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.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS FROM SPEAKERS 6 we will attract our “best and the brightest” only by offering stipends that show them that we value a research career as highly as we value other types of professional employment. Suggestions From Speakers Addressing stipend inequities should be a high priority for the NRSA research training program. Speakers specifically suggested attention to these issues: Increase the Stipend • Predoctoral stipends should be increased into a range that is competitive with stipends paid by other state and federal agencies, e.g., most state university stipends start at $11,000 and NSF currently pays $14,000, and the U.S. Department of Education now pays $14,000 annually. • Stipend levels should be increased for individuals seeking careers in clinical research. • Stipend increases should reflect inflationary changes, and the training budget should be sufficient to allow cost-of-living adjustments to be made annually and computed into each training grant’s continuation base. • Other mechanisms should be established such as private sector partnerships to ensure that stipends reach competitive levels. Additional Support • Change the policy preventing supplementation of NRSA trainee support with funds from a federal grant. • Money should also be added to NRSA support for laboratory training expenses such as research supplies and equipment. Innovative Program Support • Institute a one year research support program in which students receive: credit for research performed, living expenses, support for interest due on loans, a modest amount for lab fees. ISSUE 5 EXPANDING THE MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAM5 The Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) awards both the M.D. and the Ph.D. degrees after a rigorous course of study. This is recognized as the most successful NIH training program, according to many speakers. A 1992 study of graduates of the Johns Hopkins University’s M.D./Ph.D. program found that all of those who had completed their training were actively involved in research at that time: 81 percent in academia, 14 percent at research institutes, and 5 percent in the biotechnology industry. Some speakers expressed concern, however, that the program could do more to encourage its trainees to pursue problems in human disease--a research area for which they should be uniquely qualified, but, by some indications, are disinclined to pursue. While the goal of the MSTP program is to train both basic and clinical researchers, Washington University’s Carl Frieden and Barbara Fox reported in 1991 that 83 percent of their MSTP graduates were engaged in full-time basic research. Similarly, in a 1990 analysis of the research publications of a sample of MSTP graduates, Edward Ahrens found that 75 percent of their work focused on nonclinical research. The findings of Frieden, Fox, and Ahrens suggest that at least some portion of MSTP trainees should be considered as pursuing basic science careers rather than clinical science careers. If further study confirms that MSTP graduates gravitate toward narrow areas of research, an effort should be made to broaden training. Suggestions From Speakers The following suggestions for expanding the MSTP program were offered by speakers: 5 Material in this section drawn from testimony by: D. Brautigan, S. Gerbi, C. Lumeng, and T. Malone. See Appendix D .