Science and the University

12. The Workforce for Biomedical Research—Who Will Do the Work?

C  B R These are exciting times for biomedical research, as major advances in technology (e.g., sequencing, PCR, transgenic animals) and a wealth of data (e.g., genome sequences) allow rapid advances. In the second half of the twentieth century, the era of descriptive biology evolved into the modern age of reductionism, where fundamental principles and underlying mechanisms began to be elucidated at the molecular level. While much still remains to be learned at this basic level, the field has matured sufficiently to allow explanations of complex and interactive systems. This change in the direction of research requires adjustments in how we train the next generation of scientists. They will need breadth as well as depth in their education. Moreover, they will have to function as team players on “big science” projects in addition to individual investigator-driven research. Another change is that the gulf between basic research on fundamental biological mechanisms and translation of these findings to clinical applications has narrowed considerably. There has been a large increase in the number of basic scientists employed as faculty members in clinical departments (Yamagata ; Fang and Meyer ). Additionally, significant interactions with biotech and pharmaceutical companies are not uncommon for basic biomedical scientists , and universities are eager to encourage faculty efforts in translational research. Some believe that this can lead to patents that could be financially rewarding for the university. The exciting scientific prospects have captured the imagination and support of Congress, resulting in a doubling of the budget of the National   The Workforce for Biomedical Research—Who Will Do the Work?  .     Institutes of Health (NIH) during the five-year period from  to , from $. billion to $. billion with almost half of these funds going to extramural research project grants (NIH Web site). The increasing complexity and specialization of biomedical science has led to increased collaborations on research projects. The trend toward “big science” has been facilitated by the increased funding, which made larger lab groups possible . The advantage of large labs in the competition among scientists has also led to growth in their size and complexity. C   W  B R Given the situation just described, what is the source and composition of the workforce that carries out laboratory research in academic settings? Academic research laboratories are structured as a pyramid (Goldman and Massy ). The faculty principal investigator (PI) is at the pinnacle, while the base is composed primarily of graduate students, leading upward to postdoctorals. The students and postdoctorals generally aspire in their career goals to move “up” the pyramid and become a faculty PI. However, it has been noted that a reasonable chance for success in such career aspirations will only be possible when the enterprise is expanding and there is growth in the number of new faculty positions (Goldman and Massy ). Although some will seek careers in other sectors (a point neglected in the analysis by Goldman and Massy), nonetheless, at a steady state not all of those in the pyramid will obtain a faculty position. While it can be debated when we might reach this steady state, it is already apparent that there is increasing unhappiness among postdocs who have unful- filled career expectations. Concerned about this situation, some observers have recommended that the rate of entry into the pyramid be slowed down (National Research Council ). We have countered that this is not a reasonable solution, as it will simply result in more postdocs who received their Ph.D.s in other countries being imported (Gerbi et al. ). The challenge before us is to determine the optimal composition of research personnel in the academic laboratory. This challenge becomes even more pressing as the width of the pyramid increases with the expansion of “big science.” In the following sections, we examine various categories of laboratory personnel, listed in order of increasing training, and their role in fulfilling the academic laboratory’s research mission.     Undergraduates Undergraduates are wonderfully enthusiastic but need much training. Moreover, their short stays (typically one year) in the lab results in very little productivity return for the investment in training. Their cost to the PI can be great in terms of time but minimal in terms of dollars. Master’s Students Master’s students are not commonly found at most of the top research universities, as students typically enter into doctoral programs directly after their undergraduate training, bypassing a master’s degree. Master’s students are only slightly more...