the funds made available to them, as among the various categories of expendi- ture, investigators are increasingly expected to manage research funds within the various budget categories negotiated at the time of award. We have no fault to find with this practice as long as agency administrators remain flexible in granting permission to transfer funds between categories when this can be justified by the course of research in progress, unanticipated needs, and related factors. One category of expenditure, faculty salaries, is a matter of special concern and will be discussed in some detail. Faculty Salaries Essentially similar pictures emerged from the data supplied by individual investigators and department chairmen. Let us consider first the informa- tion from investigators. Institutional budgets supplied 68.6 percent of the salaries of all the academic life scientists in our sample; 18.8 percent of all 319

OCR for page 316
THE LIFE SCIENCES salaries came from research grants and contracts, 4.2 percent from federal training grants, 3.7 percent from advanced fellowships, and 2.7 percent from federal institutional grants. These data and those considered below include all reported salary payments, whether annual, nine-month, or sum- mer salaries. However, these data were collected before the growth of both the Health Sciences Advancement Awards program of the National Insti- tutes of Health and the Institutional Science Development Award program of the National Science Foundation. Accordingly, contributions from federal institutional grants should now loom somewhat larger as a fraction of the total. It is too early to appraise the impact of the recent decision to reduce the institutional-grants program of the National Institutes of Health by 50 percent, but this may be presumed to be of yet greater effect and, indeed, may well be disastrous in some schools. Scientists in the agricultural schools are positioned most securely, since institutional sources provided 88.2 percent of all such salaries, the only discrepancy being in the field of fish and wildlife, where research grants and contracts provided 25 percent of all salaries. As seen in Table 40, the M.D. population was least secure, as only half of the M.D. salaries are provided from institutional sources. The preclinical faculties and those in colleges of arts and sciences were in intermediate positions, the serious- ness of which varied among the disciplines. It should be understood that the values shown do not represent any single scientist but rather the total contribution of each of the sources shown to the total salaries of all the scientists in each pool. Actually, of 7,621 faculty members concerning whom complete salary breakdowns were made available, 50 percent (3,799 ) derived their entire salaries from nonfederal sources, 13 percent (994, of whom one fourth were M.D.'s ~ were entirely supported from federal sources, and 37 percent reported that their salaries included both federal and nonfederal monies. Of this total sample, 50 percent (3,817) of all individuals received part or all of their salaries from federal sources, and 42 percent received salaries from more than one source, usually distributed between the institutional budget and some federal source. Of those whose entire incomes derived from federal funds, 58 percent were supported by research grants or contracts, 23 percent by training grants, 10 percent by institutional grants, and 19 percent through one of several advanced fel- lowship programs, e.g., senior postdoctoral fellowships from several agencies and the Career Awards of the National Institutes of Health. Table 41 indicates the percentage of salary from institutional budgets paid to Ph.D.'s, D.Sc.'s, and M.D.'s working in the various research areas defined by this study. Patently, the institutional contribution to the salaries of M.D.'s is decidedly less than that of the Ph.D.'s or D.Sc.'s, although the

OCR for page 316
THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES 321 TABLE 40 Percentage of Salary Derived from Various Sources for Some Academic Life Scientists DOCTORAL TRAINING INSTITU- RE- TRAIN- INSTITU TIONAL SEARCH ING TIONAL FELLOW BUDGET GRANT GRANT GRANT SHIP ALL BIOLOGISTS 68.5 18.8 4.1 2.7 3.7 Ph.D. or D.Sc. in: An Agricultural Science 88.2 8.0 0.1 2.6 Anatomy 81.1 12.6 3.4 0.8 1.2 Biochemistry 57.7 27.1 4.3 3.2 6.6 Microbiology 70.7 18.1 4.9 2.4 3.3 Pharmacology 62.1 18.0 9.8 5.8 3.2 Physiology 69.2 18.6 3.7 3.4 3.6 Botany 84.2 11.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 Entomology and lIydrobiology 88.8 8.1 0.4 1.6 Zoology 78.3 14.0 2.7 1.9 2.6 Other a 62.6 26.7 3.4 4.1 2.5 M.D. Degree Only 50.8 24.0 7.9 3.1 7.1 Other Health-Professional Degree 69.0 15.7 3.0 4.0 3.0 a Not originally in a life science, e.g., physics, chemistry, or sociology. Source: Survey of Individual Life Scientists, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. salary scale of the M.D.'s may be somewhat greater. It is also apparent that, as a fraction of total salaries, molecular biology, cellular biology, and pharmacology are, of all research areas, least well supported from insti- tutional resources. The differences between institutional payments and total salaries are very largely made up by payments from various federal sources. Since molecular biology and biochemistry is the most populous research category, federal contributions in support of this field by salary payments are greater than those of any other research area within the study. Further, of 696 investigators receiving their total salaries from federal sources, 40 percent were in the field of molecular biology and bio- chemistry, followed by physiology with 16 percent of the total. Moreover, investigators in molecular biology and biochemistry and in physiology con- stituted 23 percent and 18 percent, respectively, of all those whose incomes derived from a mixture of institutional and federal sources. We were sur- prised to learn that investigators in the area of disease mechanisms consti- tuted only 9 percent of this total, despite the large number of M.D.'s in this

OCR for page 316
THE LIFE SCIENCES TABLE 41 Average Percentage of Salary Derived from Institutional Budgets of Ph.D.'s or D.Sc.'s and M.D.'s in Various Research Areas Ph.D.'S OR RESEARCH AREA D.Sc.,S M.D.,S a ALL AREAS 72.6 54.2 Behavioral Biology 75.8 69.4 Cellular Biology 68.3 44.1 Developmental Biology 77.1 63.5 Disease Mechanisms 73.7 58.7 Ecology 81.8 86.3 Evolutionary and Systematic Biology 86.2 79.5 Genetics 78.0 50.5 Molecular Biology and Biochemistry 59.5 41.6 Morphology 88.0 70.4 Nutrition 81.4 58.2 Pharmacology 66.1 57.1 Physiology 75.5 51.8 Other Related Areas 76.1 69.4 a Includes some M.D.'s who also have a Ph.D. or D.Sc. degree. Source: Survey of Individual Life Scientists, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. field and the inadequacy of their support from institutional funds. This appears to reflect the fact, noted earlier, that the M.D.'s in our population very largely consider themselves to be engaged in fundamental research, particularly in molecular biology, physiology, and cellular biology. The impressions gained from the responses of individual scientists are well borne out by those from department chairmen. Table 42 indicates the average percentage of salaries paid from funds derived from an insti- tution's own resources for the full-time faculty engaged in research, accord- ing to the class of college and university. In accord with previous data, it is the clinical departments that, necessarily, are forced to seek non- institutional funds for faculty support. This table vividly shows the great dependence of the medical schools, particularly the private medical schools, on federal funding for payment of faculty salaries. Thus the public uni- versities, which provide 84 percent of salaries in the faculties of arts and sciences and agriculture, provide only 77 percent of salaries for their pre- clinical departments and 62 percent for their clinical faculties. In the private schools, in which the faculties of arts and sciences received 76 per

OCR for page 316
THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES 323 TABLE 42 Average Percentage of Faculty Salaries Derived from Insti- tutional Funds TYPE OF SCHOOL PRIVATE PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES UNIVERSITIES ALL TYPES 55 78 Agricultural Schools 84 Arts and Sciences b 76 84 Medical 50 71 Preclinical 57 77 Clinical 43 62 Other Health Professionals 73 84 a Includes schools of forestry. b Includes schools of engineering and schools of graduate studies. c Includes schools of dentistry. pharmacy, public health, and veterinary medicine. Source: Survey of Academic Life Science Departments, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. cent of their support from institutional sources, the preclinical departments received only 57 percent and the clinical departments only 43 percent of faculty salaries from internal sources. In each case, the balance came very largely from the federal government. The extent of this dependence is revealed further by the fact that, among the private medical schools, two preclinical departments and 12 clinical departments reported that they had absolutely no institutional funds for faculty salary payments; 36 preclinical departments and 67 clinical de- partments managed to find 60 to 100 percent of the funds required to pay faculty salaries (Table 431. In the main, this was accomplished by use of federal funds apprognated in support of biomedical research. This bleak picture of the great dependence of medical schools, particu- larly private medical schools, on federal research funding for payment of faculty salaries has been amply corroborated in an independent study reported by the American Medical Association * utilizing data derived from reports from all functioning medical schools. In 1961-1962, federal research funds were utilized to defray part or all of the salaries of 31 per- cent of the individuals on then-existing medical faculties. By 1968-1969, the number receiving such subsidies had grown to 49 percent of the entire national medical faculty. Moreover, the pattern of contribution of federal funding shown in Table 44 was much the same as that in clinical and pre- clinical departments reporting in our survey. The fraction of the faculty ~ Medical Education in the United States 1968-1969. "Medical School Faculties," p. 1477. Reprinted from J.A.M.A. 210(8 ): 1455-1587, 1969.

OCR for page 316
324 THE LIFE SCIENCES TABLE 43 Departments Receiving 60 to 100 Percent of the Salaries of Full-time Faculty from Federal Sources TYPE OF SCHOOL ALL SCHOOLS PUBLIC SCHOOLSPRIVATE SCHOOLS Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage ALL TYPES194 17.8 83 7.6111 10.2 Agriculture a22 2.0 22 2.0 Arts and Sciences b14 1.3 6 0.6 ~0.7 Preclinical Medical52 4.8 16 1.536 3.3 Clinical Medical103 9.5 36 3.367 6.2 Other Health-Professional '3 0.3 3 0.30 0.0 a Includes schools of forestry. Includes engineering schools and schools of graduate studies. c Includes schools of dentistry, pharmacy, public health, and veterinary medicine. Source: Survey of Academic Life Science Departments, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. federally supported, in whole or in part, ranged from 38 percent of pa- thologists to 58 percent of pharmacologists and from 19 percent of all aca- demic anesthesiologists to 58 percent of all academic neurologists. The requisite funds were found from the National Institutes of Health institu- tional grants to each medical school and from advanced fellowships, but most frequently from grants for research or research training. These salary payments were drawn from $154.3 million in teaching and training grants and $389.6 million in research grants from the federal government to the medical schools, as well as from $83.7 million in research funds from other sources. The absolute magnitude of these payments for medical school faculty salaries from federal funds is not known. If we as- sume a mean faculty salary for all three ranks of $16,000 per annum, total payments for faculty salaries from federal funds appropriated in support of research and research training must have been well in excess of $80 million per annum, a figure that should be compared with such items of nationally aggregated medical school income in 1967-1968 as: tuition and fees, $48 million; indirect costs on all federal grants and contracts, $74 million; endowment income, $30 million; and state appropriations, $143 million. Since the faculty so supported performs in the manner normal to such faculties and distributes its time much as do those whose salaries derive entirely from institutional sources, federal support of medical schools through the agencies of research and training grants patently has become a very significant part of the financial structure of the national medical edu

OCR for page 316
THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE ElFE SCIENCES 325 Ct ~: Ct - Ct s~ L~ ~; o C~ a~ Ct :^ Ct - Ct ._ s~ Cd P" o - o V ._ C) ~ ~ - o o V) 3 ~ .o Ct [L,. V) . .O C~ Ct ._ m 3 ~ ~ 3 V' z m V, o IY; LU a L~ o L~ - o L~ z P" Ct L., =m Z 3 - - ~1~ o o _4 _ ~ ~ o Ct U' cn C) C~ ~, c) ~ ,,: o o o P~ ~ ~Z U) Z (Q ~ c~ oX o $ oN o ~$ o~ u' o~ C) ~ ~o ~ o o o ~o oo ~ ~ oo oo ~ oo oo rq ~ ~ ~ X x ~ ~ ( ~oo oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o 0\ ~D ~r ~ ~ u~ ~4 ~ oo ~? _ o~ ~ ~ ~4 _ u ~0 o~ o, ~ ~ r ~ oo ~ _ r4 _4 _ u, ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 r~ o ~ o ~ X U) ~ ~ ~ c4 C~ _ r ~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~v~ o~ o X ~ X ~o~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ O x m O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~oo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rq - , x ~ 0 x ~ oo ~0 r ~ x x ~ x ~ ~ ~ U) ~o _4 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o o ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~t_ - _ cr, vo 0 ~ ~o o~ ~ c~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ (q oo ~U) X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ U) ~ X C~ ~D 0\ C~ ~ C ~\0 ~oo U) 0\ ~ oo ~ ~ O 0\ ~D oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~X _ U) U) 0~ ~ 0~ _ ~ X ~ ~0 0\ ~ O4 ~ ~ ~) ~ t~ ~) ~ ~o ~r v, ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ oo _ 0\ 0\ 0\ X O X O ~ V) _{ _4 X - C~ 00 ~ C~ U) _ 0 00 ~D ~ ~1 ~ O1 ~ C`4 ~1 _ _ E ~ ~ c E" C) o C'3 C> tC Ct C) Z tC :^ ~ _ ~ o o c - ._ ._ ~> C) - - o - CJ C~ o _ ._ o C) U, cn ._ ~ . ~ ._ ~ o ~ ~ ~o t_ ~ cT __ g C.> ~ ,~ n:5 _ _ .o Ct oc~ CJ ~V- _ ~ o o =0 ~ o~ C~ o. U, o ~ 4J C) z x - . . x _' o o~ C~ x ~o o~ _4 - - q} - ._ 3 C) -

OCR for page 316
326 THE LIFE SCIENCES cational system. When it is recognized that more than half of this form of support goes to the one fourth of all medical schools that are under private auspices, the very high degree of dependence of the private medical schools on research funding for their very existence becomes startlingly and pain- fully evident. The equitable geographic distribution of federal funds in support of research and graduate and postdoctoral education is a matter of perennial public and congressional concern. An attempt to assess this situation is summarized in Tables 45 through 48, which compare the distribution of the American population, by major census regions, with the distribution of federal research support, life sciences faculties, Ph.D. production, and postdoctoral appointees among the same census regions. Research dollars are somewhat more generously available to the Northeast, Middle Atlantic, and Pacific Coast states than their fractions of the national population would suggest; this correlates best with the distribution of postdoctoral fellows. It does not correlate as well either with the gross distribution of faculty or with Ph.D. production, to which the Midwest makes dispropor- tionate contributions. In general, these distributions are very markedly affected by the geographical locations of perhaps the 20 major research- performing universities, but the disparities appear to offer little cause for concern. Figure 37 summarizes these data.

OCR for page 316
THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE ElFE SCIENCES 327 Ct .o Ct ._ Cal Ct Cal Cal ._ C) V: ._ A o ;^ ,D I o C) Cal - - o Ct cn _ C;: C~ _ ~ - o C~ ~ o ._ ~ _ m ~ _ _' V' C O O P~ . _ - O O C~ O - . - . - V) . V) ~0 ~5 - .- O ~ Z .o ~ Z ZO CC ~ Z ~ o z ~oo U) ~C~ U) o o o _ o~ C~ _ o ~o oo ~o~ _ ~ Cc .. . . ~o~ ~ ~ - o oNoN ~oo ~ ~ -- ~ ~d~ ~ ~ . ~. . . - - x~.~ ~ ~ u)xu) o o' r ~_ ~ r~ .. o- ooo o- - .. ~ ~ ~v~ o. 1 So ~ oo - 1 o oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - o ~ ~ ~ v o co ~o oo 1 _ ~r~ C~ ~ ~o o o ~ V~ . . ' ~= o'' ~ ~ ~ ~ S _ ~ ~ ~ ~ '-~= S C~ CL C~ C) C~ C~ C) C) - ._ U':7 _ _ C) _ ._ o ~ ~ . ~ _, . C) C) s 4 ~_ o ._ _ E C) o CO U) C) ~, ,,, C.) - E CQ Eo ~-o cE, . s: ~ ._ .O ~ ~ o ~ E ~ . ~ ~ o oo _ o S S _ o ~ ~ C) ,,,, o- ..= ~ >- t ~ O;.o 0 0 _ ~ ~ V, C~ =.~ ~ 0 0 OS ,,,._ V) O ~ ~ ~ - Vv,

OCR for page 316
328 THE LIFE SCIENCES 1 ED Cal in' v Ct C) sit Ct Cal .o C) V) ._ C) ._ Ct C) i_ o V) ._ - ~s Cal a' . - - - it.. - _ U. - I' - ~0 O U) O Ct ._ C) - ._ ._ - ._ - ._ .= - 4~> lo U) C) At ._ em C`2 - (, _ . ~ V' ~ ~0 Z ~ X o en ~ ~ En ~ o Z C) Cal Z . Z z z o o Z ~to ~ to to - ~X _ - , o o o _ - _ ~ to _. - of _4 o oo - ~ ~o oN oN oo ~ ~ c~ oY ox oY a ~ ~ o . . . ~ ~ - ~ r ~_ ~o ~ r ~x u~ ~ o, ~x ~ o x ~r ~_ _ ~ oo ~ 1 - .. . ~- t ~ x x v oo o ~ o - o r~ ~oo o x ~o oN o - ~c~ ~ 1 - X~ 1 oo- 1 C~ - oo~ ~ c~ ooo No No -- ~ o c~ ~o ~ - - - ~ ooN ~ ~ .. . . -~ ~ ~ . ~ - ~ ~' ~ z = z c s ~ ~ c ~ 2 = 2c - ;~ c) . - v' - c~ ) ~ c ~ .- - v) ~ c.) - . - o ~- ~ c . c ~ - ~ c x c) ~ c o c) .) .) - ~- o . ~ E o v U7 C) c ._ o C~ m C ~o . C C~ ._ . ~- _ .~= ~ C ~ ~ ~ . ~ 0 00 ~ Z C~ '~ \ C C~- - 00 ~v ~o ~ O==Qa 0 O.- C) o ~ o C C o ~ ._ O- ..C ~ O3~ ~ 0~ = ~ ~-,~ o ~o o _ =< , s '- = 0 '~ ~ ~ '~: C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ZE ,V C C C V) o o

OCR for page 316
THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE ElFE SCIENCES 329 so Ct - - C) ._ a, Ct V: s: a~ s~ Ct C~ a' C~ a~ ._ C~ .~ ._ a~ ~o Ct C~ a' o V) ._ C~ a' ._ - s~ o C) o C~ o m ~_ ~ V) ~ \ ~ 0 - - - ~o V' 0 - . C) - . - O z Z 0 V' _ Z ~ L~ O ~ 0` 00 ~ 00 0\ 00 ~\0 ~ ~~ O C ~ V ~0\ ~ ~0 C~ 0\ 0` ~ O ~ 0\ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~00 0\ O ~ ~00 . ~ ~_ (o C Z - Z C C C: ~C _ C C ~ ~0 ~ 00 V) ~ ~ O~ ~ C~ 00 ~ ~C~ C) C) o c) - .o o ~ s ~ . v,^ ~ ~ x c) ) - c) {- - ~ o ~ (-) m ~ .~ 0 0 ~ ;~` 0 C) CJ~ ~ _ E ~ . a ~ ~- 1^ 7 C) ~ C5 0-~ c OC~-~ O ~.~ C) - ,~ _ ~ 0~ 0 ~ ._ cn Ct o _ .- O ~ ';_ o~O O_ c66 -o-o s ~ ~ o o_ ~ i- :,- ~ ~ ~ _ ~ u: c~ ~ Cq ~ _ _ ~ _ ~ ' ~ =~=V'Oo .o {, _ C C~0

OCR for page 316
330 THE ElFE SCIENCES C~ Ct .s Ct ._ a, Ct C) ._ C) V) ._ o V) a' Ct 3 U) C) ~o m _` U' I V~ ~ 0\ ~ Ck O O ~ O ~ - S - tJ . Ct .o . C) o o r~ V, o ~0 cq C) ~: C) . V, S~ C: C~ CQ Z - - o _ Z V LL1 ~ o o V, _ ~ C5 O ~ _ - C~ ~ Ct .> z - Pi O z C) .> Z .o _ P~ - _ ~D P~ ~4 ~0 O' o z o z ~ ~00~ ~ ~ 00 O~ 000\00 ~ ~ ~ O~ ~_ - t - )~ 00 ~_OO ~ \0 ~DXr~o~ ~ ~ oo~ ~- ~o~ ~ ~ - ` __ ~ ~o ~cr ~oo r ~ ~ o~ oo~ ~o~ . ...... . . O~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~_ ~~ - r~X ~x __ ~o 0 _ ~{qeq ~4 - 1 ~- 1 ~00 ~1~ .. . . . . . . O 0 ~ _ - oo o ~oo ~0 1 _ ~4 ~ oO ~ ~oo ~ ~ ~ 0 0 t ~o ~oo ~ ~ oo 0 ~~ ~ ~ oo _ ~o ~r ~oo r ~c~ o o - c~ ~o 0 ~ ~ 1 0 er: ~~ _ _ _ - r ~ 0 oo _ _ ~ oo ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~_oo ~ ~ ... . . 00 ~ ~ ~o _ _ ~0 r ~0 oo ~ cr~ ~ r~_ ~cr, ~- ~ ~ ON V ~_ ~ ~~ . . . . . . . .. O ~ ~oo 0 ~ - _ ~ ~oo - ~ - } ~t ~_ r ~_ c ~ ~ ~ t~ ._ . _ U ~Ct _ ~_ ~ ~ .e ~ ~ Z C Z = ,= ~ W ~ W = ~ ~ ca cD ~ - ~q o ~ ce) ~ - v) c) ~ - ~ - c, ~: - ~s o q, ~ - ms s ._ C5 C~2 ~> ~cn C: ~ c) o 4) s o :3 c) ; - c) o o c) c) - ~ - o cD c) ~ - CQ o ~ - E & o ~ ~ ~ - } o oo ~ ~ c) u) v) ~ _ _C o c~ i~) ^ o4 o ~ ~ ~ fi o C}.- C) == - - ~ ~ C ~ C~ o ~ o C) . O ~ ,_ cn o-~ ~ . .- ~ } ~ ~ ~^,~ o o o_ =< o oS ~.= ~ .= ~ ~= V' ~ ~ ~ U' C) C) 5) ~ =~= ~ ~ .. _ _ ~ ~s C~ o o ~o ~ ~a ~ ~

OCR for page 316
~ ~ At Go Do ~ . . . OF ID ~ At Do . ~ . . old+ ~ ~ ~ ~ i: a, Q) o ~- >` Q to U. - ~ Q) ~-. O L' a, ._ ~. 4- = O CL a) m _ Ct ~ hi> ~ . C) U) C) ~ O .O C) Cal Vat V) _ Ct .~ . O ~ ~ C) C} ~ =-s ~ O ~ .= ~ ~ Ct I O ~ ~ O ~ to ' .. ~ - G.~ - V) 0 . O 0~> US A) C) ~ ._ Ct ~ ~ C.> _ V) ._ O 04 C<; ~ O ~ C.) O ~ _ ~ . _ Ct Ct ~ _ ~ O ~ 1 _ a_ O C;: ~ ~ ;^ O c> ~ s . ~ ,= _ . ~ C) Ct C) ~ . ._ ._ ~ 04 I_ O O Cal ~ 3 ~ Cal ~ V) 04 U)