Meeting the Nation's Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists: Summary of the 1993 Public Hearings (1994)

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 59 however, are often less cynical, and hunger for guidance on how to write a proposal; when to send a probe; if I send a probe, should my name go on the paper?; etc. Collectively the mentors and trainees need to explore the often challenging issues that increasingly surround the practice of science, thereby affirming the principle that in the practice as in the substance of science, open and thorough exploration of a problem is the productive approach. STATEMENT BY VINCE J. LICATA, Ph.D. Along with this committee, I share an avid interest in the direction of the biosciences in this country--both in regard to how the scientific community itself is defining its needs and goals, and in the way the scientific community interfaces with the governmental and industrial institutions which “pay for” the sciences. I’ll preface my remarks by saying that when I speak of a “scientist,” I am generally referring to basic researchers in the academic setting. I define basic research as a knowledge driven, curiosity driven, unrestricted exploration of the structure and function of the universe, which is never initially directed toward any specific applied use. As well as presently being an NRSA/NIH postdoctoral fellow, I was supported by an NRSA/NIH training grant during part of my graduate work. When speaking about the NRSA program I will be predominantly speaking about the individual NRSAs. This is because while a graduate student on an NRSA/NIH training grant, at least at The Johns Hopkins University, one knows little more about one’s funding situation than the fact that one is “on a training grant. ” Although I was funded by it for three years as a graduate student, I did not really know what the NRSA program was until I applied for a fellowship. Here are my responses to the questions in your letter of March 2, 1993: 1. The most significant challenge we face today in the United States for maintaining an adequate supply of qualified scientists to sustain and advance health research is making the profession of being a scientist one of the most attractive career choices for intelligent and motivated people. Obviously the higher the caliber of people becoming scientists, the higher the caliber of the resulting science. Roadblocks to achieving this goal lie both at the level of the scientists themselves and at the level of the general public. As regards the scientists themselves: the most common opinion that I encounter is that scientists feel they are overworked and underpaid--especially during the “early part” of a scientific career. If one uses the standards commonly used to evaluate one’s “career success,” this is undoubtedly a true statement. When scientists compare their salary to those of lawyers or certified public accountants, we seem rather undervalued. Part of the problem is, however, the incongruity of the comparison. When evaluating their career “worth,” scientists often overlook the facts that they get to set their own hours, choose what they work on, take sabbaticals, become tenured. In short, scientists themselves need a better understanding of their profession--of the fact that they have traded the usual (monetary) measures of “success” for success of a different kind. This may seem a blatantly obvious point, but I have so often encountered the “answer” that we must pay scientists more (which is, of course, also partly true) that I think it worth stressing (to scientists) that society does pay them “more,” just not in money. Another part of the problem lies at the level of public opinion. Current public opinion toward scientists is horrifyingly low. There is constant press coverage of the apparently massive amount of fraud in the biosciences. All scientists become implicated by this. Scientists are regarded as gold-bricking, elitist snobs, who sit in their ivory towers doing nothing all day because they have tenure and can never be fired--and now it’s been discovered that what little work they actually do is probably faked (so why pay them more?). Such a climate certainly deters good people from entering the field. Such ridiculous perceptions must be vigorously countered by public affairs divisions of universities and national scientific organizations--more vigorously than is being done now. Scientists must begin speaking to the people. Perhaps all NRSA grant recipients should be encouraged to perform some form of public education as part of their training, such as writing a newspaper or magazine article, or speaking to a community service group, etc. Educating the public by educating those presently in school is, of course, a primary answer, and I believe that there has been significant progress in organizing for that goal on the part of several national scientific organizations. What I believe is being somewhat overlooked, however, is the need to educate people who are no longer “in school.” 

APPENDIX D 60 Parents will not push their children to learn science if they themselves cannot see the value of it. Why is the New York Times one of the only newspapers in the country to have a science section? Why is “Mr. Wizard” (or an equivalent) no longer on television? The power of such a simple concept as the Mr. Wizard show in influencing the career choices of the population should not be underestimated. TV shows like NOVA and Newton’s Apple, etc., are very good, but they do not create the image of a scientist as a role model, a person, as someone to become. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to ask scientists to re-evaluate their societal worth and to spend more time speaking to the public at a time when they must spend nearly every waking moment writing grant applications that probably will not get funded. It is difficult to ask graduate students and postdocs to address these issues when they are in constant fear as to both their future job prospects and research funding in the basic sciences. This is not an issue that you have asked for an opinion on, but it is an issue that must be addressed before we can expect to entice good people into science. The easy answer is: give more money to NIH, NSF, USDA, NASA, etc., for basic research. The more realistic answer, I believe, is to define basic research as a necessary institution in itself, to decide how much basic research we (as a planet) need to be doing, employ enough basic researchers (not too many, not too few--mostly at universities), and then guarantee them the funds to do their work, i.e., to make basic research a “national goal. ” The only limitation on basic research should be the inherent ability of the scientist. 2. In my opinion, expansion would be the biggest improvement in the NRSA program in the coming years. The figures I have indicate that there are a total of about 2200 individual NRSAs for all of NIH. This attaches a nice prestige to getting an NRSA fellowship, but if the goal of the program is “to assure a continuing supply of skilled investigators in the biomedical and behavioral sciences,” then the program must be made less of an honor and more of a general career route. This of course means “more money,” which is always the solution which is easiest to propose and the hardest to enact. There are, of course, a much larger number of institutional NRSAs. Personally, I have had very few complaints regarding my own NRSA. The problems that I do see are mainly administrative and seem to be “par for the course” for NIH funding. The amount of paperwork involved in applying for the NRSA fellowship far exceeds that required for any other postdoctoral fellowship. If other awarding institutions make decisions based on a more streamlined application process, then it seems that NIH could. Even the continuation applications are longer than the initial applications for most other fellowships. A possible improvement to the program that would not involve a lot of extra money is to have yearly national meetings of individual NRSA recipients, divided by research areas, and to have NRSA recipients present their work to each other and to the study section members and NIH officials who coordinate the program. Such meetings might be held a day before or after large national meetings such as ASBMB, ACS, or FASEB, in order to cut costs and save time. Not only would this serve to initiate possible future collaborative relationships, but would allow one on one communication between NRSA grant givers and recipients. The NRSA recipients would get to present their research results to a highly receptive audience while NRSA and NRC officials would gain information to help them evaluate the NRSA program at very close range. 3. The problem in recruiting women and (“underrepresented” or non-Asian) minorities into scientific careers is a signature symptom of the deeply ingrained white male dominance of the scientific profession. It is no secret that the civilized world is male dominated, but the dominance of the white male in science is one of the most explicit cases of this world order. Unfortunately, changes in the NRSA program will only have limited impact in this area. This is because the majority of discrimination relative to the scientific professions happens at levels higher than the postdoctoral level (as well as at levels much lower--at the preschool level, etc.). I believe, however, that any impact is good, and can always be the start of, or a part of a larger change toward gender and racial equity in the sciences. Even though the application process for individual NRSA is presently theoretically “color-blind” and “gender-blind, ” the entrenched white male approach to research serves to make applications by white males automatically more attractive. I contend that, without any overt intent to discriminate, proposals by white males merely seem to be “more on track” and are ranked higher by study sections because of the strong