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 88 industry and the related potential for profit that can spring from a wide variety of research heighten the need for recognition of real and even potential conflicts of interest. We conclude that training programs today must include structured opportunities for young scientists to explore and debate the underlying principles that should guide the ethical decisions that they will need to make. We recommend building structural linkages between training programs and the private sector, particularly the for-profit private sector. For reasons that relate both to pedagogy and to the need for additional resources, it is important that we find ways to link training programs with the consumers of the educational research enterprise: the pharmaceutical, agricultural, and biotechnology companies that rely both on a source of well- trained scientists and on the research results that are products of the research training environment. The blossoming biomedical/biotechnology industry in particular has created a new segment of the private sector that has a vested interest in training programs: their content and their vitality as well as the quantity of young scientists produced. Thus, they should be willing to participate both in an advisory capacity and in the role of resource provider. There exist good models for linking training with the private sector in disciplines such as engineering and chemistry. Experience in these areas offers opportunities to learn what works and what doesnât. One suggestion that we find appealing is the establishment of private sector intern programs at various stages in the educational process. Very early in the educational process, such programs could be effective strategy for recruiting young scientists. Targeted correctly, they could assist in the special recruitment efforts directed toward underrepresented groups. Internships at later stages in the training could provide trainees with an important perspective that would not likely be gained within an academic institution, with access to alternative laboratory approaches, and with funds for support that could markedly enhance the overall training experience. At the same time, these programs would offer the for-profit private sector an opportunity to help ensure an adequate supply of appropriately trained scientists and, on an individual basis, a head start on recruiting. Thus, we see adequate incentive from both sides to make this an effective approach. STATEMENT BY HERBERT B. SILBER, Ph.D. I believe that as presently administered, the National Research Service Awards fund some of the best and brightest young people committed to a scientific career. They graduate from outstanding universities and they sit at the top of their class. These students go to major Ph.D. granting universities. They are the cream of the crop. I can support the awarding of additional grants, because these students have the potential to be motivated and successful biomedical researchers. However, other initiatives are necessary to radically increase the numbers of graduate students in the biomedical sciences. The representatives from the major Ph.D.-granting universities will make suggestions about how to improve graduate educational opportunities. My training and interests lie with precollege and undergraduates, especially to reach out to economically disadvantaged and minority students who are not presently reached. I am making suggestions in the following areas. 1. Reach out to minority students at both minority and majority institutions. 2. Get undergraduates involved in undergraduate research to enhance their understanding of what a graduate program will involve. 3. Reach below the college level to encourage students into research as high school students, and even more importantly, we must stop turning off our elementary school teachers to science. The question posed by this group is how to enlarge the numbers of high quality students in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. The students who may be missed are those who have the ability to make successful contributions to science, but because of many factors, often not related to academic ability, will not receive these awards. My favorite student is one who is bright and will be successful, but does not yet know it. I am an NIH Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC) Program Director at San Jose State University (SJSU), and most of my MARC students are in this category. I am also a faculty research participant in the NIH Minority Biomedical Research Support Program. These high ability minority students, even those with very high grade points, have not received a lot of
APPENDIX D 89 positive strokes in public school or college. Even in the 1980s and 1990s, some were asked by high school teachers and counselors why they wanted science and mathematics courses, since they would not need them. When they get to SJSU and into the MARC program I can help them get them into good universities with their own financial support. However, many of them do not do well on GRE exams and they can get discouraged. I meet with these students each week to encourage them and help them through their rough spots. However, how many high-ability students, both majority and minority, do we miss because they do not get this attention? How many MARC students received NRC Awards? How many more will go on to be successful scientists? At SJSU we deal with first generation college students, both majority and minority students, who come here because it is affordable. There are many public institutions like ours that have high ability students (our best are as good as those anywhere, we just do not have as many of them as a Stanford, UC Berkeley, or other high quality institution has). Many of these students who could become good scientists will not because they do not know the opportunities that are out there. When I invite successful minority scientists to speak to our MARC students, I have them talk about how they decided to become a scientist. Every speaker has said that a single individual (some majorities, some minorities) noticed them and gave them crucial encouragement. For some of these successful individuals, they did not yet have the highest grades, but their aspirations changed. Perhaps the NRC awards could recognize some of these qualities and do the same. I am not suggesting that some awards be reserved for minority students, but perhaps in judging achievement we look beyond where the students got their degree and we look at what they have achieved. If you want to get an undergraduate into a Ph.D. program, I believe the best way is to get them involved is undergraduate research. I have had continual support for undergraduate research, even though I have never taught in a Ph.D. granting institution. I have been very careful to have both majority and minority students working together. I am funded by minority student grants, but I also have other funds for any students, and my group has a mixture of majority and minority students, both male and female. The students pick their own leaders in the group, and often it is the minority students. Undergraduates have presented talks at national meetings and they have been coauthors on publications. Many of the grants for undergraduate research are small, but highly effective. Perhaps the NRC might want to initiate a program of small grants for undergraduates, either by having the students apply or by having a faculty member/student joint proposal (with a page limit that is reasonable, 5-10 pages, plus CVâs). If the concern would be that only students from the top universities will get these, perhaps one of the criteria for review may be how the project includes minorities and women. We need to reach women and minorities who attend majority institutions. Remember, both NSF and NIH have programs for research grants at non-Ph.D. institutions. The key to my success with undergraduates is to find the talented ones early (freshman/sophomore years) and to get them involved in undergraduate research. It takes a lot of my time early on, and is not productive. However, by the time they are juniors or seniors I have excellent research students. This approach applies to all students, but may be even more important for engaging minority students to think about a scientific career. In my early participation in the MARC program, I was opposed to the MARC requirement that the students go away for a summer after their junior year. I thought it took them away from my research for their most productive summer. However, the students come back with significant maturity, confidence, research ability, and the desire to pursue advanced training. Therefore, I would like to propose new NRC Awards for undergraduate research at any university where undergraduate research is strongly encouraged. I would require that the students go to a Ph.D. granting institution for the summer after their junior year, with the award paying the studentâs stipend, travel and living expenses for the summer. The host institution should also receive a small allowance for supplies. Many schools have these programs, especially for minority students (MARC students generally have an easy time getting summer support). It is especially important that these opportunities be made available to minority students at majority institutions, where they often are not encouraged to get involved in undergraduate research. I have run an ACS Project SEED Program for high school students. One of the guidelines is to find students who may not be the best in their class, since the best seem to receive all of the awards. We are encouraged to look for students who will benefit from a summer in a laboratory working on a small research project. I have been on a panel that just awarded three scholarships to graduates of the SEED program, and
