Click for next page ( 18


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 17
2. ESTIMATION OF MANPOwER NEEDS DESCRIPTION OF THE MARKETS How the System Works Fundamental to the task undertaken by the NAS under the NRSA Act is an. understanding and ar.a] ysis of the system by which biomedical and behavioral research scientists are trained and absorbed into the labor f orce . The mechanisms that affect career chop ces of students must be identified and quantif fed a s f ar as po s sible . On the demand side, the f orces that determine the number of positions available to these scientists simil arly must be identified and measured. In shore, a clear concept of how the education-trair~ing system works must be developed. In this chapter the Committee Or e sent s it s concept of the s ystem. Ir, the following chapters the measurements that have been made on it to date are summarized. The population of research scientists involved consists of ~ he following groups of individuals: 1. Academic doctorate recipients (Ph. D., D.. Sc., etc. in the areas and fields that the Committee has Refined as biomedical and behavioral sciences for purpose s of this study ~ see the section on taxonomy in this chapter for a list of these areas and fields) . 2. Academy c doctorate recipients in other areas who are employed in biomedical or behavioral f ields . 3. Profess tonal doctorate recipients (M. D., D. D. S , D.V.M., etc. ~ whose primary interests and training are in research. 4 . Other profe ss ionals, usually nurses with baccalaureate degrees, whose primary interests and training are in the area of nursing research. Further di s cu s s i on 0 f the s e i ndiv i (1ua ~ s i s presented in Chapter 7. 17

OCR for page 17
More than two-thirds of ~ he se research scientists are empl oyed by colleges and universities (Chapter 3, Tab, e 3.2) . A good portion of the na' ion's biomedical and behavioral research is conducted in these academic institutions by this group of scientists with support provided by federal agencies such as the NIH. It is therefore clear that Is a critical factor the availability of faculty positions affecting the employment patterns of these research scientists. Faculty positions in turn are largely determined by the pattern of student enrollments in the biomedical and behavioral fields and by the availability of research funds a ~ colleges and universities ~ In me dice ~ schools, clinical investigators perform patient care duties in addition to their teaching and research activities (Chapter 5~. In recent years, even those clinical faculty members who are primarily engaged in research have devoted an increasing amount of time to patient care, particularly through the expansion of community health care programs at university medical centers. This trend is likely to continue and therefore must be taken into account in estimating the future need for clinical investigators. The Committee views the education-training-employment system as a dynamic one, where the f low of students into biomedical or behavioral research careers involves at a minimum those components shown in Figure 2. 1. Since the preparation for careers in biomedical and behavioral sciences generally begins with graduate study or even earlier in many cases, and proceeds through the at tainment of the doctorate degree, the starting point in Figure 2.1 the baccalaureate (B.A. or B.S. degree). From that point on, two separate career paths lead to the production of a biomedical or behavioral research scientist. The most frequently taken path is through graduate school to the attainment of the Ph.D. degree, a postdoctoral appointment,and then into a position as a faculty member on as an ~ nv~stigator at a nonacademic research organization. In some cases, particularly in the behavioral sciences, the postdoctoral period is bypassed and the individual takes a position directly upon obtaining the Ph.D. degree. The second customary pathway is through a medical dental, or other health professional school where the training is directed rot toward research, but toward the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and other health problems. At some point during this training, some of these individuals may decide to pursue a research career. Those that do so generally undertake an additional period of training beyond the professional degree, at which time they acquire the necessary research skills. A very small but important group makes an early decision to combine research training and medical training into a single integrated training program, which leads simultaneously to the M. D. and Ph. D. degrees. 18

OCR for page 17
Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists not Currently Active in Research in These Areas l B.A.'s Graduate Enrollments I - ~ - or Medical and _ Health Professional Schools r r I I Information Feedback Loop Labor market conditions as indicated by placement opportunities and relative salaries affect students' decisions to pursue careers in the biomedical and behavioral fields. Students' perception of career opportunities affect the transfer rates at the valves (A) that regulate the manpower flow. _/ ~ _ Post- doctorals Biomed. and Behav. Active Research Labor Force l FIGURE 2.1 Flow model illustrating the principal paths and decision points leading to the biomedical and behavioral re- search labor force. Exits from the paths have not been graphically illustrated but are implied by the valves A and B. Solid lines signify flow of personnel. Dotted lines signify information flow. Training grant and fellowship expenditures may affect the transfer rates at points A. R and D expenditures and enrollments in undergraduate, graduate, and professional schools are important determinants of the demand for personnel in the academic sector and therefore affect the transfer rates at points B. R and D expenditures also affect demand in the nonacademic sector, as well as influencing the transfer rates at valves A. 19

OCR for page 17
In the biomedical and clinical sciences, a Fcstdcctoral appointment is commonly viewed as a transit ion stage between the training phase and an establi shad position as a biomedical or cliff. car science investigators But i ~ is a vita ~ stage in wh ich much important re search i s done . In fact, many view postdoctoral training to be a combination of intensive research activity and an opportunity to enhance the research -techniques of the trainee under the guidance of an experienced investigator. It is generally considered to be a necessary element of training for the graduates of health professional schools, and somewhat less necessary, but nonetheless desirable, for those with Ph.D. degrees. In most behavioral science fields, however, where ccmE:lex laboratory equipment and procedures are rot an integral part of research, a postdoctoral period of training has been the exception rather than ~ he rule (Chapter 4 , Table 4 .1 } . Trains ng grant and fe1 lowship programs provide support to students at the predoctoral and postdoctoral levels. The stipends provided by tines" programs act as incentives for students to pursue careers in those areas for which such f nancial aid is available. There is evidence from a recent study by a committee of the NAS (NRC, 19 7 fib) that the availability of funds for training grants and fellowships in certain areas has been associated with increased graduate enrollments in those areas relative to other areas ~ The empirical evidence also indicates that there is approximately a ~hree-year de, ay before variations in the training program expenditures in an area are reflected in the proportion of graduate students enroll ing in that area (NRC, 1 976b, Chapter 5) . Whi le not conclusive, these empi rical observant ions imply that the training programs have some inf ~ uence in the long run on the supply of scientists. To the extent that they do, their impact on the system would occur at points A in Figure 2.1 and would tend to modify the flow of students at these points. An additional regulating factor in the system evolves from students' perceptions of job opportunities and relative salaries. As labor market conditions change, students tend to alter their career plans accordingly. It is not clear at this point, however, that students' assessments of the market are accurate enough, or their reactions Prompt enough, to prevent the development of short-run imbalances between supply and demand.1 There are complex lead and lag times in this dynamic system that are not yet thoroughly understood. Under these conditions, the Committee believes that the most appropriate strategy is continually to appraise the current market situation and the near-term outlook with a view to anticipating impending imbalances and recommending steps to avoid them. Adjustments in federally supported training programs should be made where and when appropriate to help achieve system balance. 20

OCR for page 17
The Concept of Balance Between Supply and Utiliza~ ion A comment on the concept of "balance" is appropriate. When deal ing with Ph. D. ' s and M. D. ~ s, many of whom have postdoctoral training, one would ~ not expect that many would be unemployed for signif icant lengths of time. Such highly trained persons wi Il al most always find work, and any study '~hat views a cross section of biomedical and behavioral scientists will generally find them employed. Any survey that asks universities about their "capacity to absorb" or " their need f or" more such personnel wil ~ almost always f ind that capacity or need to be great, based on the potential contribution of these highly trained professionals . Since the expert judgment of faculty members usually produces somewhat inf lated estimates of the need for additional faculty, it is not considered to be a reliable indicator of actual demand a s Irma sured by more obj ective criteria. For an examination of "balances, " which is relevant to policy, the concepts of need, demand, and utilization must be related to the cost to society of producing such skilled prof e s s iona ~ s, t o the prosper t s of the ir be ing emp loy ed ~ ~ activities that require the full range of skills imparted in their cost, y training, and to the question of whether the costs of this training should be prove deaf from pub, ic funds. Thus, ill i s e ss entia l to spec i f y, or at le ash examine, the future possibilities for emp, oyment of these professionals at tasks commensurate with their training and to distinguish realistic estimates of available future opportunities from unrealistic notions of potential utilization. It is here that confusion arises. Scientists observe an enormous potential for basic and applied research. On this basi s, some argue that, since there are insufficient numbers of scientists to carry out these large research agenda, additional scientists must be trained. This view was expressed by several participants at the public hearing held by Ohm Committee in November 1976. On the other hand, others argue that potential alone is an insufficient basis for diverting resources to training such personnel. Although there are unlimited areas where professions. 1 and technical manpower could perform productive research, it is necessary to base public funding of draining of this type of scientific manpower on the actual amount and distribution of supper+ for research that the society can be expected to provide through its social, economic, and political mechanisms. In this view, it is erroneous to contend that, if research support for particular areas such as the biomedical and behavioral sciences, i s not adequate fully to employ all qualified persons, nothing is lost because Ph.D. 's and M.D. 's trained in research nevertheless will be employed in other productive positions. Under these ci rcums tanc e s the extra co st:s i ncurred in the i r spec i al i zed research training may not be necessary for the adequate performance of their duties. 21

OCR for page 17
The public policy question that is directly raised is the extent to wh i ch the " extra " c c' s t s of t rai n i ng more people than neces sary should be borne by publi c funds . Some i nexactne s s in f orec as ting ne ed s i s inevitabl e . S ome cushion of excess research manpower is desirable. The maintenance of strong research training institutions is also impor' ant for the future of science. All of these factors must be taken into consideration in formulati ng Public policy. A change in national pal icy with respect to public funding of research in a general area such as basic biomedical sciences, or in a particular field, such as molecular biology, could create grave difficulties if field- switching by profe ss tonal manpower were limited. To the extent that professional manpower is sufficently broadly trained that researchers can quickly change fields, perhaps after short--arm training such difficulties are less likely to art s e . S. imi la r ly, i f soci ety ha s i n the pa s t produced a "surplus" of research scientists who are 2mp:0y-6 at jobs that require less than their full skills, these professionals can shift to new fields of interest where their training can be more fully utilized. The variability of society' s demand for research, and the value of having a reserve of trained research E'erscnnel to meet emergent research needs, have been suggested as a ra ti one le f or an ample or ove rsuppl y o f Sue h manpower . Yet this rationale has significant faults. First, there are limits to the amount of extra training costs for unused skills that can be justified for the use of public funds. Second, obsolescence of high-level research skills proceeds at a rapid rate, and it is questionable whether these reserves could perform effectively several years later should society need them at that time. Finally, the quality of incoming students might well be affected, if they could not anticipate with confidence that they would, in fact, be using the skills they must work so hard to develop. The most promising new developments in manpower analysis have grown out of attempts to remedy the shortcomings of prior pro jections based on simple extrapolation of trends, international comparisons, and surveys,. These newer approaches, s ome o f which are implemented in later chapters, seek to ~ dentify the factors, particularly those on the supply side, that determine students' choices, and to explain the system within which these factors operate. These approaches have profound implications for the task of the Committee. First, economic factors, some resulting from the interplay of market f orces and others from public policy decisions that affect the cost of students' education, play an important role in students' decision to embark upon graduate study and to choose a particular field of spec ialization. Relative earnings, cost and duration of study, availability of stipends aria other support, and 22

OCR for page 17
pro spects o f emp ~ oyment in parti cu lar f i e ids o f study are examples of such factors. The contention that the sp~cif ic fill ~ of study or the decision to obtain a Ph. D. is generally dependent upon economic considera' dons does not ignore the noneconomic motivations in the demand f or higher education. Rather, the argument i s that marginal choices are ~ nf luenc=d by the relative economic attractiveness of various alterra' ive areas of study. Thus, pro jections of the supply of biomedical and behavioral scientists, and particularly the distribution of this supply by f ields, must be grounded in accurate estimates of the future economic status of these fields relative to other fields requiring similar amounts of tray Ding. Second, estimation of the economic prospects for the biomedi ca ~ and b ehaviora ~ s ci ence s depends i n turn on the supply re spouse of future potential graduate students . That is, the relative salaries and prospects for employment of these scientist s depend on their number in the labor force, a s we l ~ a s on re s ea rc h budget s and the number s of graduate students to be trained. Thus, as Freeman ~ ~ 97 ~ ~ and others have shown, "he dynamics of the supply and demand for any broad area of professional manpower involves significant interactions among these factors, for who ch the magnitude and speed of ad justment cannot ea sily be estimated . For example, a decrease ~ n the rate of real biomedical R and D expenditure s can be expe cat ed eventual ly to reduce the relative salaries of research personnel in this area with the reductions affecting most quickly new postdoctoral entr ant s i nt o the j ob ma rket . Thi s re duct ion in turn wi tend ~ o discourage first-year graduate enrollments in this area and perhaps undergraduate majors in biology, but may al so lead to s one inc re a sed uti ~ i z a ti on of the now le s s costs y personnel in the area who have already been trained as researchers. The reduction in Ph.D. ~ s will tend to lessen the decrease or perhaps even increase red ative salaries and wil ~ subsequently af f ect future enrollments. The key questions that these concerns raise for making pro j ections of future needs relate to the length of time these various ad justments will take, how complete they will be, and how st ron g the i r i of ~ ue nc e wi ~ ~ be . We do no t have precise answers to these questions. They probably differ from field to field and surely are influenced by the degree to which personne l in any fief ~ has reasonably close substitutes in related fields. Gi ven the s e uncert al ntie s i ~ i s not surpr i s ing that no attempts have }'Ben made to further (disaggregate projected utilization of professional manpower by area or fields. Yet the NRSA Act clearly calls f or such disaggregation. To approach this task for the areas of concern to the Cor~-rnittee, it is necessary to make some assumptions regarding the composition of future ~ and D expenditures, to develop some estimates of professional manpower requirements, and to assess the degree of potential 23

OCR for page 17
substitution among those trained in different fields for various types of biomedical and behavioral science research. Many individual s and groups, including this Committee, are now investigating d~ fferent aspects of the problems outs iced above. Organizations and agencies concerned with manpower analyst s, particularly the National Science Foundation, also are attempting to find be' ter ways of handling these conce rns . Nevertheless, it is assent al to realize that pro j ec t ion s of ma npowe r supp ly and uti ~ i za tion i ne vitab ly must be teas =d on judgments and assump~ ions. In subsequent chapters these judgments arid assumptions are speci fled and applied -o logical models of particle ar components of the labor market to derive e stimates of future manpower supplies and utilization. Considerate e uncertainty also remains about what can be said about the statu' ory mandate that the Committee specify fiel ds that shout ~ be given priority in research training programs. This issue is intertwined with the problem of taxonomy--the labeling and classification of the fields within the areas of the biomedical and behavioral sciences . Both aspects of this issue are addressed in the fold owing sect ion. ESTIMATION OF NEEDS AT THE DISCIPLINARY LEVEL-THE TWIN PROBLEMS OF TAXONOMY AND MOBILITY TONG FIELDS Each of the broad areas into which the biomedical and behave oral fields have been divided in this study encompasses a renumber of similar fields. Biochemistry is pe rhaps the domi nant di sc ip li ne within the ba s i c biom edica sciences, as measured by the number of scientists who identify themselves as biochemists. But there are at least 20, and perhaps as many as 40, other fields that could be Cal assified as basic biomedical sciences, depending on the Ha xonomy that i s used. minis circumstance raises the f irst ma jar problem encountered by the Committee in attempting to estimate manpower needs at the f ield leered. Many different ta xonomi es have been used in the past and are currently used by the f eder a ~ and nonf edera ~ organizations concerned with its administration to describe the fields of biomedical and behaviora ~ s cience. Even within a single agency, such as the NIH, several different taxonomists are used, and the differences among them can be quite si gni f icant . Trainee s and f ellows of the NTH are classified according to a detailed nomenclature cad 1~d the Discipline, Specialty, Field (DSF) C:ode. This is a system of more than 6 00 titles and subtitle s covering in great detail the biological, clinical, and behavioral sciences and, in lesser detail, the physical sciences, the 24

OCR for page 17
engineering, agricul sure, environmental, and other health- r=la-~d fields, and most of the conscience fields (Tabs e 2. 1) . Personnel empl oyed on, or contributing to, research grants sponsored by the Inset tutes of the NIH are classifier into a set of 133 disciple nes called the Field, Discipline, specialty (FDS) code. It is related to the DSF code in that it provides considerable detail within the basic biological and Cal inical sciences, although it is more compact in other areas. A third taxonomy in use within the NIH is called the Central Scientific Classification System (CSCS), a multiaxis scheme designed to describe the NIH research grants and contracts programs according to the fields, body systems, and research materials involved in the pro ject. There is at least one more taxonomy in general use at the NIH. Each institute e use s a set of program areas to describe the focus of its research and training programs. In some cases tines" have the customary field titles such as pathos ogy, bioengineering, or physiology, and in other cases they describe much broader areas of interest, such as carcinogenesis, blood resources, or the arsenical scientist program. ADAMHA has recent, y developed a two-dimensional scheme for cat assifying its trainees and fed lows (Table 2. 2) . One axis describes the f ields of training, while the other describes the problem area. Because individua Is trained in a par' ~ char field often contribute to research in several problem areas, this scheme offers a reasonable e and realistic method of Cal ass-` fication. The Committee has found that in many cases, notably in the fields of epidemiol ogy and bios~atistics and the area of health services research, Z the area or field alone does not provide an adequate description of an ~ ndividual' s expertise. But -~e use of a two- d~ Tensional matrix such as in Table 2. 2, expanded to include a more comprehensive set of fields and probe em areas would largely overcome this problem by providing the additional dimension required for adequate classification of an inch vidual. Organiza' ions other than the NIH are also heavily involved in coil echoing and disseminating data relating to manpower and expenditures for scientif ic activities and have their own taxonomies. Again, ~ here is no formal mechanism for coordinating these activities, and as a result no standard taxonomy exists. This of course ~ eads to considerate, e difficulty in merging anti comparing data published by different organizations. The NSF usual ly publishes i' s manpower and funding data only for broad areas or fields such as l:)~ol ogical sciences, clinical sciences, psychology, chemistry, physics, etc. The Office of Education tabulates data about enrollments and degrees by fief 0, whir e the NRC also cod lects information by field about the doctorate population in its annual Survey of 25

OCR for page 17
TABLE: 2.1 The NIH Taxonomy for Trainees and Fellows: Discipline, Specialty, Field Codea Gen. med. and bio. sciences Anatomy Biochemistry Biophysics Microbiology Pathology Pharmacology Physiology Multidisciplinary Radiation, nonclinical Entomology Genetics Nutrition Hydrobiology Ecology Cell biology Zoology Botany Biology, not elsewhere classified Other gent med. and bio. sciences Clinical medicine Internal medicine Allergy Pediatrics Geriatrics Obstetric s-gyneco logy Radiology Surgery Otorh~nolaryngology Ophthalmology Anesthesiology Neurology Psychiatry Preventive medicine Other clinical medicine Clinical dentistry Other health-related activi _ _ Health administration Nursing Social work Engineering, health- related Veterinary medicine Biosta~cistics l~piderniology Other health-related professions and activities Cormnunity health fields Accident prevention Maternal and child health Dental public health Mental health Over community health fields Environmental health fields Radiological health Water pollution control Air pollution Environmental engineering Food protection Occupational health Environmental sciences Other environmental health fields Psychology General and experimental psychology Comparative and animal psychology Physiological psychology Developmental psychology Personality psychology Social psych.-sociological aspects Abnormal psychology Clinical psychology Education, counseling, and guidance Other psychological areas Behavioral sciences except Psych. Sociology Social psych. -sociological aspects Anthropology Social sciences & related discip. Math., phys. sciences, engr., other Mathematics Chemistry Physics Earth and related sciences Agricultural f ields Engineering Otter f' elds Only the major group headings are shown here. In the complete code, each specialty may have up to 10 or more subspecialties. 26

OCR for page 17
0 id c) - ~ 14 In u] 0 A] A) ~ A) H - OR ~ ~ ~ O a: ~ S - ~ O O ~ - ~ ~ ~ us ~ me ~ ~ :r: U) o 0 .,, ,' 0 a, Cal o 4~ a: Ma U] 3 o EN a ED JJ Ma 4) tic 0 :~: eC 4 m ~ - ~ fig P. As a, ~ .a x: a; ~ a 0 s4 ~ ~ 0 ~ 5; 0 U In ~4 Me 0 a o TIC m ~4 o AS o g ~ 0 41 4J o P' u o 43 ~- ~ 0 s4 ~ ~ ~o r C) 0 ~ - ~ 0 ql U) C~ ~4 ~n t) 4J ^ ~ 0 `: ~5 oo P4 .^ . o~ ~ 0 0 m ~n ~4 o. u u) 0 ~ ~ U C O O 4~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ V ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V~ U) t~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O s a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~' ~ ^~= V ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ O -- O ~ ~ . - ~ ~ O ~ O ~ R I o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ O O .~: _~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ o ^ ~ 34 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ O ~ O ~ :^ S S mC ~1 V t~ i4 :>~ ^ s: la ~ ~ -1 ,C i4 O ~1 G) U) ~ ~ V ~C .0 0 Q~ .C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 m ~ ;; ~ ~ 0 :` ~ u' ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ v, ~ 0 5; ~ U) 0 4J m ~ cn 0 27

OCR for page 17
Earned Doctorates and its biennia ~ Survey of Dcctorate Recipe ents. As a result of this plethora of taxonomies, the Committee and panels have faced an especially vexing problem. In carrying out the mandate of the NRSA Act to determine the needs for biomedical and behavioral res march personnel and to specify the kinds and extent of tray Ding to be provided, it has been confront ea with the fundamental and frustrating task of devel aping a satisfactory taxonomy and relating it ~ o those currently ~ n use. The issue of taxonomy is fundamental, because the definition, label ing, and classification of scientific research fie ids must occur before rational measurement and analysis can proceed. The task would a be considerably simpli f fed if a I] previous taxonomies could be ignored and a f re sh s ~ a rt ma de . Un f ortunate l y, thi s would vitiat e t he considerable body of data that has accumulated over the almost 4 0 years that federally supported training programs have existed. These data provide much of the material on which the Committee must base its recommendations, and their conversion to a common taxonomic base would be an expensive ard ~ ime-consuming ~ask. Despite the progres s the panel s have been making in developing a satisfactory taxonomy in certain cases, a generals y acceptable solution is not yet in sight, and cons derab~ e further of f ort will be needed. The Committee nonetheles s has had to proceed with its own ~ axonomy in undertaking several surreys needed to obtain data to carry out it s mandate. It conducted two surveys during ~ 9 76 and ~ 977 to deve lop data on the current ~ abor mark en from the viewpoint of the individual and of the academic department chairmen. The first survey wa s directed to recent Ph.D. 's in the biomedical and behavioral fields and was concerned with ~ heir employment and utilization. For that purpose, a taxonomy was developed consisting of the f it ~ tithe es that de scribe ba sic biomedi Cal and behaviors sciences in this study. Hereafter in this report, the be omedical and behavioral sciences are defined and reported tar the speci fic f ields listed in this taxonomy or approximations ~hereto. The taxonomy employed in the survey, and the corresponding set of fields from the Doctorate Records File, are shown in Table 2. 3. In Chapters 3 and 4, estimates of the number of Ph. D. degrees awarded annually wit 1 differ because of minor differences between these two taxonomiPs . The s econd survey was directed to the chairmen of biomedical and behavioral departments in Ph. D. -granting institutions. Since i+ was designed partly to supplement data con 1 ect=d by the NSF in its annual departmental survey, the NSF ~ ist of department titles was us ed to identif y the group to be inc lured in the C ommi ttee ' s surve y . The se department titan es are also shown in Table 2. 3. 28

OCR for page 17
u) h V, - 4) 4> .,' a) U) 3 U) a, a ..., u cn o s GJ m u a Ok .,' CO U) a1 o o x E~ uS,' OX ~ O E~ ~ ~ ;` E~ u) tn . V eq C) C) ~ V ,,, ,,, ~ ~ V O ' U] ~ $: a1 ~ ~ a,l ~ ~ tq Q~ ~ O v ~ ~ u~ " o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O u ~ ~ a,, a, LO ~ V 60 .- ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~, c >, ~ ~ 0 ~ u, `m `) ~ U Q. a, U s~ -- C)-- ~q ~ 4~ u: O O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O h U ~ ~ - ~ ` - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u - ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 u~ 0 -- a~ ~a =: 0 a~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ S4 ns ~ ~ ~ ~ -- O U ~ ~ ~ ~ U .- ~ ~ ~ ~ . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C' ~ ~ ~ >. R ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h O ~ O ~ ~ . ~ a, 0 .c s 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ - - 0 0 ~ ~ ~ a, ~ u 0 s :, s~ 0 0 .^ ~ U O ~ O O u ~ ~ ~ O o ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .Q. - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C) C) S S S .- . - ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O O o m ~ m m ~; ~ o4 ~ m m ~ ~ Z ~ Z P. ~ ~. ~- r, m s P c~ <; u~ u~ m .,~ a, m m ~n a u V 60 ~ ~n v ~= u 0 0 .,l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ U ~ o ~ P. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V U 0 U ~ O ~ ~ ~ S4 ~ O ~ C: ~ ~ `: ~ ~ ~ ^ 8 .~ ~ ~ ~ ^ o ac) ~ s ~Q~ ~ ~ C=, ~ U ~ u `: ~ 0 ~ g) ~ ~ C) u, 4~ _1 h, t) ~ a ~s u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ,a) a~ ~ >, ~ ~ ~~~ 43 0 ,~ ~4 ,c u) _ ~ :>' O O ~ :~ a) u ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O dJ 0 ~: ~n E ~ v ~ .4 ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ u e . ~ ~ ~ o~ .,~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~., ~ C;-~ a~ ~ - ~ u~ 0 0 c~ 0 .c ~ ~: ~ O ~ O a~ 0 ~ "i ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~d a~ U] _ ~ U ~ O V >t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S~ rl S ~ ~ O v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ .~ 0 .4 ~ ~ C, ~ m.- ~ ~ 0 u 0 C ~ u a) Q) U) U ~ ~ ~ .C O ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ O U V O ~ ~ S 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ O U k o o O o~ ~ ~ C ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S ~ m0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ -- ~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ S ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O o ~ ~ m m m m ~ ~ ~ H ~ P~ P ~ ~ ~ m ~; .c ~: ~ P< c ,4 P) ~n ~ 0 0 0 0 s v 3 a ~ : 0 ~ ~ ~ - ~ c - ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~a ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ O 0 6 ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U O ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O U) ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ {q ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oC,= o ~ ~ ~ .m ~U ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 U U ~ - - O ~ ~ S ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~- ~ m~ O'^ c) c ~ ~ a) ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~a ~ c ~ 4J tn a~ ~ ~ ~ tJ a 54 ~ -4 ~ ~ t~ u) u) ~ t~ :~ ,l ~ r; r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a c; a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o s ~ ~ ~ u) 0 c ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ o o :~ ~ ~ ~ 0 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a) s :3 ~ o ~ ,c ~ ~ Q' ~ v :~ ~ u ~ ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X O u~ H a~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ 0 0 u O O ~ O O ~ O O S ~ u ~ O ~ ~ O ~ l) a1 ,~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~: k~ ~ a) ~ 0 .1: ~ u~ ~ c, ~: -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 0 u ~ ~ ~4 ~ a, 0 ~ k; ~ ~ ,1 u~ c c: ~ ~ 0 ~ S ~ ~ ~4 0 ~ ~ tn ~ s4 R u ~ 0 ~ ~ :~.o O O ~ ~ ~ - O R O ,0 ~ _~ ~ O V O ~ ~ o ~ r~ 4,~ 0 ~ C _ ~ ~ ~ ~ U) U) U U ~ ~ Q~ Ei O ~ G) O '-~S2~= ~a~l4r~)~'p'i4,t ~'U)~-OfI3 -ol~4O~c=-b~~Siu;~ ^o~;rl6~Ei~s~ =~d a' ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ :~ ~ 0 c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ :~ ~ i4 0 ~ ~ m V] 0 ~ V ~ ~ :r X X: ~ ~ P. P4 ~ V) 0 U ~ t~ C) >: 0 ~c; ~ ~ ~ O b; ~ ~ a~ (P ~ ~ ~ 41) C~ t ~r] O a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ . ~ ~ u~ 0 ~ 0 ~; m m m oa ~ cl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- :t. >: ~* -~, P, ~ P, t~4 ~ ~ c d) m ;i5 29

OCR for page 17
In i t s prey iou s re pc rt s, the cocci ttee ha s grad e recommendations only for the broad areas, awaiting the outcome o f e f fort s by panels and staff to a sse s s the squat ion at the fie 1d level. One fact is becoming clear as a re suit of thi s e xp [oration . Con side rat le mobi lity occurs we thin most of the broad areas. Individuals who receive their Ph.D. in one field are frequently found to be employed ~. r a different but rat ated fief ~ within the area (these data wil ~ be presented ~ n Chapter 3) . From the point of view of the individual invcived, this might be call ed field- switching; from the employers s point of view it represents substitutability among the fief ds. Al though there i s little suppor* for the proposition that research personnel tray ned in dif ferent f ields are completely interchangeable, field-sw~tching data do indicate that, within some limits as yet undefined, substitution can and does occur. The Committee's studies are progressing, but are nor ye' to the Fain- where fields can be grouped into those that represent homogeneous clusters within which there is considerable mobility and between which mobility is more difficult. A second major problem then arises . If there is general substitutabi lity among the fields of a particular area (e. g., the basic biomedical sciences}, is there any need to emphasize training in a particular field within that area? would ~ a policy of providing a broad spectrum of training be the proper on" under these circumstances? The Committee has thus far concluded that predoctoral trai ning sho ~ ~ ~ c ore r a broad range of f ie Ids so that the student may be broadly exposed to vari ous aspects of the sc ten if ic area . The identi f ication of priority f ields f or training at ~ he predoctora~ level in general would be an undesirable policy. If fields are to be singled out for priority in the allocate on of training funds, this should be done pr i marl ~ y at the po sttiocto ra ~ We're ~ . The third ma jor problem, therefore, is to develop criteria for assigning priorities to postdoctoral training fields. At the broad area level (i. e., basic biomedical sciences, clinical sciences, e4_c. ), the Committee has based its previous recommendations on an assessment of need as determined by the liked y near-term balance between supply and demand at prevailing salary levels. Trenas in enrollments, Ph. D. production, and R and D expenditures have been prominent factors in the analysis. It is doubtful that a similar approach would be feasible at the field level, given the difficulty of obtaining detailed data on the various f actors invo ~ ved . However, it i s quite possible Ma ~ f urther study o f this problem wil ~ yi eld an alternative fees ible procedure. One approach that the Co~runittee has been investigating would attempt to determine training priorities by examining the field mix represented by the professional personnel that have been utilized on research grants of the sponsoring 30

OCR for page 17
agencies. The basic premise of this approach is that each of the problem areas of interest to the NIH, ADAMHA, and HFA util i ze research personne ~ f ram a di f fer ent mix of fi elds, and if ~ he f ield mixes were known in each case they right serve a s gui des to training priorities ~ ~ n e s senc e, this approach provides a direct ~ ink between training and research programs. How is this linkage to be constructed? Since ~ 973, the NIH has been collecting data on the character) sties of personnel employed on their research Grants and those contributing to, and not paid from, grant funds. These data are now being alla lyzed by the Committee. Although preliminary results are available (see Volume 2) , it is blear that some basic probe ems must be solved before these ~ inkage s c an be re ~ fed on . Among them i s the ta sk of deci ding how the probe em a rosa s s hould be speci f ied--whethe r the level of resolution should be the study sections that r~vi ew the grant applications, the program areas of the i nstitutes, or just the institutes themselves. Whichever is chosen, it must lend itself readily to the estimation of future funding levels, for the problem of specifying current training priorities is closely related to the problem of anti cipating future research needs. These in turn will be largely determined by the level and di stribution of grant and contract funds. Another survey of the labor market for biomedical scientists, conducted by westat, Inc., for the NIH in 1975, wa s des igne ~ to d eve lop inf ormati on on both the demand and supply sides of the market. Employers were asked to list the number of budgeted vacancies occurring between May and September ~ 9 75. At the sarre time, suppliers (primarily the training program d~ rectors at colleges and universities) of biomedical science ists were asked to list the number of persons expected to complete thei r training during the same per' oaf. National estimates of supply and demand were then developed from the responses. The NIH has reported that the survey results indicate shortages of biomedical scientists existed i n certa in f ie Ids in ~ 97 5, parti cular ly in the clinical area. The Committee has followed the progress of the We stat survey with interest and has requested details of the sampling and estimating procedures. Substantial questions have beer raised about the survey methodology and, in particular, about the criterion for estimating the demand for biomedical scientists. Unfortunately, the details of this survey were made available just as the report was in preparation and ~ he Committee was theref ore unable to analyze them ~ n time for inclusion in this report. Further study will be given to the westat survey over the coming year, and a ful ~ discussion wi 11 be included in the ~ 978 report . Only in the basic biomedical sciences area has the committee felt that sufficient ~ nformation is available to 31

OCR for page 17
enable sore spec i f ~ c statements to be made thi s year about priority f ields (Chapter 3) . AS sta ~ ed in Chapter 1, survey resume ts and expert judgment have been the main. sources on which the Commi ttee ha s re lied i n recommending s recta attention be given to certain f ields. OVERVIEW OF LABOR MARKET ANALYSES In the f o ~ lowing two chapters data are pre sensed on the popul anion, manpower flows, and anticipated balance between supply and demand ~ n the broad areas of research covered in this study. Knowledge of the market system is f ar from complete in terms of the information desired, especially in the areas of clinical sciences, health services research, and nursing res earch. Nonetheless, the Committee was able to complete an. extensive analysis of employment prospects in the teas ic biomedical and behave oral sciences. In particular the committee examined (~) the extent to which changing market conditions have affected the employment patterns of recent Ph.D. recipients in these fields; {2} the factors that have contributed to recent expansion in the biomedical and behavioral labor forces; and (3} the emp' oyment outlook in these f ields, given various assumptions about f actors af fecting the demand for Ph. D. personnel in the academic sector. In examining the current employment experience of recent biomedical and behaviora ~ science graduates, the Committee noted that other surveys (e . g ., NRC , ~ 97 3 and ~ 9 7 55) had not revealed high levels of unemployment, even in f ields that might seem to have a signif icant oversupply of trained research personne ~ . The Committee decided to investigate chan ge s in the type s o f po siti ons taken a f ter gra duet i on and to search for shifts f rom presumably overpopulated training f i el ds into other f i el ds with gre ater employment opportunities . ~ n many biomedical science fie Ids, emit oyment cliff icult' es might manifest themselves ty prod ongation of postdoctoral study. In other biomedical and behavioral fields, market imbalances might be reflected by increases in the number of graduates taking positions that di a not uti ~ i ze ~ hei r predoctoral training. Wherever possible, these market ad justments were considered separate' y for each field within the biomedical and behaviors ~ s ciences. The Committee also attempted to identify factors that have contributed to the expansion of the biomedical and behavioral science labor forces in recent years. An understanding of the relative importance of such factors as annual Ph.D. production, field-switching, and attrition (retirement and death) has provided valuable ins ight into the likelihood of continued growth in these labor forces. 32

OCR for page 17
Some attention has also been given to differences in the rates of expansion in the academic and nonacademic sectors. Finally, the Committee has developed models of academic markets demand for Ph. D. personnel in the biomedical, behavioral, and clinical sciences. Projections of future needs for research personnel were made on the basis of alternative assumptions about anticipated changes in both R and D expenditures and total graduate and undergraduate enrollments in these areas. The assumptions used in each model cover what are considered to be the likely range of possibilities f or re search funding ~ evels and enrollments in the next five years. Projections of demand for faculty were derived from al ~ ernative app, ications of the models and compared wi' h expected growth in the research labor forces. Although data in the areas of clinical science and health services research and nursing research were not as readily avail ate, e, some preliminary analyses of labor market conditions were undertaken in those areas as well. In the Cal inical science area, a model based on P< and D funding and enrollments in medical schools has been developed to pro ject future demand for clinical science faculty (Chapter 5). While thi s model is not as precise as the committee would like, it provides some insight into future demand for clinical invest. galore. No accurate count of the number of currently active clinica ~ investigators could be made at this time. Nonetheless, information frog NIB training programs and other sources has been used to estimate trends in the numbers of M. D. ' s entering research careers in recent years. In the areas of heal th services research and nursing research, some ~ nformation on the utilization patterns of recent graduates has been collected (similar to that avail able for biomedical and behavioral science graduates) . This information has provided the Committee with some indi cations of current supply i n these two areas . However, it ha s not been poss ible to determine the s i z e o f the populations available to do research. Personnel qualified to work on problems fin health services research were particularly difficult to identify since they received doctoral training in a variety of b: omedical, behavioral, and re ~ ated f i e ld s and since many of them. have moved into and out of the health services research at different s' ages in their careers . Even less i s known about the future needs for personnel trained in areas of health services res earch and nur s ing He s ea rch . Ne~rerthe ~ e s s, ~ he C ommi ~ tee wa s ab le to make some comment s on the outi ook f or the s e are a s on the basis of its knowledge of the current market experience for recent graduates and its general impressions of opportunities for research in these areas. These will be found in Chap' er 6 for health services research and in Chapter 7 for nursing re search . 33

OCR for page 17
FOOTNOTES 1. The direction of the adjustments are difficult to foresee. For example, shortages in empicyment opportunities in a f ie 1 d may inf luence some persons earning baccalaureates n that f ie ld to enter graduate school rather than ~ eke a job that does not meet their expections. 2 . ~ ~ i st of pro bleary categor i es that the Pane ~ on H ea Ith Service s Be s "a rch ha s deve loped to def ine that area i s pres end ed in Chapter 6 . 34