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 206
SUPPLEMENT 3 ISSUES RAISED IN LEGISLATIVE HI STORY OF THE MESA ACT Ll sted be low are several important que scions that eme rged from the Aegis ative history of the Act. The Committee bell eves that these questions and others that concern the effec' ~veness and ova 1 impact both of the provisions of the Act and of ~ he guidelines used by the agencies to administer the program must be specifically addressed. They i ncl ude the f 0 1 lowing: 3 4 Does a signif icant proportion of the students trained in these programs subsequent ly pursue careers in areas other than biomedica ~ and behavioral research Cared teaching) ? 2 Are there a ~ ternative f edemas support programs available to students planning research careers in tines" areas? Are the e more appropriate and ef fective alternatives to the training grant and fed lowship mechani ems? Is it inequitable f or the federal government to provide more support for graduate students in the biomedi cal and behavioral sciences than in other areas ? Do individuals trained in NIH- and ADAMHA-suE:Forted programs subsequently earn incomes that make it reasonable to require them to bear the costs of their own training? Shoul ~ NIH and ADANHA provide support for only those unable to pay for their own training? 206