Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 341


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 340
340 THE LIFE SCIENCES state his first priority; 4,045 scientists provided such information, a fourth of whom were molecular biologists and biochemists (Table 521. For some instruments, the response was almost independent of research area. Lack of electron microscopes conditioned the first-priority requests of investigators in every research area (9 percent of the total), the highest percentage frequencies being found among systematic biologists and scien- tists studying disease mechanisms, developmental and cell biologists, and morphologists (27, 18, 15, 11, and 14 percent, respectively), and with biochemists as the largest single source of such requests. The second most frequently cited instrument was an amino acid analyzer, requested by 317 individuals (8 percent of all respondents), a third of whom were molecular biologists, the remainder being distributed across all research areas. Small specialized computers were in third place on this list, requested by 275 individuals (7 percent of the population) among whom were 84 physi- ologists. Other instruments, for which there was only somewhat less demand, included analytical ultracentrifuges, mass spectrometers, gas chromatographs, and telemetering systems. DEPARTMENT CHAIRMEN Specialized Facilities The priorities of these selections, presumably indicative of genuine limita- tions on current research, were borne out by the equivalent first-priority selections made by academic department chairmen, who were asked to indicate the prime unmet requirements of their departments for access to specialized facilities. Of the 725 department chairmen who provided such information (Table 53 ), 103 indicated programmed climate-controlled rooms; 93, instrument design and fabrication facilities; 70, facilities for growth of cells and tissues in culture; and 61, access to a center for large- scale production of biological materials (14, 13, 10, and 8 percent of all chairmen, respectively). Agricultural scientists, ecologists, zoologists, and botanists were most numerous among those chairmen seeking climate- controlled rooms; clinical departments, biochemists, physiologists, and ecologists most frequently sought instrument fabrication facilities; and the biochemists and microbiologists together accounted for 61 percent of the requests for centers for large-scale production of biological materials. For obvious reasons, clinical science chairmen almost uniquely indicated a serious lack of closed clinical research wards (40 departments); it was also the clinical departments that felt the most pressing need for access to

OCR for page 340
FUTURE OF THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES primate centers (21 departments). This need for clinical research wards was expressed even prior to the recent closing of 20 such wards for budgetary reasons. Instrumentation Eight hundred twenty-five department chairmen reported the first-priority needs of their departments for instruments (Table 54 ~ . The pattern was strikingly like that of personal-use priorities of individual scientists; the most frequently requested instruments were electron microscopes (83 departments), amino acid analyzers (78 departments), small specialized computers (64 departments), and analytical ultracentrifuges (48 depart- ments). But, in keeping with all previous indications, no remarkable use pattern emerged. Biochemistry departments constituted only 14 percent of the demand for amino acid analyzers, and there were only three depart- ments of anatomy and four departments of pathology among the 83 depart- ments seeking electron microscopes! Although there were nine biochemistry departments among the 28 departments that hoped to find funds to acquire mass spectrometers, it is more significant that the other 19 departments so requesting were scattered among eight other disciplines. It is difficult to know to what extent these priority statements by depart- ment chairmen and investigators represent significant restrictions on the quantity or quality of on-going research and to what extent they are mere "wish lists." Where the indicated instrument or facility is truly unavailable to the investigators concerned, there can be no doubt that it might well constitute an absolute restriction on research productivity, a barrier to the logical pursuit of a research program in the light of information already obtained. In our experience, such instruments as electron microscopes, amino acid analyzers, analytical ultracentrifuges, and mass spectrometers are programmed weeks or months in advance, and it is difficult if not im- possible either to borrow them or to have runs made on request. And there can be no substitute for a controlled-climate chamber when it is required. Few working life scientists have not occasionally encountered the need for an instrument that is not available through commercial channels, but only the more fortunate have access to adequately equipped instrument fabrication facilities managed and operated by skillful, imaginative ma- chinists, knowledgeable in the fields of electronics and instrumentation gen- erally. The modern biochemist, molecular biologist, microbiologist, and geneticist frequently require bacteria, other micro-organisms, or animal cells in 25-pound to 200-pound lots, unavailable through any commercial source; hence the understandable requests for facilities for large-scale 341

OCR for page 340
i: c Id ~ .= i: .o o ~- - L o Cot so o .- 1 Cot .= \ U) Cat ~ \ Cat Cq 50 o .~, Cot m 342 O4 ~_. Io ~_ on ~ ~ Cat ~1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~- "~- j~d ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~_ o ~- ~ | ~ I ~ ~ \ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ it' ~ ~ o l l ~ ~^ ~ 1 ~ -~- ~b,~- ~' , - \ ' `-:l~b~ ~-- ~6 - ~ 1 ~ ~ = -~-~40~ x ~4 0 ~ ~ d. 1 x x cat ~1 my ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 ~ X o ~ to - 1 I~ ~ Do~ o ~ ~_. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o _ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ oo o ~Q z x ~ CQ z- ~ 1 c :> z - c~ o t-) u] t ~c ~' , ~o - ~ -. 1 1 1 1 ~~= o ~ ~ 1 ~ o ~ l - ~ oo ~ ~1 ~ 1 oo ~ u, - 1 ~- 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I- 1 ~4 1 ~1 1 1 -= 1 o o X _ ~ ~ c . o ~n c C~> 04 oo ~ r CD r ~ ,- U) - C~ C) - C) - ~ ~ C o ~ - ~ ~ _ ~ C) , ~c. ~ _ ~ o 4.) - (t C) {~0 >~ C5 04 ;,, ~6 ~ X _ ~_ : - ,, ~o ~ ~ .O o ~ == _ C: C~ ~ C ~ ~ o _ ~ ~ Ct _ _ ~ C) ~o IC ~ E C ~ ~ ._ ot ~ ~ o C ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~- 1 ~ ~ oo ~ o c o ~_ .~. O ~ - ~ o ,_ o o U) C) o ~ ~ C Q _ ~ O r~ _ I,~ ~O ~ C.) V ~ caa L~ - C-: Q ~ ~ ~O .o t0 ~ S . ~ o C5 o ~ ~Z - Cq CD ~ _ ~ C.~ _ ~ _ _ 00 O Ct C) V) ~ ~ Ct ~ Z O O C~ ~ C.) C) X LL

OCR for page 340
~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~x X o x ~ 1 I - ~ 1 ~ - 1 1 ~ - ~1 No ~ 1 1 ~ ~1 1 ~1 ~ =~ mm 1 = - 1 1 ~ 1 ~ - 1 ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 = - 1 1 ~ ~1 1 1 1 mm ~ u) .O v' 4Ds s ~ cd ~ ~ o s ~ ~ E - =8 4) on C, . Cat Oo ACE C) o ~ . . ~ sir ~ A: Z .m = - ! ' . i Y e ~ ; = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~X X X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~C ~ O r~ ~ 1 (o ~ ~ ~o~ ~ - et ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I r ~ x I ~I ~ o~ ~ I ~I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ r I ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1= I I r ~ 1 m~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 - I ~o ~ r ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~x ~ 1 ~ 1 1 - ~ - 1 1 ~ 1 = - 1 ~ 1 ~ <~ v r ~ I ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~oo et _ _' ~1 1 ~- 1 1 1 1 ~ ~e' 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~0 o~ ~ ~o ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ - C) I 10 o ~ eq | I I I r ~o I 0 ~r ~- ~ ~ d ~ oo 0 ~ ~- ~D 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ _ _. ~4 ~_4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 ~1= - 1 X ~ r- o ~ r r~ ~ r ~ 0 343

OCR for page 340
\ ~ 4 me? \ ~lL X -F Con o Cal an A, . - o . CD so . U. Ct 4 - . C: U. . - . Ct LM m 344 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ _4 ~= 1 1 1~ 1~ 1~ 1 o D O O C-: Ct .C) Cal - C) 'A At: c: ._ a.= sm Gal 00 ore O ~ =8 oc C-c., o >A E~ ~ g =< Ct o. Cal Ct Cow -= o c On ~L) _ ~ ~ 5 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ , ~ ~ ~ _ ,~,, o tc O 0 ~ ,s,, ~ ~ ~ ~ E E ~ E E E ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E L t`1 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ os _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 oo ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~1 ~1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~1 1 ~1 ~ ~1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ 1 mm 1 ~ - 1 =~ 1 1 - - -~- 1 ~1 11 1 ~ -, I I I I I I ~ I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 1 1 1 1= 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~1~1 1~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~= 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 -= X 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1~- 1 1 ~ 1 1~ 1 1 u. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~, ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I I ~4 ~1 1 ~1 1 1 ~1 1 ~1 1 ~ ~1 1 1 ~1 1 1 1 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~1 1 1 ~ ~4 o ,^ ;^ ._ . Ct o - Ct . _

OCR for page 340
FUTURE OF TlIE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES preparation of biological materials, now available to only a handful of institutions. Were it possible to make available these indicated choices of department chairmen and of individual scientists, both the quality and tempo of research in the life sciences would most certainly be augmented. 7morovement and Expansion of the Academic r En, Research Endeavor Another set of indicators of what may be required to assure the quality and magnitude of the research endeavor was obtained from department chair- men by asking whether, and for what purposes, their departments very seriously required additional funds to finance their current research en- deavors. Once again, the question was sharpened by a request to indicate first-priority needs. One thousand thirty-three department chairmen re- sponded to this set of questions. As can be seen in Table 55, funds for graduate student stipends and for additional faculty salaries were most numerous among such responses (25 and 29 percent, respectively). The stipends were the first-priority request of almost half of all departments of biochemistry, physiology, and agronomy and forestry; the need for faculty salaries was about equally urgent among all disciplines, except for clinical departments, 51 percent of which indicated this as their first priority. Funds for instruments were the most acute need of 10 percent of all departments, including six of the 15 report- ing biophysics departments. Funds to support the research of junior faculty were listed as the first priority of only 9 percent of all chairmen; strangely, this was the first priority of the chairmen of 15 of 98 general-biology de- partments but of only 1 of 73 chairmen of zoology departments. When the chairmen were asked to indicate their second and third choices as well this item was selected by an aggregate of 30 percent of departments. These data must again be regarded with a caveat; they were obtained before the impact of the current plateau in federal funding, with all its implications, and it is difficult to distinguish clearly between acute need and general "wish list." Some 205 departments indicated that they had no need of additional funds to improve their current research endeavors, and it was of interest to examine the pattern of the considered needs of this limited group for expansion of the departmental research endeavor. These departments were well distributed among all the disciplines, colleges, and both classes of universities. Once again, it was salaries for additional faculty that loomed as the prime requirement, cited by 43 percent of this group of departments. Again this stipulation was mentioned most frequently by the private medical schools, in both their clinical and preclinical departments, by an inter

OCR for page 340
ED z o ~ I' z 346 ~: 8 -~- ^'- ~ 7 ~: 5 if,: ~ '-'it ~ -_X Z (Q A: C) CD so z o o , CQ~ c,0 ~ z ~o z ~.o o ~ o -e <~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 1 c%, I, ~ ~ 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 ~ - X ~ ~X Can ~ ~ At , I, - Ct ~ ~ c) ~ O ~ ~ ~ ran 1 _, _4 1 11 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 1 1 - mm 1 ~1 1 1 ~1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~1 1 1 1 -~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~1 1 1 1 Go ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 m ~1 ~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~- ! 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 m~ 1 ~ 1- 1 ~1 ~ 1 ~ 1 - ~ 1 1 - E ~ _! _ ~C,, ~ C.) ~ C) - ~ C) _ _ E o- ~ ~ ~E .- ~ - C~ o4 t- s ~ 1 1 1 oo oo E C~ C'3 ._ _ _ o o o~ t,._ ~s o CD ~ ~ o o ~3 o C) t l 5) .~ o - o o _ _ C) ~ _ _ LL ~ ~ _'

OCR for page 340
1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 m ~1 m~ 1 1 ~1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 ~1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 ~1~ 1 1 1 ~1 ~1~ 1 ~1 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 ~1 1 1 1~ 1 1 ~m 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~1 ~1 1 ~1 ~1 ~1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 1 1 1~ 1 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 - ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 1~- 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~In ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 - 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- 1 1 ~1 m ~1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~1 ~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 ~1 m~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~1 1 1 ~1 = ~1 ~~= 1 1 ~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~= 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 -~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 ~ ~11-1=1 1=1~11 1111-1-111~1~1 ~1- 1 ~ - 1 - - 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~1 ~1 1 - - 1 ~1 ~ I_ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo _ _ ~ _ 8 o - ~ ~ ~ 8 s ~ , 1~ o 2 ~ _ ~ ~ E o ~ ~ C5 ~ C~ C: ~ - ~ C) C) _ _ ~ id, _ ~ Z ._ ~ ~ ~ =_ U) ~ V) O i~ [L] - ~ ,~ 1 ~ ~ ~ O co 4 . - CQ ~ - - . sO ct c) C,3 o c) - E o U. C) C~ ._ CO ~ o 4D ;-, E E P~ ~ C) .3< ~o eC o Ct _ sZ Ct ~ CD- C) V,- U. ~ ~ C) ;r~ - C.;} . ~ ~ ~s; o ~i ~ ,0 5U' C) _ _ .~ E ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ct - ~ o o ,,, o CO ~ ~ 0, E ~ Ck ~ o ~ o :~. = ~ C) c) :~ ,: ;,i CD ~ C)iC~ ~U=o~ __m o ~ ~ ~ V, 347

OCR for page 340
a, A: so ct - ct c) o so o A: ct Ha I:: so 3 o Cal o U. C) _ ._ - Cal so .= US m 348 r ~ Z i\ ~~~~he~ ~ ~~ Z \j-~ ~ ~ Cot ~!9 U~ `~< LU X ~0 - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 Van ~ ~ ~ ~ At so 1 ~- \0 Van ~ ~ 1 _ or ~ . ~_ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~_, _ ~ _ ~ so ~ 1 _ 1 ~1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 x Rae ~ to at ~ ~ ~1 0\ ~ ~ ~ - 1 1 ~'I 4 - 1 A\ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ _ - 4 r4 ~r~ (q ~ V~ 0\ X ~ _ _ 1 ~ r ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~U) \0 0\ ~ ~ O ~0\ 0 ~ r~ ~~ - Z ~ ~ ~ Z _ ~ 0,, O O ) ~ ~ ~ Z ~ S e 6_ - V~ O O ;t~ ~ ~ D o Z ~ ~o O ~ ~ ~ ~ D Z E" ~ Z ~ o ce c~ ~, ~ 0 0~ =~= -~ V, C) .O V' C) ._ C) S ~: ._ S C~ V, a~ o - o C~ ~. ._ cq o >~ C) - o - Ct z C~ - - C~ C) =.O o o' ..D c~ C. - Ct Ct - "o.'' s o 4_ ~ Ct c~ 6 co, ~ C) Ct o o o 3 C) C~ Ct _t C~ ~ C~q C) ~ 3 .. ~ ~ C) _ i) r. ~ ~ __ o ~ .o C~

OCR for page 340
FUTURE OF THE ACADEMIC ENDEAVOR IN THE LIFE SCIENCES 349 mediate number of public medical schools, and least frequently by chairmen of arts and sciences faculties. Predoctoral stipends were again the second most frequent problem if expansion of the research program was to be undertaken by this group. The same query, concerning requirements for expansion of their research endeavors, was answered by a total of 1,052 department chairmen (Table 561; faculty salaries were cited by 42 percent and predoctoral stipends by 22 percent. The other seven possible uses of additional funds were cited by 1 to 9 percent of chairmen, the variation among disciplinary departments being unremarkable. The faculty salary problem loomed as the major need to 52 percent of chairmen in private universities and to 38 percent in public universities, as expected from their funding problems. This item would surely be even more pressing today. In short, by each form of this examination, if the academic research endeavor in the life sciences is to be improved or expanded, additional funds must be provided to assure payment of faculty salaries and predoc- toral stipends. Until these urgencies have been met, all other considerations appear to be secondary. Expansion of the Graduate Education Endeavor The system was tested in yet another manner; the department chairmen were asked to state whether they could accept additional Ph.D. candidates at present; if not, whether their inability was due to lack of space or faculty. Further, they were asked whether they planned to accept additional num- bers of graduate students over the next four years and whether this would require additional space or faculty. Seven hundred seventy-six of 779 chairmen with Ph.D. programs responded to these questions, of whom 565 (73 percent) indicated that their departments were below graduate-training capacity at that time. These 565 departments, rather uniformly distributed among all types of colleges and universities, had a current enrollment of 9,397 students. Their chairmen reported an unused capacity of 4,000 stu- dents, three fourths of which was in public universities and one fourth in private universities. The total graduate enrollment in all departments was reported as 14,764. Of those unable to expand their graduate enrollments, roughly one third had insufficient space, one third had both insufficient space and insufficient faculties, and the remainder were unable to expand for a variety of reasons. Unexpectedly, only 2 percent cannot expand merely for lack of faculty. In sum, both private and public universities anticipated 50 to 60 percent

OCR for page 340
lo hi - cd He o o hi In a] a: x o a: o id as . - s~ o - 1 ~ - m 350