Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
APPENDIX D 34 2. Ideas for improving the NRSA program: a). pay better (vide supra); b). eliminate the payback period. This is simply a disincentive to applying; we want our options open. Also, it is unreasonable to expect us to commit our futures to medical research when funding for the vast majority of grant proposals is denied. 3. To stay at the cutting edge of science, the United States needs the creativity of all of its citizens regardless of sex or race. Other than by making changes in societyâs views on science and expanding educational opportunities early in training, minorities and women will have chosen other careers long prior to the point at which one applies for a NRSA. 4. To assure maintenance of high quality research training environments, you might consider site checks and personal interviews with recipients. 5. Opportunities exist in the private sector. Young investigators can get funding from pharmaceutical houses to continue work at universities, or they can become employees of pharmaceutical houses. The latter option is satisfactory from the financial perspective, but is unsatisfactory for several reasons. Firstly, investigators must follow an agenda designed to make marketable products. The profits from basic science are distant; industry is short-term profit oriented. Consequently, basic investigations may be ignored and investigator autonomy lost. Secondly, the option to practice clinical medicine may be limited to participation in drug trials. The relationship between pharmaceutical houses and universities is complex. We need each other. The pharmaceutical houses need the universities to provide basic science on which industry can capitalize. Academia needs industry for financial support. The opportunities for collaboration are boundless, yet unrealized. In identifying why academia and industry have collaborated poorly, changes may be made to improve the relationship and promote better health research. Possible explanations: 1) greed - each wants all the profit and recognition. 2) survival - different laboratories pursue parallel lines of research; one lab may be âscoopedâ by another and, therefore, be reluctant to share technologies and talent. What can be done? Talent, technology, and money can be shared with explicit agreements that resultant profits (long- or short-term) and recognition will be shared likewise. What are the implications of collaboration between industry and academics for the NRSA program? Pharmaceutical houses should consider providing similar awards with the proviso that profits from discovery will be shared. I do not favor the approach of funding research with charitable donations from industry because I doubt this will result in significant increases in cash-flow into academics beyond the present level. STATEMENT BY JULIA R. FIELDING, M.D. Although the economic and political climate remains chilly for researchers and scientists, it is vital that we increase the number of competent thinkers in preparation for the twenty-first century. I believe that early encouragement of capable students in combination with sound teaching and support from programs such as the National Research Service Awards Act is the route to success. In order to produce competent thinkers by age 18 we need to teach science and mathematics effectively beginning at age 6. Many of us were first encouraged to think independently by an elementary school teacher. It seems that during the next four years there will be more emphasis placed on primary education in the public schools. Hopefully this will translate into more money for books, equipment, and high quality teachers. There is, of course, still no substitute for hard work in mastering basic critical thinking skills, and parents and teachers need to drive that message home. Science should, however, be made attractive by including experimentation, discussion and competition. Many scientific concepts are of real interest to children today including the meteor theory of dinosaur extinction, the building of the space station, and computer generated animation. People who work in scientific fields should be brought to schools to put a human face to less exciting concepts. Team discovery projects, science fairs, and science camps are fun ways to teach scientific methods. Finally, parents and educators must convey to children the joy that comes from mastering difficult tasks. The usefulness of long term goals and community service must be stressed to combat the instant gratification provided by television and other distractions. High school and college are the times when mentoring can be very effective. In my case, the best
