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 72 assistance given to heterosexual spouses were available for our spouses as well. 5. Prejudices against lesbian and gay issues as a proper subject of scientific study have led to a tremendous loss of talent in two ways. First, many have instead gone into private practice, and try to do studies in their so-called “free-time.” For example, Laura Brown in Seattle would have made a wonderful faculty member, but was warned when applying for an academic job that she would never get tenure doing her work on ethical dilemmas and her work on egalitarian relationships, work with implications far beyond lesbian studies. Second, many scientists like myself have deliberately decided not to focus on lesbian and gay issues because we fear our careers would suffer. Ethnic minority group members who are lesbian and gay have particularly felt the weight of this pressure. The AIDS epidemic has made it clear that there is a need for researchers knowledgeable about gay issues, particularly with regard to ethnic minority gay people. It would be helpful to have some funds earmarked for lesbian and gay studies to encourage research in the face of prejudice. Although there are substantial disadvantages in choosing a scientific career, I can still feel that spark of curiosity that led me to return to school at age 33 and dedicate the last 8 years to science. I hope that you will be able to use my comments in finding ways to make scientific careers less of a sacrifice and more appropriate to the realities of families of the 1990s. STATEMENT BY PAGE S. MORAHAN, Ph.D. It is timely for the National Academy of Sciences to formulate recommendations for the future of the National Research Service Awards program during this critical period for maintenance of preeminence in U.S. science. My comments are from the perspective of chair of a basic science department, past president of the Association of Medical School Microbiology and Immunology Chairs, and past and present director of research training grant programs and individual NRSA fellows. The conclusions are those of myself, our departmental microbiology and immunology faculty, and graduate students, and primarily address biomedical and behavioral sciences research in the academic or research institute setting. Of the questions posed by the committee, the first appears the most urgent to address: “What is the most significant challenge we face today in the U.S. for maintaining an adequate supply of qualified scientists to sustain and advance health research?” It will not be fruitful to address the other issues (improvements in the NRSA program, effectiveness in recruiting women and underrepresented minorities, higher quality training environments) until the major underlying challenges are addressed. The top three challenges that we identify are: Lack of security. This is the number one problem identified by both the faculty and graduate students. • The uncertainty of being able to practice one’s profession is having a serious detrimental effect at all levels - on experienced researchers, new researchers, research trainees, and on those considering research as a career. At the graduate school level, this issue greatly affects the research areas and specific projects that a student chooses. At the professorial levels, the ability to do one’s research has been the driving force that has attracted and kept individuals in the research profession, and which usually does not bring rewards similar to those that can be obtained in other professions that require equal or less training time. • The uncertainty has a much broader ripple effect than generally appreciated. It affects the choice of career-- academics versus industry or government laboratory. It affects one’s personal life, for example, the ability to apply for mortgages and to obtain loans, and the comfort with which one makes major life decisions. It is my perception that the practice of research science requires a complex blend of discipline and creativity as seen in artists and musicians; similarly, most scientists want to practice their craft and not be concerned with questions of yearly survival. • The uncertainty is greater than in other professions where academicians must bring in a substantial part of their salary from practicing their profession. Each research grant makes up a significant portion 

APPENDIX D 73 of one’s salary (20-50 percent); therefore, the loss of one grant results in a devastating effect, whereas the loss of one patient or client generally results in less effect for a physician or lawyer. The increasing pressure to bring in a greater percentage of salary from grants only exacerbates this problem. • The problem is compounded by the increased competition for funding. Scientists often are not comfortable with the reality of being in life to death competition with colleagues. • Lack of sufficient start-up funds and time to ensure success at the beginning of one’s independent career was also viewed as a significant problem. Lack of reward as compared with physicians, engineers, and business managers. Lack of security, coupled with lack of financial reward, has produced a downward spiral. Some scientists could accept the present uncertainty of practicing one’s profession, if the rewards were commensurate with the risks. Faculty viewed the reward issue as equal to the above challenge, while graduate students felt the next challenge (lifestyle demands) was even more important. • Research scientists achieve less financial reward than professions that require comparable training time (now averaging a total of 5-6 predoctoral years, and 5 postdoctoral years before becoming an Assistant Professor). Support during the training period and reasonable certainty of research funding thereafter have been major factors that have attracted talented people into research science instead of other professions such as medicine and engineering. Both of these factors have seen major erosions. Strategies that might lead to shorter training periods could be redefinition of the content required in our curricula, recognizing that much of it will be outdated in five years, and that there is increased need for life long learning skills. Another strategy might be to redefine dissertation requirements, emphasizing writing of papers and other scholarly pieces of work. • In research science, there is less of a direct correlation between the amount of time spent and reward, unlike other professions such as medicine and law. If you treat more patients or have more clients, there is a correlative increased reward. In research, increased numbers of grants generally merely means more salary is covered by the grants. • There is considerable inconsistency among schools and research institutions, and between disciplines, regarding salaries, teaching, and service responsibilities, etc. • Time for the integrative reflection and creative thinking required for break-through science is highly valued among scientists, and this reward is being eroded. There is insufficient time for this now, associated with increased pressure for increased productivity (more publications, more grants, etc.) Lifestyle demands. In order to be successful, biomedical and behavioral academic scientists must be workaholics. • Work addiction is no longer accepted as the norm in this era of interest in self-actualized careers, increased cultural diversity, and increased numbers of women in the profession. • Unlike many other comparable professions, one cannot leave research science for much longer than a year and still remain competitive. Increased flexibility for retraining in NRSA programs might be a useful strategy to address this issue. It is difficult to train on a part-time basis, unlike many other professions. Increased flexibility for training grants to educate part-time students could be a useful strategy. • There is a requirement for rapid, lifelong learning to keep up with major technologic changes; many consider this requirement to be more intensive for research science than in comparable professions. While the three areas above were viewed as the major challenges, several others were viewed as important. Loss of researchers at all stages of the pipeline. There is the well recognized loss of potential researchers in the K-12 years; the factors are complex and include both peer pressure views of scientists as “nerds” and poor teaching of science that destroys 

APPENDIX D 74 children’s innate interests. In addition, there is an increasing trickling out of trained scientists from active research. Some move into new careers (e.g., scientists into patent law) that do not involve active research. Others leave science altogether; this is often true of women who leave to raise families and find that they do not wish to take the time and lower positions required for traditional retraining. Various strategies can be considered: • Better training and continuous re-training for teachers of science in K-12 grades. • Development of widely seen TV shows that picture scientists as normal people (sitcom series?!) • Development of widely visible materials on the spectrum of full-time and part-time career opportunities available for scientists. • Induction training at the Assistant Professor stage in order to develop a community of scholars who can be a support group and network for each other in the “business” aspects of the research profession; this can include both training at the institutional level and nationally through linkages enabled by E-mail and other electronic strategies. • Development of additional types of retraining programs and scientific careers that could be pursued on a part-time basis. Innovative programs with industry might be helpful, funded by a general industry fund, with those completing training going into that industry. The period of retraining should be shorter than that of original training, thus enabling industry to fill shortage areas more rapidly. • Opening up NRSA training to foreign nationals; this would recognize that many stay in the U.S., and that the movement to a global information age and economy will increase the opportunities for international scientific projects. • Institutions could institute an additional professorial rank that recognizes the senior scientist who remains at the bench and does not choose to pursue administrative positions. Increased emphasis on applied research or other service oriented responsibilities is inimical to scientists’ basic values. The predominant value in science is the abstract ideal that increasing knowledge is good for mankind in general, for the scholarship of discovery research (as defined by Ernest Boyer, Carnegie Foundation). A change in the culture of what scientists value is therefore needed--to a broader view of scholarship that includes application scholarship (including applied research and nontraditional scientific careers), integration scholarship, and teaching scholarship. Strategies might include: • Projects in scientific disciplines to redefine the meaning of scholarship in their disciplines, as has recently been done by the American Chemical Society. • Programs to allow for scientists to move into industry or teaching and to move back into academics--a breaking down of the barrier that teaching or industrial science are less respected in the profession than is discovery research. After Ph.D. training there are options that generally dictate the rest of one’s career--a postdoctoral fellowship will keep one in the pipeline for academia and research institutes, while choosing a teaching or industrial position precludes going back. • Change in study sections to more interdisciplinary review. This could help educate scientists about the different types of scholarship, and increase their appreciation for the different approaches in science used by different disciplines (e.g., molecular, clinical, systems, behavioral). • Projects to determine the specific training needs of industry or other potential employers of scientists, and reform current training programs to meet those needs, and to enable students to be more adaptable to whatever careers in which they find themselves. Are current Ph.D. scientists trained sufficiently in dealing with research regulations, electronic communication techniques, communication skills with “lay people”, research personnel, and financial management skills, writing skills, teaching skills, etc.?