GRADUATE-EDUCATION IN THE BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES - CRITICAL OBSERVATIONSON TRAINING FOR RESEARCH CAREERS

Several aspects of the processes for the pre- and postdoctoral trainin g of PhDs and the postdoctoral research training of MDs are critically examined. The size of the predoctoral pipeline, the sources of suppor t for the students in it, trends in the annual production of bioscienc e PhDs, and prospects for growth in opportunities, as defined in incre ases in availability of public and private funds for research, are cat alogued. Evidence for the existence of a surplus of research scientist s-based on the size and growth of the pool of postdoctorals, the succe ss rates now being experienced by young postdoctorals in competing for National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, and the success of young postdoctorals in securing career employment-is evaluated, and the conc lusion that the nation is producing too many research scientists is su ggested. The pros and cons of ''downregulating'' the production of sci entists are explored, the difficulties of reaching a national consensu s on the degree of reduction and the partition of reduction among fiel ds of science and academic institutions and academic departments are d escribed, and the mechanisms conceivably available for accomplishing t he task-reducing NIH training funds, autoregulation by academic instit utions and/or scientific disciplines, and reliance on the decisions of well-informed (probably by the National Academy of Sciences) degree c andidates-are enumerated; a preference of the last of these mechanisms is indicated. The NIH's formal training programs are compared with it s informal support of training under research grants; questions that t he latter practice raises are identified. The striking disparity betwe en the duration of training for conventional predoctoral PhD candidate s and that for dual-degree (MD-PhD) aspirants is noted. The measuremen t problems of assessing the duration of postdoctoral training are high lighted. The fact that dual-degree scientists seem to compete little, if any, more successfully for the great bulk of NIH research grants th an do singly-degreed MDs or PhDs is noted, suggesting the advisability of a fresh and objective review of these dual-degree programs, especi ally the NIH's Medical Scientist Training Program, to reassess their v alue in the light of their cost. Some characteristics of careers in th e biomedical sciences are outlined. Data are presented on the high tur nover rates of first-time-ever entrants into the pool of NIH grantees or, stated otherwise, the relatively low rates of survival of principa l investigators (PIs) in the NIH research grant system; a method of es timating the steady-state number of NIH ex- PIs ''around'' at any give n moment is proposed. Serious problems surrounding the evaluation of t raining programs are discussed, leading to the surmise that no extant evaluation, including those done for the NIH by the National Academy o f Sciences, the National Research Council, the Institute of Medicine, and the Association of American Medical Colleges, is entirely credible . Data systems relevant to graduate education, career outcomes, and em ployment patterns-both as they do and as they could exist-are discusse d. A mechanism for federal support of research training, substantially different from those now in place, is described and its adoption sugg ested.