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 52 Streamlining these guidelines would be of enormous help, and also it would be useful to have a dialogue between the NIH and the various subspecialty boards so there is a better understanding of what the aims of the two are and how the two can come together to provide a meaningful national program which will be helpful in creating biomedical investigators who can participate both in clinical research and in basic research. STATEMENT BY GEORGE A. KIMMICH, PH.D. Most graduate training programs in the biological sciences at the University of Rochester are offered through the School of Medicine and Dentistry. The School offers Ph.D. programs in Anatomy, Biochemistry, Biophysics, Genetics, Microbiology, Neuroscience, Pathology, Physiology, Pharmacology, and Toxicology. The Ph.D. in Biology is offered through the College of Arts and Science which is immediately adjacent to the Medical School. Proximity of the two campuses allows for several joint research and research training ventures at Rochester which emphasize opportunities for talented students to develop careers in the biomedical sciences. These ventures include both undergraduate and graduate programs and represent opportunities that simply are not possible at most institutions because of geographical separation of undergraduate and medical school facilities. Our eleven Ph.D. programs in the biomedical sciences have 302 degree candidates currently in training, 249 of whom are in the School of Medicine and Dentistry and 53 in the College of Arts and Science. Each Ph.D. program provides a Master of Science degree as students fulfill specific curricular and oral examination requirements as they make progress toward the Ph.D. In addition, five terminal Masters programs are offered in the School of Medicine and Dentistry--in Public Health, Dental Research, Microbiology, Industrial Hygiene, and Environmental Science. One hundred twenty eight Masters students are currently enrolled, bringing our total graduate count in the biomedical science programs to 430 students. The graduate enterprise in the biomedical sciences at Rochester is a very significant one in terms of our institutional mission as well as in terms of our contribution to the national pool of well-trained basic research scientists. I will address those questions you posed for us to consider in the sequence they were presented in your initial correspondence. 1. Our most significant challenge is maintaining interest in science on the part of talented students as a rewarding career possibility that is worth the personal commitment and effort in time, energy, and ability that is required during the training process. We are facing a funding crisis in sustaining the fine research enterprise in the natural sciences that our country has established during the past four decades. On the one hand, we hear concern expressed at the national level about nurturing interest in science and mathematics on the part of our young people during elementary, middle school, high school, and undergraduate training. We view dwindling interest in these areas as a matter of great concern that can threaten the future well-being of our society. Programs that foster development of skills for teaching science at these levels and that encourage young people to consider science-related careers are noted as laudable and necessary goals, and resources are being directed to them. On the other hand, the number of research grants in the biomedical sciences is dwindling. We face a new fiscal year in which the likelihood is very high that the number of new grants and competing renewals that are funded through NIH will probably be no greater than it was five years ago, and perhaps considerably smaller. The scientific community is finding that 15 percent or fewer of approved extramural RO-1 grant proposals are funded, no matter what disciplinary area is considered. Research people often read that 25 to 35 percent of grants are funded, but in fact, the personal experience for those of us in the academic community is that it is unusual to know someone who achieves funding with an NIH Study Section score lower than the top 15 percentile. âStaticâ in the review system equivalent to one poor or mediocre score among a study section of 15 members can be sufficient to result in an average score that will guarantee lack of funding. First rank scientists who have established research programs that have been productive for many years are uncertain about the next renewal, at best, and at worst are finding that they often have to go back in with multiple revisions to have any chance of continuing their work. Many are not succeeding. Those that do are markedly less productive due to the additional time investment. Set-asides of various kinds have created a situation where not only is the grant number small, but approved budgets routinely
APPENDIX D 53 have rescissions of 10 to 20 percent that can mean budgets in the last year of a funded grant that are lower than those awarded for year one of a five year grant. Moreover, new policy prevents funding of a renewed grant at a level more than 10 percent of the amount that was received in the last year of funding. With average rescissions of about 15 percent last year, there is not even a possibility of generating funds on a given grant that can meet inflationary pressure for the past several years. This is true even though inflation has been low. The net result is that research personnel budgets cannot be met, and established talented people in science are not being retained. The above phenomena are not going unobserved by the generation of young people who might be considering scientific careers or by those would-be scientists currently in training. They understand that basic research requires enormous dedication, long hours, frustration, and sheer hard work. In the past they have shown the personal discipline and dedication necessary to make our biomedical science the envy of the world. Now, however, they see mentors who have been wonderful role models struggling to maintain a career for lack of adequate funding of basic research. They see individuals who have enjoyed science, but who have paid a severe price in terms of having limited personal leisure time because of the demands of their career, suddenly find in mid-life that resources are not there to allow continuation of their chosen career. These young people are asking sobering questions. Among them: Do I really want the time and work sacrifice for so little likelihood of having an opportunity to establish an independent career in basic research? These young people are beginning to vote with their feet. They leave their first choice of career to pursue alternatives. The message filters back to undergraduates and high school students so that some who might have started on a track toward a professional research-based career never do. The message we have been trying to send with programs intended to attract young people into science is being thwarted by a ârealityâ message that says the resources are drying up which have been sustaining our National scientific enterprise. This is particularly true for the basic research pursued in academia on which much of the applied research of corporate America depends. The most significant challenge we face is to be able to provide the resources to sustain science at all levels. In part, these resources need to be directed to sustain established careers in basic science. In part, they need to be directed toward scientists-in-training in the form of more National Research Service Awards with competitive stipend levels. The two are interdependent. One without the other leads either to the raising of false hope for science career aspirations or to a lack of adequate manpower to sustain the enterprise which has driven our world leadership in the biomedical sciences. 2. Science is under siege. Mixed messages are rampant. Many in our political leadership and among our citizens applaud the application of science as manifested in new drugs which offer so much hope for solving a wide variety of human health problems. These applications are particularly a result of work in corporate laboratories where the concepts and technology of basic research are brought to fruition. âTechnology transferâ to the corporate sector or another arena where it will be âappliedâ is a current buzzword. Unfortunately, it conveys an idea that only applied research is meritorious and worthy of funding. Simultaneously, it conveys a relatively deep-seated negative set of attitudes about basic research. During the same time, many of the premier research-based pharmaceutical companies are characterized as the cause of high and escalating health care costs. The attack is causing cutbacks in personnel in precisely the industry that has the most to offer in terms of prospective solutions. This is despite the fact that drug costs are a small percentage of overall health care costs. We are making two major mistakes in policy regarding research funding: a. Current policy trends suggest that basic research can be directed so as to optimize cross-over into applications. It cannot, and resources that aim at this impossible goal are not utilized effectively. Funding of either basic research or applied research must be decided first and foremost on the quality of research, where quality is judged by peer review systems. It is a major mistake to believe that anyone possesses the omniscience necessary to determine the direction of the basic research enterprise effectively or the specific ways in which new knowledge should be applied. Attempts at directed basic research will waste money and opportunities. b. Basic research and applied research should not be funded out of the same pocket. Basic research must be funded in a stable way so as to stop the ongoing growth of applied research at the expense of basic
