Biomedical Research WorkforceBiomedical Research Workforce Working Group INTERIM REPORT
Shirley Tilghman, PhDPresidentPrinceton University
Sally Rockey, PhDDeputy Director for Extramural ResearchNIH
Charge1. Develop a model for a sustainable and diverse U.S. biomedical research
workforce that can inform decisions about training of the optimal number of people for the appropriate types of positions that will d i d t h lthadvance science and promote health. Developing the model will include an analysis of the current composition and size of the workforce to understand the consequences of current funding policies on the research framework. g pThe model should include:• An assessment of present and future needs in the academic research arena, but also
• Current and future needs in industry, science policy, education, communication, and other pathways.
The model will also require an assessment of current and future availability of trainees from the domestic and internationalavailability of trainees from the domestic and international communities.
http://acd.od.nih.gov/bwf.asphttp://acd.od.nih.gov/bwf.asp
2
Charge cont.Charge cont.
2. Based on this analysis and input from the y pextramural community, using appropriate expertise from NIH and external sources, and p ,recognizing that there are limits to NIH’s ability to control many aspects of the training y y p gpipeline, the committee will make recommendations for actions that NIH should take to support a future sustainable biomedical infrastructure.
3
Roster• Shirley Tilghman, PhD, President, Princeton University, co‐Chairy g , , , y,• Sally Rockey, PhD, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH, co‐Chair• Sandra Degen, PhD, Interim Chair, Dept of Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry & Microbiology,
Associate Chair for Academic Affairs, Dept of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, University of Cincinnati
• Laura Forese, MD, COO, Chief Medical Officer, and Senior Vice President, NY‐Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center
• Donna Ginther, Ph.D., Professor, Professor of Economics and Director, Center for Economic and Business Analysis, University of Kansas
• Arthur Gutierrez‐Hartmann, M.D., Professor, Department of Medicine and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics; and Director, Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Colorado Denver
• Freeman Hrabowski, PhD, President, University of Maryland, Baltimore CountyJ J k PhD P f f P h l d Di t I tit t f S i l R h• James Jackson, PhD, Professor of Psychology and Director, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
• Leemor Joshua‐Tor, PhD, Professor and Dean, Watson School of Biological Sciences, HHMI Investigator, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
• Richard Lifton MD PhD HHMI Investigator Yale School of Medicine• Richard Lifton, MD, PhD, HHMI Investigator, Yale School of Medicine• Garry Neil, MD, Corporate Vice President, Corporate Office of Science and Technology,
Johnson & Johnson• Naomi Rosenberg, PhD, Dean, Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, Tufts
University School of MedicineUniversity School of Medicine • Bruce A. Weinberg, PhD, Ohio State University • Keith Yamamoto, PhD, Executive Vice Dean, School of Medicine, University of California San
Francisco 4
Modeling sub‐Committeeg• Bruce Weinberg, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Ohio State University, co‐
chair• Donna Ginther, Ph.D., Professor of Economics & Director, Center for
Economic and Business Analysis, University of Kansas , co‐chair• David Blau, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Ohio State University • Stephen Eubank, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Virginia Bioinformatics
Institute & deputy director, Network Dynamics and Simulation Science Laboratory, Virginia Tech
• Richard B. Freeman, Ph.D. Herbert Ascherman Chair of Economics,Richard B. Freeman, Ph.D. Herbert Ascherman Chair of Economics, Harvard University & director of the National Bureau of Economic Research/Sloan Science Engineering Workforce Project
• Peter K. Sorger, Ph.D. Professor of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical SchoolSchool
• Paula Stephan, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, Georgia State University • Michael Teitelbaum, Ph.D. Senior Advisor, The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
5
NIH Activities• NIH Training/Workforce Committee
– Trans‐NIH group of staff experts in training and workforce issues– Led by Rod Ulane and Richard Baird, co‐chairs of the NIH Training
Advisory Committee– Developing scenarios for possible NIH policy changes for supporting:
• Graduate students• Postdoctoral Fellows• Early career scientistsy• Clinician‐scientists
• SupportOER and other NIH staff– OER and other NIH staff
– Discovery Logic – data analyses– Ripple Effects – RFI analyses
6
Activities• May 10, 2011 – first working group callMay 10, 2011 first working group call• May 23, 2011 – first modeling sub‐committee call• June 21, 2011 – one day working group meeting on NIH campus
– Working group meetingg g p g– Presentations from stakeholders
• August 5, 2011 – one day meeting of modeling sub‐committee in Cambridge, MA
f f l f k f d l– Definition of a conceptual framework for a model– Developed a list of analyses to provide data to the working group (analyses
ongoing)• Request for Information http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice‐files/NOT‐q p //g g /g /g / /
OD‐11‐106.html ‐ published August 17, 2011 (closed October 7, 2011)• September 14, 2011 – working group call to refine major issues• October 12, 2011 – working group call on staff scientists• October 25, 2011 – one day meeting on NIH campus
– Initial presentation of data– Discussion of unintended consequences of NIH policies
Fi t tli f t– First outline of report• October‐November, 2011 – NIH staff group deliberations
7
ApproachApproach• A two‐tiered approach that includes descriptive analyses and a conceptual framework (model):analyses and a conceptual framework (model):– Perform a number of descriptive analyses of key aspects of the workforce
– Develop a conceptual framework to organize the analyses– Develop a conceptual framework to organize the analyses (see next slides), could be developed into a full dynamic model
• Populate conceptual framework with information on• Populate conceptual framework with information on each career stage and transition
• Augment with descriptive analyses that drill into key i tpoints
• Link to data on each career stage and transition to build a comprehensive resource upon which p precommendations will be based.
8
Conceptual Framework: PhD Biomedical Research Workforce
College College GraduatesGraduates
Graduate Graduate Education & Education &
TrainingTraining
Postdoctoral Postdoctoral TrainingTraining
International International DoctoratesDoctorates
Science Science RelatedRelated
NNGovernment Government
R hR h
Academic Academic Research orResearch or NonNon--Science Science
R l t dR l t dOut of Labor Out of Labor
FFIndustrial Industrial R hR hNonNon--
Research Research ResearchResearch Research or Research or
TeachingTeaching RelatedRelated ForceForceResearchResearch
9
Conceptual Framework:MD & MD/PhD Biomedical Research Workforce
College College GraduatesGraduates
Medical/Graduate Medical/Graduate SchoolSchool
Postdoctoral Postdoctoral Research Research TrainingTraining
Internship Internship --ResidencyResidency
International International DoctoratesDoctorates
Science Science RelatedRelated
NonNonGovernment Government
ResearchResearch
Academic Academic Research/ Research/
Teaching orTeaching orNonNon--
Research Research Out of Labor Out of Labor ForceForce
Industrial Industrial ResearchResearch
NonNon--Research Research NonNon--
Research Research ResearchResearch Teaching or Teaching or
Patient CarePatient Care Patient CarePatient Care ForceForceResearchResearch
10
NonNon--clinicalclinical
Issues and Analyses: Graduate Students• Issues:
– The balance between supply, including the number of domestic and foreign trained PhD students, and demand, i.e. post‐training career
i iopportunities.– Characteristics of PhD training in biomedical research, including issues
such as• The length of the PhD training period.The length of the PhD training period.• Recommendations for changes to the PhD curriculum.• Training for multiple career paths (including bench and non‐bench science).
The ratio of PhD students on training grants to those supported by– The ratio of PhD students on training grants to those supported by research grants.
• Analyses:– PhD training, analyzing doctoral‐level degrees conferred by US g, y g g y
institutions. • Includes information on numbers of students, time to degree, and degrees awarded
• Broken out by citizenship/visa status race and ethnicity and genderBroken out by citizenship/visa status, race and ethnicity, and gender– NIH support for students
11
Issues and Analyses: Postdoctoral Fellows• Issues:
– The balance between supply, including the number of domestic and foreign trained postdoctoral fellows, and demand, i.e. post‐training g p , , p gcareer opportunities.
– The ratio of postdoctoral fellows on training grants to those supported by research grants.Length of Post doctoral training– Length of Post‐doctoral training.
– Number and fate of foreign postdoctoral fellows and how that affects the size of the workforce and career prospects of trainees.
• Analyses:Analyses:– PhD students planning to do a postdoctoral work– Numbers of postdoctoral fellows by citizenship/visa status and by
source of support– Numbers of US PhDs and MDs in postdoctoral positions at various
times after their degree– NIH support for postdoctoral fellows– Information about foreign postdoctoral fellows derived from visa data– Information about foreign postdoctoral fellows derived from visa data
12
Issues and Analyses: Career Paths• Issues
– Possibilities for professional/staff scientist positions and the level of training required for such positions (e.g. PhD or MSc degrees).
– Issues related to the attractiveness of biomedical research careers (e.g. salary, working conditions, availability of research funding)The effect of changes in NIH policies on investigators grantee institutions and the– The effect of changes in NIH policies on investigators, grantee institutions and the broader research enterprise.
– Diversity of the workforce– The multiple career paths taken by the biomedically‐trained workforce and the decision
points leading to those careers.p g• Analyses
– NIH support for new investigators– Employment trends of biomedical workforce, mainly in academic and medical school
settings, with some information about industry and government• Age, tenure status, race/ethnicity, and gender of US‐trained faculty• US‐trained and foreign PhDs by major field• Salary data• Trends in workforce entrants by citizenship/visa status• Stay rates for US‐trained biomedical PhDsStay rates for US trained biomedical PhDs• Staff scientists by organization type, gender, and nativity • US‐trained PhDs in fields closely, somewhat, or unrelated to their degree
– Additional analysis of recent industry trends– Aging of the workforce – retirement ratesg g– Unintended consequences of current NIH policies– Salary sources (the “soft money” question)
13
RFI Responses: Basic Statistics• 219 unique comments received• 170 (80%) on behalf of self and 44 (20%) on behalf of an organization• In addition to the 8 issues in the RFI, 4 additional issues raised in the
i l d i i i i dcomments: mentoring, early education interventions, industry partnership, and diversity
Distribution of Primary Issues
19%17%
12%11%
9%
15%
20%
25%
60
80
100
120istribution of Primary Issues
9%7% 6% 6% 5% 4%
2% 1%
0%
5%
10%
0
20
40
14http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice‐files/NOT‐OD‐11‐106.html
RFI Responses: Self vs OrganizationCommenters were asked to indicate the most important issue(s) for the working group to address. Following are the issues indicated by individual and organizational commenters in order of priority
Self Organization
Supply and Demand PhD Characteristics
PhD Characteristics Clinician Characteristics
Biomedical Research Career Appeal Post doc Training CharacteristicsBiomedical Research Career Appeal Post‐doc Training Characteristics
Post‐doc Training Characteristics Supply and Demand
Clinician Characteristics Biomedical Research Career Appeal
Effects of NIH Policies Staff Scientist Career Track
Diversity Diversity
Mentoring Effects of NIH Policiesg
Staff Scientist Career Track Training to Research Grant Ratio
Industry Partnership Early Educational Interventions
l d l
15
Early Educational Interventions Mentoring
Training to Research Grant Ratio Industry Partnership
RFI Responses: Selected Recommendations• Encourage career development programs that integrate multiple
career pathways.• Revise training grant review policies so that non‐academic career
choices for former trainees are not considered training failureschoices for former trainees are not considered training failures.• Provide mechanisms to support protected time for clinician research.• Provide grant mechanisms and change the funding policy to increase
project budgets to support the costs associated with permanent staffproject budgets to support the costs associated with permanent staff (i.e. staff scientists).
• Review and modify family friendly policies, such as family leave for trainees, and funding restrictions/preferences based on career pacing.
• Encourage more structured mentoring experiences and develop career/mentorship plans and guidelines.
• Increase training mandates and trainee monitoring on research grants. • Promote partnership programs for post‐doctoral fellows to provide
them with a better understanding of how science is carried out in industry, which would help prepare them for career paths outside of academia.
16
PRELIMINARY DATAPRELIMINARY DATA
17
Employment for College Graduates with a B h l ’ i Bi l Fi ld ( 1 989 383)Bachelor’s in a Biology Field (n=1,989,383)One‐third of biology college graduates are employed in health‐related occupations
Postsecondary Teachers
Scientists Biological and Medical 7.8%
2.7%
related occupations.
S l d M k ti
Health‐related occupations
Manager
Precollege Teacher 5.0%
8.4%
33.0%
5 6%
Other non SE
Other SE
Technicians SE
Sales and Marketing
5.7%
2.1%
5.6%
13.1%
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000
Unknown
Other non SE
Total Weighted Count
16.5%
3 %
Source: NSF SESTAT, 2003 National Survey of College Graduates18
Employment for Doctorates in Biology Field ( )(n=231,350)
Based on a survey of all college graduates residing in the US, one‐third of biology doctorates are employed in research occupations.
Postsecondary Teachers
Scientists Biological and Medical 38.7%
biology doctorates are employed in research occupations.
13.9%
S l d k i
Health‐related occupations
Managers
Pre‐College Teachers 0.7%
8.7%
11.4%
Other non SE
Other SE
Technicians SE
Sales and marketing 1.8%
1.2%
3.8%
5 7%
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Unknown
Other non SE
Total Weighted Count
5.7%
14.1%
g
Source: NSF SESTAT, 2003 National Survey of College Graduates19
Pharmaceutical Industry R&D lEmployment
Employment in the US Pharmaceutical sector has risen over two‐fold since 2002. However R&D Employees include more than PhDs.
100
120
ceutical
p y
60
80
es in
R&D Pha
rmac
thou
sand
s
40
60
ber o
f FTE
employee
sector, in
0
20
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Num
b
Source: NSF Industrial Research and Development Information System
20 Note: NSF data until 2008. Analysis of more recent data is ongoing.
In the Following Slides: Analysis of U.S. Trained PhDs
F• From hthe 19931993 2008– 2008 SSurvey fof DDoctorate R i iRecipients• These data are for U.S. Trained PhDs only• Biomedical Fields exclude: Clinical, Psychology and Social Science Fields
21
Relationship Between Science and h ld dEngineering PhD Field and Occupation
Across S&E PhD fields, 50‐80% of graduates are employed in occupations that , g p y pclosely match their PhD field.
90
100
60
70
80
of PhD
s
20
30
40
50
Percen
t o
0
10
20
1997 2008 1997 2008 1997 2008 1997 2008 1997 2008
l l/ f h d h l h l d
22Source: NSF Survey of Doctoral Recipients
Biological/Life Sciences
Engineering Math and Computer Science
Physical Sciences Psychology and Social Science
Relationship Between Life Sciences PhD Field and Occupation
Within Life Sciences, Biological Sciences fields have the highest number of PhDs working in a related occupation
70
80
Field
PhDs working in a related occupation.
50
60
Occup
ation in PhD
F
Agricultural/food sciences ‐Occupation in Ph.D. field
Biological Sciences ‐ Occupation i Ph D fi ld
20
30
40
t of the
PhD
s with
O in Ph.D. field
Chemistry, except biochemistry ‐ Occupation in Ph.D. field
Environmental life sciences ‐Occupation in Ph.D. field
0
10
1997 2008 1997 2008
Percen
t
23
1‐10 years since Ph.D 11 or more years since Ph.D
Source: NSF Survey of Doctoral Recipients
U.S. Trained Biomedical PhDs in Research i b iOccupations, by Years Since Degree
Over 70% of biomedical PhDs begin working in research occupations out of
90
graduate school; by 11 YSD 60% still work in a research occupation.
70
80
cal PhD
s
Primary or secondary job is research ‐1 5 i Ph D
50
60
ercent of B
iomed
ic 1‐5 years since Ph.D
Primary or secondary job is research ‐6‐10 years since Ph.D
Primary or secondary job is research ‐
30
40
Pe 11‐20 years since Ph.D
Primary or secondary job is research ‐More than 20 years since Ph.D
24
301993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2008
Year of Survey
U.S. Trained PhDs in Academic Employment, by Tenure Track StatusEmployment, by Tenure Track Status
Biomedical
1820
Chemistry35%70
68
10121416
25%
30%
50
60
PhDs
in Tho
usan
ds
0246
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2008
s, in
Tho
usan
ds
Other Life Sciences
15%
20%
30
40
cent of B
iomed
ical
Biom
edical PhD
s, i
Num
ber o
f PhD
s
12
14
16
18
20Other Life Sciences
5%
10%
10
20 Per
Num
ber o
f
0
2
4
6
8
100%0
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2008Year of Survey
In non‐tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed
In tenured or tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed
Source: NSF Survey of Doctoral Recipients
01993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2008
Other life sciences
25
In tenured or tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed
% In non‐tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed
% In tenured or tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed