Nuclear Medicine Scientists Findings and Recommendations Based on a 2006 Survey

February 2007

Prepared by

Center for Health Workforce Studies School of Public Health, University at Albany

7 University Place, B334 Rensselaer, NY 12144

518-402-0250 (V)

ii

Preface In the Spring of 2006 the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the School of Public Health, University at Albany (the Center), in collaboration with the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM), conducted a survey of nuclear medicine scientists to learn about their demographic characteristics, education, employment, career paths, and attitudes about their profession. This report summarizes the survey responses and presents a variety of insights about this unique set of professionals.

This is the fourth of a series of eight reports planned for this major study of the nuclear medicine workforce. The initial report, prepared in 2005, was based solely on then existing data and information about the nuclear medicine workforce. The second focused on Nuclear Medicine Technologists. The third examined nuclear medicine technology education program directors. Subsequent reports will describe nuclear medicine technology students about to complete their training, physicians involved in nuclear medicine, nuclear medicine physician education program directors, and residents about to complete their training. A final report will also be prepared synthesizing the findings and conclusions from the several component reports and presenting a series of recommendations about both the field of nuclear medicine and the several nuclear medicine professions.

The report was prepared by Margaret Langelier and Paul Wing of the Center staff, with assistance from Ajita De. The authors are indebted to the nuclear medicine scientists who took the time to complete the survey about their backgrounds and professional work. The survey design and execution was facilitated by Gaetano J. Forte, the Survey Manager for the Center. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Joanna Spahr, the project officer from SNM, to both the survey and the report. The contributions of an informal advisory committee are also gratefully acknowledged. Responsibility for the accuracy of the report rests solely with the authors.

The Center was established in 1996 to collect, analyze, and present data about health care workers to inform provider, professional, government, and education organizations; policy makers; and the public. Today, the Center is a national leader in the field of health workforce studies. It supports and improves health workforce planning and access to quality health care through its collection, tracking, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of information about health professionals at the national, state, and local levels. Additional information about the Center can be found on its website, http://chws.albany.edu.

Questions about this report, the larger nuclear medicine workforce study, or the Center can be directed to Ms. Langelier or Dr. Wing at 518-402-0250.

iii

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

The Survey of Nuclear Medicine Scientists................................................................................ 1 Findings from the 2006 Survey................................................................................................... 2

Key Concepts .......................................................................................................................... 2 Important Issues for Nuclear Medicine Science ..................................................................... 3 Key Findings........................................................................................................................... 3 Recommendations................................................................................................................... 9 Five Themes for the Future................................................................................................... 10

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 15 Classifications and Terminology .............................................................................................. 15 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey........................................................................................... 16

Survey Design....................................................................................................................... 16 Sample Design ...................................................................................................................... 17 The Survey Process............................................................................................................... 17 Survey Responses ................................................................................................................. 18 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 18

Key Findings................................................................................................................................. 19 Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 20 Education and Training............................................................................................................. 23

Educational Attainment of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists .......................................... 24 Future Education................................................................................................................... 26 Level of Additional Future Education .................................................................................. 27 Discipline of Future Education ............................................................................................. 31 Current Discipline in Nuclear Medicine Science and Educational Background .................. 33

Entry into Nuclear Medicine..................................................................................................... 35 First or Second Career Choice .............................................................................................. 35 Second Careers...................................................................................................................... 36 Introduction to Careers in Nuclear Medicine Science .......................................................... 39 Educational Level at Which Formal Nuclear Science Education Began.............................. 42

Current Work Environment ...................................................................................................... 44 Primary and Secondary Employment Settings ..................................................................... 44 Number of Years in Primary Employment Setting............................................................... 47 Organization of Nuclear Medicine Departments .................................................................. 47

Branches of Science of Nuclear Medicine Scientists ............................................................... 48 Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Clinical Nuclear Medicine Departments ............................ 50 Nuclear Medicine Scientists in R&D.................................................................................... 51 Other Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Employment Settings................................................ 52 Work in Clinical Nuclear Medicine Departments or R&D .................................................. 54 Employment Settings of Those Not Working in Clinical Nuclear Medicine or R&D ......... 56

Primary and Secondary Tasks and Roles in Nuclear Medicine Science .................................. 56 Basic Science Research......................................................................................................... 58 Applied Science Research..................................................................................................... 60 Technical Support ................................................................................................................. 61 Administrative Support......................................................................................................... 62

Salaries of Nuclear Medicine Scientists ................................................................................... 63

iv

Salary by Branch of Science ................................................................................................. 64 Salary of Scientists in One Employment Setting.................................................................. 64 Salaries of Scientists in Two or More Employment Settings ............................................... 66 Salary of Scientists by Years Certified in a Nuclear Medicine Specialty............................. 66 Work Hours of Full Time Nuclear Medicine Scientists ....................................................... 67 Attitudes About Salaries in Nuclear Medicine Science........................................................ 69

Mentors and Mentoring............................................................................................................. 70 Recruitment of New Scientists.................................................................................................. 72

Recruiting Preferences .......................................................................................................... 73 Attitudes About Current Supply of Qualified Nuclear Medicine Scientists............................. 77

Strategies to Improve Workforce Recruiting........................................................................ 80 Attitudes About Nuclear Medicine ........................................................................................... 82

Current Environmental Issues That Impact Nuclear Medicine Science ............................... 82 Opinions About the Future of Nuclear Medicine ................................................................. 83 Opinions About the Effect of Molecular Imaging Science on Nuclear Medicine Science .. 85 Opinions About the Professional Environment in the U.S. and Other Countries................. 86 Prototype for Nuclear Medicine Emulation.......................................................................... 86

Future Plans by Ease or Difficulty in Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career ............ 87 Key Factors for Future Careers in Nuclear Medicine Science. ................................................ 88 Certifications and Professional Associations............................................................................ 94

Years Since Initial Certification............................................................................................ 95 Years Certified by Branch of Science................................................................................... 96 Years Certified by Employment Setting ............................................................................... 97 Years Certified by Work Clinical Nuclear Medicine Department and R&D ....................... 98

Membership in Professional Associations ................................................................................ 99 Reasons for Belonging to a Professional Association ........................................................ 100

Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists .............................................................. 102 Future Plans by Branch of Science ..................................................................................... 103 Future Plans by Roles and Functions.................................................................................. 104 Future Plans by Expected Ease or Difficulty of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Career ... 105 Future Plans by Location .................................................................................................... 107 Future Plans by Primary Employment Setting.................................................................... 108 Future Plans by Gender....................................................................................................... 110 Future Plans by Place of Birth ............................................................................................ 111 Future Plans by Age............................................................................................................ 111 Future Plans by Salary ........................................................................................................ 113

Expected Ease or Difficulty in Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career .................... 114 Expected Ease or Difficulty by Career Sustainability Factors............................................ 117 Expected Ease or Difficulty by Salary Level...................................................................... 118 Expected Ease or Difficulty by Age Group ........................................................................ 119

Chemists.................................................................................................................................. 120 Pharmacists ............................................................................................................................. 124 Physicists................................................................................................................................. 128 Computer Scientists and Engineers ........................................................................................ 132

Appendix A. 2007 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Workforce Questionnaire................................ 136 Appendix B. Responses to Open-Ended Questions by Nuclear Medicine Scientists................ 145

v

List of Tables Table 1. Geographic Distribution of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by USDHHS Region,

2006....................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 2. Gender Mix of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006............................................. 20 Table 3. Racial Ethnic Composition of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006, and U.S.

Population, 2005 ................................................................................................................... 22 Table 4. Place of Birth of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Age Group, 2006 .................. 22 Table 5. Place of Birth of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Gender, 2006 .................................... 23 Table 6. Nuclear Medicine Specialties of Highest Degree of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by

Place of Birth, 2006 .............................................................................................................. 24 Table 7. Highest Degree of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006 ....................................... 25 Table 8. Disciplines in which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Earned Bachelor’s Degrees,

2006....................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 9. Number of Disciplines in Which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Earned Their

Highest Degree, 2006............................................................................................................ 26 Table 10. Percentages of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Who Expect to Pursue More

Education by Highest Current Degree Held ......................................................................... 26 Table 11. Nuclear Medicine Scientists Expecting to Pursue Further Education in the Next Five

Years by Age and Gender, 2006 ........................................................................................... 27 Table 12: Levels of Additional Education Desired by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, by

Current Highest Degree, 2006 .............................................................................................. 28 Table 13. Levels of Additional Education Desired by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, by

Current Highest Degree, 2006 .............................................................................................. 29 Table 14. Levels of Additional Education Desired by Current Branch of Nuclear Medicine

Science, 2006 ........................................................................................................................ 30 Table 15. Levels of Additional Education Desired by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by

Current Branch of Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006 ............................................................ 30 Table 16. Discipline in which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Expect To Seek Additional

Education in the Future, 2006............................................................................................... 31 Table 17. Disciplines of Expected Additional Education by Current Branch of Nuclear Medicine

Science, 2006 ........................................................................................................................ 32 Table 18. Disciplines in which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Earned Bachelor’s Degrees,

by Branch of Science of Current Work, 2006....................................................................... 33 Table 19. Disciplines in which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Earned Bachelor’s Degrees,

by Branch of Science of Current Work................................................................................. 34 Table 20. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Whose First Career Choice Was Nuclear Medicine

Science by Age Group, 2006 ................................................................................................ 35 Table 21. Percentage of Active Scientists For Whom Nuclear Medicine Science Was a First

Career Choice........................................................................................................................ 36 Table 22. Prior Careers of Nuclear Medicine Scientists............................................................... 37 Table 23. Reasons For Initial Interest in Nuclear Medicine Science by Age Group, 2006.......... 39 Table 24. Education Level at First Knowledge of Nuclear Medicine Science Career

Opportunities, 2006............................................................................................................... 40 Table 25. Educational Level at Which Nuclear Medicine Scientist Became Aware of Careers in

Nuclear Medicine Science by Academic Area of Most Advanced Degree, 2006 ................ 41

vi

Table 26. Educational Levels at which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Learned About Nuclear Medicine by Age Groups ........................................................................................ 42

Table 27. Academic Area of Most Advanced Degree by Academic Level at which the Scientist Began Nuclear Medicine Education in Earnest, 2006 .......................................................... 44

Table 28. Primary and Secondary Employment Settings of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006....................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 29. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Different Branches of Science, 2006 .............. 49 Table 30. Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Clinical Nuclear Medicine Departments and Nuclear

Medicine Research and Development, 2006 ........................................................................ 55 Table 31. Branch of Science of Nuclear Medicine Scientists Working in Clinical Departments

and in R&D........................................................................................................................... 55 Table 32. Employment Settings Of Scientists Not in Clinical or R&D Activities, 2006 ............. 56 Table 33. Primary Roles of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Primary Work Settings, 2006

............................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 34. “Other” Services Provided by Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Primary and Secondary

Roles in Basic Research........................................................................................................ 59 Table 35. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting Selected Primary and Secondary Tasks

and Roles in Basic Science Research, 2006.......................................................................... 60 Table 36. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting Selected Primary and Secondary Tasks

and Roles in Applied Research, 2006................................................................................... 61 Table 37. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting Selected Primary and Secondary Tasks

and Roles in Technical Support, 2006 .................................................................................. 61 Table 38. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting Selected Primary and Secondary

Tasks/Roles in Administrative Support, 2006 ...................................................................... 62 Table 39. Salary Distribution of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006 ........ 64 Table 40. Salary Distributions of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Number of Years Certified in a

Nuclear Medicine Science Specialty .................................................................................... 67 Table 41. Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Past History of Being Mentored and Current History of

Mentoring, 2006.................................................................................................................... 70 Table 42. Distribution of Age Group of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Who Had a Mentor,

2006....................................................................................................................................... 71 Table 43. Nuclear Medicine Scientists Currently Serving as Mentors for Potential Nuclear

Medicine Scientists by Age Group, 2006 ............................................................................. 71 Table 44. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Recruiting New Scientists to Nuclear Medicine

Science by Branch of Science, 2006..................................................................................... 72 Table 45. Nuclear Medicine Scientists Recruiting New Scientists to Nuclear Medicine by Major

Role in Primary Work Setting, 2006..................................................................................... 73 Table 46. Recruiting Preferences of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Currently or Recently

Recruiting New Scientists by Primary Employment Setting, 2006...................................... 74 Table 47. Percent of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Recruiting New Scientists by Branch of

Science, 2006 ........................................................................................................................ 74 Table 48. Primary Source of Nuclear Medicine Scientist Funding by Nuclear Medicine Scientist

Preference for Postdoctoral Fellows or Experienced Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006... 75 Table 49. Recruiting Preferences of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Currently or Recently

Recruiting New Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006 ....................................................... 77

vii

Table 50. Ratings of Availability of New Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Either Currently or Recently Recruiting New Scientists by Primary Employment Setting, 2006.................................................................................................... 78

Table 51. Assessment of the Supply of New Scientists by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Either Currently or Recently Recruiting New Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006......... 79

Table 52. Assessment of Supply of New Scientists Reported by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Currently or Recently Recruiting New Scientists by Recruiting Preferences, 2006............................................................................................................................................... 79

Table 53. Strategies for Improving Workforce Recruitment by Branch of Science, 2006........... 81 Table 54. Current Issues Impacting Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006... 83 Table 55. Attitudes of Nuclear Medicine Scientists about the Future of Nuclear Medicine, 2006

............................................................................................................................................... 84 Table 56. Attitudes of Current Nuclear Medicine Scientists about the Future of Nuclear

Medicine, 2006 ..................................................................................................................... 85 Table 57. Opinions of the Effect of Molecular Imaging Science on the Work of Nuclear

Medicine Scientists, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 85 Table 58. Comparison of Professional Environment for Nuclear Medicine Scientists in the U.S.

and Other Countries .............................................................................................................. 86 Table 59. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Views on the Ease of

Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career at Present, 2006 ......................................... 88 Table 60. Key Factors to Sustaining Future Careers in Nuclear Medicine Science by Branch of

Science, 2006 ........................................................................................................................ 89 Table 61. Key Factors to Sustenance of Future Careers by Primary Endeavor of Nuclear

Medicine Scientist, 2006....................................................................................................... 90 Table 62. Mean Attitude Scores of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science,

2006....................................................................................................................................... 92 Table 63. Current Certifications of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006 ........................... 94 Table 64. Current Certifications of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science,

2006....................................................................................................................................... 95 Table 65. Specialty of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Years Certified, 2006............................. 97 Table 66. Primary Employment Setting of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Years Certified in a

Nuclear Medicine Specialty, 2006........................................................................................ 98 Table 67. Years Certified in a Nuclear Medicine Science Specialty by Work in a Clinical

Department or R&D, 2006.................................................................................................... 99 Table 68. Professional Association Memberships of Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006............ 99 Table 69. Reasons for Belonging to A Professional Association, 2006 ..................................... 100 Table 70. Professional Associations to which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Belong by

Branch of Science, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 101 Table 71. Ways That Professional Identity of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Is Encouraged

by Branch of Science, 2006 ................................................................................................ 102 Table 72. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006..... 103 Table 73. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006..... 104 Table 74. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Primary Roles in Primary Work

Setting, 2006 ....................................................................................................................... 105 Table 75. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Expected Future Ease or

Difficulty of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career, 2006.................................. 106

viii

Table 76. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Expected Ease or Difficulty of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career, 2006. ....................................................... 107

Table 77. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Regions, 2006 ..................... 108 Table 78. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Primary Employment Setting,

2006..................................................................................................................................... 109 Table 79. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Primary Employment Setting,

2006..................................................................................................................................... 110 Table 80. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Gender, 2006 ...................... 110 Table 81. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Place of Birth, 2006 ............ 111 Table 82. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Age Group, 2006 ................ 112 Table 83. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Age Group, 2006 ................ 113 Table 84. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Salary Group, 2006............. 114 Table 85. Mean Scores of Current and Future Ease of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science

Career by Professional Branch of Science, 2006................................................................ 116 Table 86. Mean Scores of Current and Future Ease of Sustaining Nuclear Medicine Science

Careers by Major Role in Primary Work Setting, 2006...................................................... 117 Table 87. Key Factors in Sustaining Nuclear Medicine Careers in the Future by Level of

Anticipated Difficulty, 2006 ............................................................................................... 117 Table 88. Future Ease of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career by Salary, 2006 ....... 118 Table 89. Anticipated Level of Difficulty in Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career by

Salary Category, 2006......................................................................................................... 119 Table 90. Anticipated Level of Ease or Difficulty in Sustaining a Future Career in Nuclear

Medicine Science by Age Group, 2006 .............................................................................. 119 Table 91. Subspecialty of Nuclear Medicine Scientists Who Identified Themselves as Chemists,

2006..................................................................................................................................... 120 Table 92. Percent of Time Spent by Chemists in Nuclear Medicine Science by Different Work

Activities, 2006................................................................................................................... 121 Table 93. Primary and Secondary Areas of Research of Nuclear Medicine Scientists in

Chemistry, 2006.................................................................................................................. 122 Table 94. Primary and Secondary Clinical Application Areas of Work in Chemistry in Nuclear

Medicine Science, 2006...................................................................................................... 123 Table 95. Subspecialty of Nuclear Medicine Scientists Who Identified Themselves as

Pharmacists, 2006 ............................................................................................................... 124 Table 96. Percent of Time Spent by Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Pharmacy by Different Work

Activities, 2006................................................................................................................... 124 Table 97. Primary and Secondary Areas of Research of Scientists in Pharmacy, 2006............. 126 Table 98. Primary and Secondary Areas of Clinical Application of Nuclear Medicine Science

Pharmacy, 2006................................................................................................................... 127 Table 99. Subspecialty of Nuclear Medicine Scientists Who Identified Themselves as Physicists,

2006..................................................................................................................................... 128 Table 100. Percent of Time Spent by Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Physics by Different Work

Activity, 2006 ..................................................................................................................... 129 Table 101. Primary and Secondary Areas of Interest of Scientists in Physics, 2006 ................. 130 Table 102. Primary and Secondary Areas of Interest of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists in

Computer Science and Engineering, 2006.......................................................................... 133

ix

Table 103. Time Spent by Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Computer Science and Engineering by Type of Work, 2006............................................................................................................ 134

Table 104. Primary and Secondary Clinical Areas Impacted by Computer Scientists and Engineers in Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006 ................................................................... 135

x

List of Figures Figure 1. Estimated Number of Nuclear Medicine Scientists per Million Population in the United

States, 2006........................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2. Age Distribution of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Gender, 2006 .................. 21 Figure 3. Percentage of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Who Were Women by Age Group,

2006....................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 4. Number of Years Nuclear Medicine Scientists Spent in Previous Career, 2006 .......... 36 Figure 5. Academic Level at which Formal Education in Nuclear Medicine Science Began, 2006

............................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 6. Primary Employment Setting of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006 ................ 46 Figure 7. Number of Years of Employment With Current Primary Employer, 2006 .................. 47 Figure 8. Departments in which Nuclear Medicine Scientists Work, 2006.................................. 48 Figure 9. Percentages of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Different Branches of Science,

2006....................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 10. Percent of Scientists Working in Clinical Nuclear Medicine Services and Services

Provided by Scientists in Clinical Settings, 2006 ................................................................. 50 Figure 11. Areas of Interest of Nuclear Medicine Scientists in R&D, 2006 ................................ 51 Figure 12. Employment Settings for Nuclear Medicine Scientists Working in R&D, 2006........ 52 Figure 13. Interests of Other Nuclear Medicine Scientists Working at the Primary Work Settings

with the Respondent Nuclear Medicine Scientist, 2006 ....................................................... 53 Figure 14. Specialty Areas of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Who Work With Other

Nuclear Medicine Scientists at Their Primary Workplace, 2006 ......................................... 54 Figure 15. Percentages of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists with Different Primary Tasks and

Roles, 2006 ........................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 16. Distribution of Total Annual Salaries of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists from All

Nuclear Medicine Positions, 2006 ........................................................................................ 63 Figure 17. Distribution of Annual Salaries of Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting One

Nuclear Medicine Employment Setting ($000), 2006 .......................................................... 65 Figure 18. Distribution of Annual Salaries of Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting Two or

More Nuclear Medicine Employment Settings ($000), 2006............................................... 66 Figure 19. Work Hours of Full Time Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Number of

Employers, 2006 ................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 20. Salary Range Comparison of Full Time Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by

Number of Jobs Held, 2006 .................................................................................................. 69 Figure 21. Attitudes of Nuclear Medicine Scientists About Salaries, 2006 ................................. 70 Figure 22. Nuclear Medicine Scientists Recruiting New Scientists to Nuclear Medicine by

Primary Employment Setting, 2006...................................................................................... 72 Figure 23. Nuclear Medicine Scientists’ Recruiting Preferences by Source of Nuclear Medicine

Science Research Funds, 2006.............................................................................................. 76 Figure 24. Strategies to Improve Nuclear Medicine Science Workforce Recruitment Identified by

Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006............................................................................ 80 Figure 25. Cities Identified as the Best Prototype for Nuclear Science Emulation by at Least Five

Survey Respondents.............................................................................................................. 87 Figure 26. Extent of Agreement Across the United States with Statement “Nuclear Medicine

Will Continue to Grow in Importance in Health Care,” 2006 .............................................. 93

xi

Figure 27. Active Nuclear Medicine Sciences by Number Of Years Since Initial Certification in a Nuclear Medicine Specialty, 2006. .................................................................................... 96

Figure 28. Most Important Ways that Nuclear Medicine Scientists Maintain Professional Currency, 2006.................................................................................................................... 101

Figure 29. Rating of the Current Ease or Difficulty of Sustaining a Career in Nuclear Medicine in the United States, 2006 ....................................................................................................... 115

Figure 30. Primary Research Area within Chemistry Specialty, 2006 ....................................... 121 Figure 31. Primary Areas of Clinical Application of Chemists’ Work in Nuclear Medicine

Science, 2006 ...................................................................................................................... 123 Figure 32. Primary Research Activities within Pharmacy Specialty in Nuclear Medicine Science,

2006..................................................................................................................................... 125 Figure 33. Primary Clinical Areas within Pharmacy Specialty, 2006 ........................................ 127 Figure 34. Percentage Distribution of Primary Interest Area within Physics Specialty, 2006... 130 Figure 35. Primary Clinical Areas within Physics Specialty, 2006............................................ 131 Figure 36. Primary Specialties of Computer Scientists and Engineers Working in Nuclear

Medicine Science, 2006...................................................................................................... 132 Figure 37. Percentage Distribution of Clinical Area of Primary Work Application, 2006 ........ 134

xii

1

Executive Summary

Nuclear medicine science is a critical foundation for the entire field of nuclear medicine. The fact that the nuclear medicine field is evolving rapidly makes the seminal contributions of nuclear medicine scientists even more important, since they are among the key determinants of the direction and pace of future change. Thus, nuclear medicine scientists are vital change agents in this important field of creative endeavor. These professionals play major roles in generating the scientific and technological breakthroughs that lead to the new cameras and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures currently transforming the entire field of medical imaging.

Despite the important roles of nuclear medicine scientists, these professionals are not well understood. In fact, little is known about who they are, what they do, their roles in employing organizations, what tasks they perform, and where they work. Their diverse scientific interests, which include specialties in a number of disciplines including chemistry, physics, pharmacy, and computer science/engineering, adds additional confusion. Nuclear medicine scientists are scattered across all kinds of health care settings, including academic medical centers, technology development firms, research organizations, and clinical provider offices so there is no particular concentration of scientific endeavor in one locale.

This report helps to describe and understand the characteristics of nuclear medicine scientists and their contributions to the field of nuclear medicine, medical imaging, and medicine more generally. The information and insights provided in the report are designed to inform planners, policy makers, and educators interested in ensuring that nuclear medicine science flourishes in the future.

The Survey of Nuclear Medicine Scientists This report is based on the responses of the nuclear medicine scientists to a survey conducted in the Spring 2006. The survey, which was conducted by the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University at Albany under a contract with the Society of Nuclear Medicine, is the first ever conducted of this group of professionals.

A questionnaire containing over 60 questions was administered to more than 4,000 nuclear medicine scientists, using mailing lists from eight different professional organizations. This report is based on the 1,243 responses to the questionnaire, especially the 898 respondents who indicated they were active in nuclear medicine science. After reducing the denominator for those who indicated they were not involved in nuclear medicine and bad addresses, this represented a response rate of 38.2%. Most of the findings presented below were based on the responses of the 898 individuals who indicated they were working in nuclear medicine science. A copy of the survey instrument is provided in Appendix A.

The report provides a compendium of tabulations of the survey responses, including the several themes covered in the survey questionnaire: personal demographics, education and training, entry into nuclear medicine, current work environment, salaries, recruitment of new scientists, attitudes about nuclear medicine, future plans, and certification and professional associations. It also summarizes responses to an open-ended narrative section and sections that compiled more detail about the four key branches of nuclear medicine science.

2

Findings from the 2006 Survey This section presents a series of specific findings based on the responses to the 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey. The selection highlights responses that appeared to have important implications for the future of nuclear medicine science.

Additional findings, including tabulations of responses and interpretive text can be found in the body of the report. Additional details, including the narrative comments provided by the survey respondents, can be found in Appendix B.

Key Concepts In addition to the myriad of details about the characteristics, employment, career paths, and attitudes of nuclear medicine scientists, a number of seminal concepts and themes were identified that seemed central to understanding the roles nuclear medicine scientists have in the field of nuclear medicine and health care more generally.

The clinical practice of nuclear medicine was highly dependent on nuclear medicine science for new tools and techniques. Nuclear medicine scientists had central roles in developing these new tools and techniques, although many years of effort were often required to translate scientific breakthroughs into clinical practice.

There was no formal career pathway that lead scientists into nuclear medicine. Most nuclear medicine scientists first considered nuclear medicine as a possible career in graduate school. Although this non-system seemed to have worked satisfactorily in the past, more structured pathways to the profession would benefit the field—and society—in the future.

Many nuclear medicine scientists focused their research efforts on narrow, technical subjects that by themselves often yielded fragments of knowledge of little value in clinical practice. There was a continuing need for better communication and coordination to take scientific breakthroughs from the laboratory into clinical practice.

Responses indicated that nuclear medicine science is both a global and a collegial enterprise with much cooperation and sharing. Many nuclear medicine science ventures were collaborations among scientists in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. In fact, 28.2% of the respondents to this survey were born in other countries.

Funding support for nuclear medicine science, which came primarily from the federal government, was both limited and fragile. The recent decision to cut funds for basic nuclear medicine science research from the Department of Energy budget was a case in point. This cut could have a major negative impact on nuclear medicine practice in coming years.

Business played an important role in nuclear medicine science and practice. The nuclear medicine cameras developed by major corporations were essential to the delivery of the diagnostic and therapeutic benefits of nuclear medicine to patients. Rules about ownership, use, and taxation of these cameras had a major impact on the use of these tools.

Responses indicated that nuclear medicine—and nuclear medicine science more generally—suffers from serious misconceptions about the risks of radiation exposure. Despite the fact that radiation exposure from nuclear medicine procedures was a tiny fraction of that from regular x-rays, federal regulations treated radiopharmaceuticals on a par with more dangerous radioactive substances.

3

Like many cutting-edge fields of science, nuclear medicine science was very entrepreneurial. Nuclear medicine scientists improvised their research programs and agendas based on a host of relationships and ventures. Funding came from multiple sources. Staffing was arranged by chance and happenstance. Progress was often affected by outside factors.

Important Issues for Nuclear Medicine Science There are a number of important issues currently facing nuclear medicine science, including:

• Maintaining a critical mass of nuclear medicine scientists to maintain a steady flow of scientific advances and breakthroughs to the nuclear medicine field;

• Understanding, maintaining, and developing the mechanisms by which new nuclear medicine scientists are attracted and recruited into the field of nuclear medicine;

• Promoting adequate funding for nuclear medicine research to sustain the flow of knowledge and information about nuclear medicine to appropriate stakeholders;

• Maintaining adequate levels of reimbursement for clinical nuclear medicine studies to help support appropriate clinical and scientific research;

• Creating and sustaining centers of excellence in nuclear medicine research, education, and practice where scientific exploration can flourish;

• Supporting the initial and continuing education and training of new nuclear medicine scientists so there are competent replacements for those who leave the field; and

• Publicizing the relative safety of current nuclear medicine procedures in terms of radiation exposure with the hope that government regulations can be relaxed in the future.

Key Findings With as few as 1,500 practitioners, nuclear medicine scientists are a very small segment of the health workforce in the U.S.—and a tiny component of the entire workforce. Their small numbers belie their importance to both the health care system and the larger economy. They play important roles in developing and implementing the advanced technologies that have led to exciting new paradigms of medical diagnosis and treatment over the past several decades.

The contributions of these scientists have not gone unnoticed. By many measures, this cadre of highly educated and creative professionals has been well rewarded for their efforts. Salaries are generally commensurate with education levels. Professional roles and responsibilities are varied and interesting. Demand for scientists appears to exceed supply. Opportunities for fulfilling scientific work abound.

These conclusions were based on the survey responses summarized in this report. The survey responses also highlighted concerns about nuclear medicine science that deserve attention by policy makers and other stakeholders. Highlights from the survey responses are summarized below to give readers some perspectives on nuclear medicine science as of 2006.

Geographic Dispersion

4

• Compared to the overall population, nuclear medicine scientists were overrepresented in the New England, Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Mid West, and Southwest regions; and underrepresented in the Southeast, Mountain, Pacific, and Northwest regions.

Demographics

• Nuclear medicine scientists who responded to the survey were 83% male and 17% female, compared to 49% and 51%, respectively, in the general population.

• More than one-quarter of active nuclear medicine scientists (28%) were born outside the U.S. This pattern was similar to that for physicians (32% of active nuclear medicine physicians were international medical graduates).

Education

• A majority of survey respondents held professional degrees at the doctoral level or held combined doctoral/professional degrees as doctors of medicine/osteopathy and doctors of philosophy. More than 59% of active nuclear medicine scientists held doctoral degrees such as PharmD, PhD, MD, DO, JD, DVM, and SciD. About 25% held master’s degrees, and 14% held bachelor’s degrees.

• More than one in four (27%) of active nuclear medicine scientists earned their bachelor’s degree in physics, followed by 22% in pharmacy, and 19% in chemistry. Four percent indicated they had dual majors.

• Among scientists indicating plans to seek additional degrees, almost half (46%) indicated their chosen discipline was “other.” The most frequently cited “other” discipline was the MBA.

• Of the 35% of nuclear medicine scientists expecting to pursue further education in the next five years who held doctoral/professional degrees (PhD, MD, DO, and combined degrees), the most frequently selected level was “other.” This included business administration, health care administration, hospital administration, molecular and medical pharmacology, and molecular physiology.

Entering Nuclear Medicine Science Careers

• A much higher percentage (63%) of scientists younger than age 40 had selected nuclear medicine as a first career than had scientists age 60 and older (28%). This suggested that expanding opportunities in nuclear medicine science increased knowledge of the nuclear medicine science disciplines among younger professionals making first time career choices.

• More than one-quarter (36%) of current nuclear medicine scientists initially learned about the field of nuclear medicine science from a professor, followed by a work experience (27%).

• More than one-third of current nuclear medicine scientists (36%) first learned about nuclear medicine science during their undergraduate education. An additional 22% of current nuclear medicine scientists learned about nuclear medicine opportunities at the master’s level. About one-third of current nuclear medicine scientists (33%) learned about opportunities in nuclear medicine in their doctoral program or medical school (19%), or during postdoctoral training (14.1%).

5

• Among respondents younger than age 30, 60% first learned of opportunities in nuclear medicine science in their undergraduate years. Among those in the 50 to 59 year age group, only 35% first learned of nuclear medicine science opportunities at the undergraduate level.

• Nearly 500 survey respondents identified 279 different careers that preceded their work in nuclear medicine. These careers ranged from aeronautical engineering and archeology to veterinary medicine and x-ray crystallography. This breadth of experience suggested that the current field of nuclear medicine science represents synthesis of a very broad range of scientific and non-scientific interests and experiences.

Current Work Setting

• Among active nuclear medicine scientists, medical centers were the most common primary work setting. More than one in four (28%) worked primarily in academic medical centers and 23% worked in hospitals/medical centers. Another 18% of nuclear medicine scientists worked primarily in radiopharmacies.

• Nearly half (48%) of active nuclear medicine scientists reported having a secondary employment setting. The three secondary work settings reported most were hospitals/medical centers (9%), academic institutions (6%), and academic medical centers (6%).

• More than one-third of nuclear medicine scientists (34%) had worked for their current primary employer for five years or less, and another 18% had worked for their current primary employer between six and ten years.

• Forty-five percent of active nuclear medicine scientists worked in either a nuclear medicine center in a radiology department, a radiology department, or a nuclear medicine department. This suggests strong ties to clinical care for a large fraction of nuclear medicine scientists.

• Only 9% of active nuclear medicine scientists worked in an academic research department and 7% worked in a corporate research and development department. An additional 1% of nuclear medicine scientists worked in corporate sales and marketing.

Branch of Science

• The branches of science with which respondents identified most closely included physics (33%), pharmacy (20%), chemistry (14%), computer science and engineering (3%), some combination of these four (16%), and “other” (15%). This pattern illustrated the interdisciplinary nature of nuclear medicine science research and clinical nuclear medicine services.

Clinical Service

• Nuclear medicine scientists were not involved solely in basic science work in laboratory settings. A high percentage (70%) of respondents worked in a department that provided clinical nuclear medicine services. The most frequently cited functions of scientists in clinical departments were radiation safety monitoring (42% of respondents) and professional/patient education (41%).

Research and Development (R&D)

• Nearly half (46%) of nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey indicated that they worked in R&D.

6

• Among those scientists that worked in R& D, a majority (63%) worked in radiopharmaceutical development. About half of respondents (48%) working in R&D worked in “in vivo research,” whereas 23% worked in “in vitro research.”

• The percentage of active nuclear medicine scientists working in technology development (45%) was more than twice the percentage working in radionuclide development (20%) and cellular/molecular biology research (20%).

• Most scientists in R&D reported working in academic medical centers (43%) or college/universities (25%). Private corporations employed 22% of survey respondents engaged in R&D. “Other” settings cited by nuclear medicine scientists working in R&D included national laboratories and research institutes.

Roles and Tasks

• The umbrella of nuclear medicine science covers a myriad of research activities and scientific roles. The roles of nuclear medicine scientists included: basic science research only (20%), applied research only (3%), technical support only (15%), administrative support only (5%), two or three roles (30%), all four roles (12%), and “other” (15%).

• Of scientists reporting basic science research as their primary role, 37% worked in radiopharmaceutical development and 35% worked in “other” areas.

• Of scientists reporting their primary role as applied research, roughly equal percentages indicated research in image processing (18.6%), new applications (18.1%), and “other” (18.l%).

• Of scientists reporting their primary role as technical support, 36% reported working in radiopharmaceutical preparation and 31% in radiation safety.

• Of scientists reporting administrative support as their primary role, 35% were involved in regulatory oversight and 30% educated other clinicians and professionals.

Salaries

• The mean annual salary of active nuclear medicine scientists in 2006 was $123,800, and the median was $108,000. Additional details about salaries are provided in the body of the report.

• Although nearly half (49%) of survey respondents indicated that nuclear medicine salaries were competitive in the marketplace, 28% indicated that salaries in academic environments were not competitive with corporate salaries.

Mentors and Mentoring

• Although nearly three in five (60%) active nuclear medicine scientists had a mentor in nuclear medicine in the past, only about one-third of nuclear medicine scientists (35%) indicated that they now mentor a potential nuclear medicine scientist.

• A majority (81%) of scientists who were not personally mentored were not currently mentoring prospective scientists. However, among those scientists who were mentored in the past, less than half (45%) were currently mentoring any prospective scientists.

7

• The fact that more than half of the scientists in all age groups had a nuclear science mentor suggested that mentoring is important for recruiting new scientists.

Recruitment of New Scientists

• About one in three (36%) of nuclear medicine scientists participated in recruitment of new scientists into nuclear medicine. Respondents working in chemistry (50%) or in multiple branches (46%) of nuclear medicine science were most likely to be involved in recruitment of new professionals.

• Overall, 86% of active nuclear medicine scientists from all branches of science indicated that there were few qualified candidates for available jobs. Only 4% of scientists indicated that there were no qualified candidates available to fill open positions.

• Nuclear medicine scientists working in academic institutions (71%), research organizations (67%), and academic medical centers (61%) were more likely to recruit new postdoctoral students. Scientists working in academic institutions (50%) were the most likely to recruit new PhD students. Scientists working in consulting companies (88%) and in pharmaceutical companies (71%) preferred to recruit experienced professionals.

• Scientists responding to the survey suggested multiple strategies to improve recruitment of new professionals into nuclear medicine science including improved salaries (47%), more support for graduates in related fields (36%), more nuclear medicine fellowships (34%), endowed training grants (33%), and a national public relations campaign for nuclear medicine (28%).

Attitudes About Nuclear Medicine

• Scientists were asked to indicate current issues that affect nuclear medicine scientists. Respondents were consistent across all branches of science in selecting “government regulation” (61%) as a current issue that impacts nuclear medicine scientists.

• “Reimbursement and financial issues” was also consistently chosen by 60% of scientists as a current issue. This was selected more often by pharmacists (68%) than any other category of scientist.

• Among all response options, “restriction on imports of nuclear material” was the least selected (except “other”) with only 9% of respondents marking this response.

• Respondents expressed overall agreement with the statement that nuclear medicine will continue to grow in importance in health care (with an average score of +1.02 on –2 to +2 scale). This opinion was supported by general disagreement with the statement that nuclear medicine will become less important in the future (-0.88).

• There was also agreement with the statement that the costs of nuclear medicine studies will increase in the future (+0.74).

• Respondents agreed that nuclear medicine science will become more integrated in the future (+0.75). They also agreed that regional centers of nuclear medicine science R&D should be established in the future (+0.70), although there was less agreement that such centers would actually be established (+0.16).

8

• Three in five (59%) scientists agreed or strongly agreed that shortages of nuclear medicine scientists will limit future research.

• Overall, the majority of nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey perceived that molecular imaging science would have a positive effect on the work of nuclear medicine scientists. More than half (55%) of respondents believed that molecular imaging science will enhance employment opportunities for nuclear medicine scientists.

• Only about one-fifth (21.2%) of respondents indicated that nuclear medicine research in the U.S. is more restricted than in other countries.

• Two in five scientists (44.8%) expressed the opinion that scientists in the U.S. encounter more regulatory barriers to progress than scientists in other countries.

Sustaining Nuclear Medicine Science Careers

• In all branches of science except chemistry, almost two-thirds of active nuclear medicine scientists indicated that continued reimbursement for nuclear medicine procedures by Medicare and other insurance carriers was needed to sustain careers in nuclear medicine. Many of these scientists worked in hospitals and other clinical settings.

• Over one-third (38%) of responding nuclear medicine scientists felt that continued financial support for nuclear medicine research was key to sustaining a career in nuclear medicine. Almost three-quarters of chemists (70%) indicated this was a key factor for career sustainability in the future, which was consistent with the high percentage of chemists found in “basic research only” roles.

• Only 14% of respondents indicated that relaxation of federal regulations was a key factor for sustaining future careers in nuclear medicine.

Future Career Plans

• Regional differences were observed in the future career plans of nuclear medicine scientists. Greater proportions of scientists in the Midwest (12%) and the Northwest (11%) expected to seek jobs outside nuclear medicine science over the next five years than in other regions of the country.

• Although 21% of nuclear medicine scientists in the Mid-Atlantic Region and 18% of scientists in the Northeast expected to seek other jobs in nuclear medicine science in the next five years, the profession seemed relatively stable in those regions with only 7% of scientists in the Mid-Atlantic and only 3% of scientists in the Northeast expecting to seek a job outside nuclear medicine science.

Certifications and Professional Associations

• Nuclear medicine scientists held a variety of different certifications, depending on their branch of science. These included certifications by the American Board of Health Physics (ABHP), the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (ABSNM), the American Board of Medical Physics (ABMP), the American Board of Radiology (ABR), the Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties (BPS), and the Board Certified in Nuclear Pharmacy (BCNP). Nuclear medicine scientists were also certified by a variety of other credentialing organizations including the American Board of Nuclear Medicine (ABNM) and the Nuclear

9

Medicine Technology Certification Board (NMTCB). (See Appendix B for the complete list of other responses for question I.1.)

Professional Association Memberships

• Scientists indicated with similar percentages of responses a variety of reasons for membership in professional groups including annual meeting opportunities (64%), publications (63%), education opportunities (59%), and peer interaction (58%).

• The professional associations of which respondents reported they were members included: the Society of Nuclear Medicine (56%), the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (35%), the Health Physics Society (16%), the American Pharmacists Association (13%), the American Chemical Society (12%), the Academy of Molecular Imaging (11%), and the IEEE (11%).

Maintaining Professional Currency

• The two most cited ways of maintaining professional currency were attendance at professional meetings (40%) and reading professional journals (39%).

Recommendations Before recommendations based on the findings are presented, it may be useful to share some of the narrative comments and suggestions provided by a few of the survey respondents. These provide more visceral perspectives on the current condition of nuclear medicine science, perspectives that should be factored into any set of change strategies. The perspectives of other respondents can be found in Appendix B, starting on page 189.

I think nuclear medicine is going to have a bigger role in therapy rather than diagnostics soon enough and we all need to prepare for this.

SNM needs to promote NM and support appropriate regulations rather than diluting them.

Baby boomer retirements will lead to manpower shortages.

It is too expensive to do well-designed [NM] studies. NIH reviewers understand neither this nor the methodology required to analyze data—PET/SPECT researchers at small centers suffer without funding.

Cost reduction is a primary concern. A regional referral system should be created to avoid duplication of resources and technical personnel.

I would like to have more SNM involvement, but nothing is geared in any way toward pharmacists, i.e., CE credits, articles, etc.

If reimbursement continues to decrease, it will be difficult to maintain quality NM departments.

I'm really concerned about how the U.S. government keeps cutting reimbursement for imaging studies. I believe this is a huge detriment to all imaging.

It is important to educate patients and provide documentation for them to carry concerning radiopharmaceuticals. This may reduce delays if stopped by radiation monitors.

In my field of nuclear pharmacy, burnout is the biggest concern. Quality of life issues are a concern as well, with on call and very early morning hours the norm.

10

Nuclear Medicine in the U.S. is totally overwhelmed by Radiology for a number of reasons.

Nuclear Medicine is quickly being replaced by alternative imaging technologies such as multi-slice CT and MRI and not enough new innovative techniques for NM are being discovered.

NM must develop a program to educate/market to other medical professionals, third party payers, and patients on the cost/benefits of NM procedures and its complimentary aspects to other medical practices.

NM needs to maintain its identity in biomarker development and applications and not become absorbed into radiology.

NM is undergoing resurrection, driven by CMS reimbursement, PET, and new awareness of scientific merits of molecular-based imaging. But NM professionals [are being] out-muscled by radiologists and oncologists. Unless reimbursement system is changed (which is not likely), politics will determine the tempo of NM practice.

NM has the best potential for future development in basic molecular bioscience, and less [potential] in clinical research where non-radioactive procedures are increasingly preferred.

Force specialties to work together and use best modalities for diagnosis and therapy. Nuclear medicine will naturally rise to a position of respectability; otherwise non-nuclear medicine specialists will take over nuclear medicine imaging. I believe NM is more science-based than other imaging.

Revisit the National Biomedical Tracer Facility (NBTF) plan. It could provide a supply for interesting radionuclides and provide training for radio chemists, hot cell operations, nuclear pharmacists and physicists.

Poor reimbursement and a shortage of nuclear medicine physicians impact research, especially clinical trials of new radiopharmaceuticals. The MDs are being pushed to spend all their time on clinical scan reading (not research).

NM [research] is poorly funded and poorly integrated with community nuclear medicine. Little inclusion of community hospitals in research opportunities. No incentive for community hospital based research. High likelihood of further erosion due to turf wars.

The recommendations that follow were based on the impression that nuclear medicine science and its related education programs are fragmented and disorganized. Major transformations of nuclear medicine—including all nuclear medicine professions—seem certain over the next five to ten years. There is a significant risk that nuclear medicine scientists will not reach their full potential, either individually or collectively, for moving the field of nuclear medicine forward. This risk could be minimized if efforts were mounted to organize the education programs that produce new nuclear medicine scientists and focus the efforts of nuclear medicine scientists and their professional organizations on public advocacy for greater research funding. If nothing is done, however, there is a significant risk that nuclear medicine could fragment and be scattered into other medical specialties.

Five Themes for the Future The recommendations presented below are organized into five broad categories, each dealing with a different aspect of the scientific environment. Several of the categories are relevant to the segments of the nuclear medicine workforce in addition to nuclear medicine science, especially

11

physicians and technologists. Some of the tasks should be easily accomplished. Others will require concerted effort by teams of stakeholders from many fields and many organizations.

Attract strong candidates into nuclear medicine science. As with any enterprise, nuclear medicine science will flourish to the extent that it recruits and retains intelligent, creative candidates to design and conduct the research studies that will lead the field into the future. This can be accomplished through a variety of mechanisms, including:

a) Earlier exposure to nuclear medicine for potential candidates. All of those interested in science, engineering, or medicine should hear about nuclear medicine early in their college careers. SNM or some other organization should prepare and distribute flyers, press releases, public interest ads, and other mechanisms to inform students in high schools and colleges about career opportunities in nuclear medicine.

b) Career development network. Publicize SNM’s Internet-based job posting system. This will facilitate the process of notifying interested scientists and students about career opportunities in nuclear medicine science and connecting interested candidates with job opportunities.

c) Encourage mentoring. This report has documented the importance of mentoring to the development of nuclear medicine scientists, especially those involved in advanced research. Perhaps the career network described above could be extended to encourage and guide research scientists and managers to get involved in mentoring as a way of improving the flow of new talent into nuclear medicine science.

d) Better nuclear medicine science job opportunities. This is a challenging task that will entail reaching out to the organizations that hire nuclear medicine scientists and other professionals involved in the practice of nuclear medicine. It will also require communication with the organizations and agencies that provide funding for nuclear medicine research and reimbursement for clinical practice.

Increase funding for nuclear medicine science and research. Funding was cited by many survey respondents as a critical issue for nuclear medicine science. Several avenues are available for improving funding for this important activity.

a) Government funding of basic research. The federal government has always been a primary source of support for nuclear medicine science. On the clinical side, this often occurs under the auspices of National Institutes of Health (NIH). On the basic science side, limited funding was available through the Department of Energy. It is important to ensure that both of these funding streams are maintained.

b) Broad-based funding for applied research. Corporate and foundation funding for nuclear medicine research should be encouraged and expanded, not only in private labs, but also in the labs of academic institutions. It is essential that a steady stream of scientific breakthroughs and technical advances be available to move the practice of nuclear medicine forward to its full potential.

c) Adequate reimbursement to support clinical research. As Medicare and other third-party payers seek ways to reduce the cost of health care, it is essential they do not cut funding so much that nuclear medicine research is eliminated. Such research is critical for confirming the efficacy of new diagnostic tools and techniques and new therapeutic

12

protocols. It is also important not to abdicate responsibility for PET/CT and other fusion imaging procedures to radiologists as these new technologies become more common.

d) Adequate funding for nuclear medicine by the National Institutes of Health. Ensuring that an appropriate share of NIH funding is devoted to research related to nuclear medicine will be a continuing concern. SNM should continue to work to ensure that nuclear medicine has as high a priority for NIH funding as possible.

Educate the public about the value, safety, and future potential of nuclear medicine procedures. Many of the regulatory restrictions and limitations that nuclear medicine is subject to appear to be based on misconceptions of the public, elected officials, and government bureaucrats about the safety of the radioactive materials used in nuclear medicine practice and research. This set of initiatives will help to correct these misconceptions.

a) Legislative and agency briefings. It is extremely important to correct misconceptions about the safety of nuclear medicine procedures in legislative arenas and especially in agencies responsible for regulating nuclear medicine protocols and substances. Done effectively, this will lower some of the barriers to the introduction of new radio-pharmaceuticals and nuclear medicine procedures and protocols.

b) Public education programs. Though perhaps less important than legislative briefings, public education about nuclear medicine science needs additional attention. This will help to promote legislative agendas, stimulate public interest in nuclear medicine, and help to find new recruits for careers in nuclear medicine science.

c) Communication networks. An important goal of this initiative is to promote continuing communication between the nuclear medicine community and its constituents and supporters. A variety of communication mechanisms are envisioned including the Internet, newsletters, press releases, and periodic reports.

d) White papers. As new nuclear medicine tools and techniques are introduced into practice, and as new scientific breakthroughs take place in research organizations across the country, it is important that information be shared with those in the communication networks. A variety of different vehicles are envisioned including policy white papers, briefing memos, and simple notices.

Reorganize nuclear medicine research and education around Centers of Excellence in Nuclear Medicine. Given the small size of the nuclear medicine enterprise in the U.S., it is not possible to have viable research efforts in more than a small number of facilities. The vision presented in this report is for a series of seven or eight regional centers of excellence in nuclear medicine geographically dispersed around the U.S. Ideally, these centers would be located in academic research institutions or consortia that already have a significant presence in nuclear medicine, as shown in Figure 25 on page 88 of this report. Each of these centers would support a critical mass of clinicians, investigators, mentors, educators, scientists, administrators, and equipment to serve the clinical and scientific needs of its region. In addition, each center would have responsibility for coordinating nuclear medicine research and clinical services in its home region. The result would be a much more cost-effective approach to both the conduct of research and the provision of clinical services. Each center would coordinate several aspects of nuclear medicine science:

13

a) Professional education. This would include clinical education for physicians, technologists, and technicians, and scientific education for researchers, investigators, and technical support staff.

b) Scientific research. Each center would have a full range of capabilities for clinical research, basic science research, theoretical research, and applied research. Depending on the interests and capabilities of their investigators and funding, the centers may be encouraged to specialize in one or more sub-fields of nuclear medicine.

c) Infrastructure development. Each regional center would have appropriate infrastructure to support a wide range of clinical, basic science, and educational activities. This would include such major equipment as cyclotrons and supercomputers, as well as the latest in imaging equipment. This infrastructure would support not only research, but also education and clinical service.

d) Communication networks. An important element of this design is the latest in communication capabilities to permit both internal and external networking. The opportunity to cross-fertilize the efforts of all the centers and to connect with researchers elsewhere would multiply the impact of the basic capability that each brings to the field. The centers could also play an important role in public education and legislative briefings.

e) Strong ties with vendors and corporations. A special effort should be made to attract vendors into the networks of partners of these centers. By encouraging earlier sharing of ideas, it would be possible to accelerate the introduction of new pharmaceuticals and cameras into practice.

f) Special interest groups. Patients, consumers, ethicists, foundations, regulators, and other interested parties should be encouraged to join as partners in the center. These additional perspectives would strengthen the centers’ teams, help maximize the impact of the centers, and ensure the centers serve the public interest.

Enhance SNM as a key advocate for nuclear medicine science. SNM can play important roles in implementing this vision of the future for nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. The different stakeholders have much to gain or lose depending on the strategies and priorities chosen to move nuclear medicine science forward. Several strategies are possible including:

a) Comprehensive strategies for educating nuclear medicine scientists, physicians, and techs. Although breadth in participating scientific disciplines in nuclear medicine science is essential to support and advance nuclear medicine, this diversity in disciplines confounds the creation and maintenance of professional identity as a nuclear medicine scientist. Annual professional meetings, educational opportunities, interaction with peers and peer-reviewed journals were cited by the majority of survey respondents as reasons for membership in professional associations. These activities should be encouraged and enhanced.

b) Comprehensive continuing nuclear medicine education. The current professional enrichment activities of SNM are an important aspect of this initiative. Although most survey respondents indicated they belong to professional associations relevant to their particular scientific discipline (e.g., physics, pharmacy), SNM provides an important interdisciplinary forum for exchange of professional ideas and information. This should be continued and expanded.

14

c) Policy leadership for nuclear medicine science. Survey respondents expressed concern about the lack of current research funding, the difficulty in obtaining source materials for research, the current approval process for radiopharmaceuticals, and the lack of visibility of nuclear medicine scientists vis-à-vis other medical and health professionals. Advocacy is needed:

to address issues related to public policy, regulatory guidelines, funding issues, and infrastructure development for nuclear medicine science;

to build articulated curricula for clinical and scientific programs to prepare and maintain a competent and competitive scientific workforce; and

to increase public understanding of the benefits and safety of nuclear medicine, the usefulness of radioactive materials, and the value of nuclear medicine research.

d) Cooperative nuclear medicine venture leadership. It seems unlikely that any single organization will dominate the nuclear medicine landscape. There are simply too many threads and themes for one organization to control. This creates an important opportunity for SNM to continue to serve as the conductor of the “nuclear medicine orchestra.” This should be possible to the extent that SNM can help the various constituents to achieve their respective objectives, while shepherding the entire field of nuclear medicine into the future.

e) Public relations campaigns for nuclear medicine. Strategies and ideas without dissemination are like one hand clapping -- they don’t make much noise or have much impact. SNM should assume the critical role of promoter of nuclear medicine science—and nuclear medicine practice, more generally—to the public. This would enhance SNM’s image with the public, and more importantly, with its professional constituents -- the physicians, scientists, technical staff, facilities, and vendors that comprise the nuclear medicine industry.

f) Legislative lobbying for nuclear medicine. Advocacy at the federal level is critical for preservation of the science of nuclear medicine. The small size of the profession creates challenges for building reputation and recognition. Nevertheless, it is essential that government policy makers and bureaucrats be informed of the changes that should take place to enable nuclear medicine to reach its full potential.

15

Introduction

Nuclear medicine scientists are a critical component of the workforce related to nuclear medicine. Even though many nuclear medicine scientists work “behind the scenes,” their contributions to the practice of nuclear medicine should not be underestimated. They have played—and are continuing to play—significant roles in the design and development of new nuclear medicine tools and techniques that are positioning nuclear medicine procedures as the gold standard in medical diagnosis and treatment for a growing number of diseases and illnesses.

Despite the important roles they play in designing and developing nuclear medicine tools, technologies, and techniques, nuclear medicine scientists have remained a tiny fraction of the nuclear medicine workforce, with perhaps as few as 1,500 practitioners in the U.S. This small number is further divided into several branches of nuclear medicine scientific inquiry including physics, chemistry, pharmacy, computer science, and engineering. Smaller states may have only one or two active nuclear medicine scientists in their entire workforce, and some branches of nuclear medicine science may not be represented in some states.

This report is the first to document the characteristics, employment, and opinions of nuclear medicine scientists. It has been prepared as part of a larger study of the nuclear medicine workforce being conducted by the Center for Health Workforce Studies, under a contract with the Society of Nuclear Medicine. The hope is that the report will inform several audiences about the important contributions made by nuclear medicine scientists to the nuclear medicine field, including nuclear medicine scientists, other nuclear medicine stakeholders, and interested planners and policy maker.

Classifications and Terminology The enterprise of nuclear medicine science is both complex and fragmented. One of several challenges of this study was to identify characteristics of nuclear medicine scientists that can be used in different combinations to generate classifications useful for understanding their roles, responsibilities, and tasks. Among the most important of the characteristics identified by the project staff and their advisors were:

• Branch of Science. Nuclear medicine scientists are found in a number of different branches of science. The four primary branches used in this study were physics, chemistry, pharmacy, and computer science/engineering. Several tabulations presented in this report used two other branches either none of these four (or “not specified”), or more than one of these four (or “multiple branches”).

• Areas of Research. Areas of research varied by scientific specialty and subspecialty in each of the branches of science. These categories or areas of interest in research are often unique to the different branches of science but may not be exclusive to a single branch. It is also possible that the list of categories may change over time as scientists and others learn more about the mechanisms, methods, and outcomes of nuclear medicine.

• Clinical Emphasis. One of the characteristics of nuclear medicine science that separates it from many other scientific endeavors is its ultimate relationship to clinical medicine. This is another characteristic that may change over time as the knowledge, theory, and practice of nuclear medicine evolves and transforms.

16

• Work Setting. Nuclear medicine scientists are found in a variety of settings including academic laboratories, clinical settings, and corporate offices. Typically, these settings represent employers whose goals define the employment objectives, work patterns, and other characteristics of the work of the nuclear medicine scientists employed in them.

• Roles and Tasks. Nuclear medicine scientists perform a variety of tasks, depending on their clinical or research orientation. The four major categories of Basic Science Research, Applied Research, Technical Support, and Administrative Support were selected to encompass nuclear medicine science activity in the workplace. This study helps to understand the many configurations of nuclear medicine science roles and tasks in those areas of endeavor.

• Professional Memberships. The variation in interests and orientation among nuclear medicine scientists is reflected in the myriad professional organizations to which these professionals belong. While this characteristic may not be as important as some for clarifying professional work patterns, it is relevant to understanding the scientific disciplines with which nuclear medicine scientists associate and communicate.

By considering these characteristics of nuclear medicine scientists in different combinations and sequences, this report helps to develop at least a partial understanding of nuclear medicine scientists and their contributions to the larger field of nuclear medicine. The report also creates a frame of reference for planners and policy makers as they consider how to channel resources to different aspects of nuclear medicine science.

Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey This report is based on the responses to a survey of nuclear medicine scientists conducted in 2006 that asked 64 questions about several aspects of scientists’ professional work, including demographics, education and training, entry into nuclear medicine, current work environment, salaries, recruitment of new scientists, attitudes about nuclear medicine, future plans, and certifications and professional associations. Many of the questions had multiple categories that increased the total number of possible responses to well over 300.

Survey Design The survey questionnaire was designed with the guidance of a small panel of nuclear medicine scientists who assisted project staff in determining the broad categories of questions to be included in the questionnaire, in designing individual questions and response categories, and in determining to whom the survey should be sent. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.

Although there are advantages to conducting surveys of this type online, e-mail addresses were not available for all identified scientists so the survey was offered only on paper through a postal mail process with three mailings. A decision was made to provide an incentive for nuclear medicine scientists who responded to the survey by offering drawings for awards of $500 (first mailing response), $250 (first or second mailing response), and $250 (first, second, or third mailing response) at the conclusion of each of the three survey mailings.

Each survey was sent with a letter from the Society of Nuclear Medicine explaining the purpose of the survey and a letter of explanation of survey process from the Center for Health Workforce Studies. A packet was mailed to all identified scientists beginning in March of 2006. In the

17

following month (April 2006) a second mailing went to scientists who had not yet responded to the first request. Likewise in May 2006 a third and final mailing was sent to all scientists who were nonresponsive at that time.

Sample Design The difficulty in identifying and locating nuclear medicine scientists was a fundamental issue for sample design. A decision was made to cast a broad net among professional societies and credentialing organizations to identify scientists across the U.S. involved in either basic or applied research or clinical applications of nuclear medicine science. With the cooperation of the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (ABSNM), the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM), the Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties (BPS), the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC), the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the Academy of Molecular Imaging (AMI), and the Society of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences (SRS), which each supplied a list of possible nuclear medicine scientists as determined by professional credentials, an unduplicated list of 4,309 possible scientists was compiled. All identified scientists were mailed a survey with a request for participation.

It was assumed the list of scientists likely included nonnuclear medicine scientists. However, it was not possible to ascertain specialty distinctions among the list of credentialed scientists. Ultimately, this expectation was confirmed by communication from scientists in receipt of the survey instrument. Responses, including declination of survey participation, were received from 1,648 scientists. A number of scientists refused participation because of primary involvement in radiation oncology or other specialty activity. It was strongly suspected that among the 2661 scientists from whom no response was received, a number were not also engaged in nuclear medicine science as a primary activity. After filtering responses for scientists who indicated they were working in nuclear medicine, the response database was further restricted to 898 scientists in physics, chemistry, pharmacy/radiopharmacy, and computer science and engineering with a nuclear medicine specialty.

In summary, 4,309 credentialed professionals were solicited for participation. Responses were received from 1,648 scientists including declination of participation. Of those who responded, 1,243 individuals completed the survey questionnaire. Among those, the responses of 898 scientists who indicated primary involvement in nuclear medicine at some level were selected for analysis. Most of the tabulations in this report reflect this filtered group of active nuclear medicine scientists. In some cases, the 1,243 individual responses were included. The narrative comments, which were transcribed and appended to this report, include all comments from all responding survey participants to understand and clarify the broader environmental context for nuclear medicine science and scientists.

The Survey Process The survey process included the following steps:

• Develop a consolidated mailing list, eliminating duplicate names from the final file;

• Create mailing labels and a corresponding database to track respondents and nonrespondents;

• Conduct three mailings, dropping those who responded to a current mailing from subsequent mailing lists;

• Scan the survey responses into an SPSS data file for processing and analysis;

18

• Create several new variables based on the responses, e.g., age from year of birth;

• After closing the survey process, strip personal identifiers from the file; and

• Analyze the data set and prepare an interpretive report.

Survey Responses Including a broader scientific group in the survey sample design was an important strategy to reach the scientists in the specialized discipline of nuclear medicine. Nuclear medicine scientists were difficult to locate and identify as a small cohort among scientists.

The survey process yielded 1,243 usable responses from the 4,309 individuals on the final consolidated mailing list. The large denominator that likely included scientists not engaged in nuclear medicine science lowered the final response rate. After reducing the denominator to exclude those who indicated they were not nuclear medicine scientists and those with bad addresses, the final response rate for the survey was estimated at 38.2%.

This was lower than expected for a survey of this complexity and design, but the sample for the survey included scientists who were unlikely to respond because of lack of knowledge of nuclear medicine science.

Limitations The key limitation of the survey was the difficulty in identifying nuclear medicine scientists. The survey was also limited in its capacity to describe the myriad professional activities among nuclear medicine scientists. Despite its length and detail, it is apparent from scientists’ responses, especially the narrative and “other” responses to many of the questions, that the breadth and depth of nuclear medicine science could not be captured by a single workforce survey.

19

Key Findings Before summarizing the responses to the questions in the different sections of the survey questionnaire, it is interesting to consider the geographic distribution of the individual scientists and other professionals to whom the instrument was distributed. Except where noted, the tabulations and percentages presented below were for respondents to the 2006 survey who indicated they were active in nuclear medicine science. Figure 1 shows the ratio of nuclear medicine scientists per million population across the 50 states. It shows clearly that there was a wide range of penetration of nuclear medicine scientists across the U.S., with as few as two nuclear medicine scientists per million population in Alaska and as many as 36 per million in the District of Columbia.

The ratio of the highest to lowest scientist to population ratios was 18, which was relatively high for health-related professions. It indicates a very uneven geographic penetration of these professionals, and suggests an equally uneven penetration of nuclear medicine science facilities and services. This may disadvantage some parts of the country in terms of access to new nuclear medicine technologies.

Figure 1. Estimated Number of Nuclear Medicine Scientists per Million Population in the United States, 2006

CO

AK

AZ

HI

CA

NV

TX

OK

KS

WY

ID

UT

WA

OR

MT

IANE

ND

SD

MN

IN

KY

MS

LA

AR

IL

GAAL

FL

VA

NC

SC

OH

WV

MIWI

NJ

DE

VT

RI

NH

ME

NMS / M Pop

30 to 35

15 to 30

10 to 15

5 to 10

2 to 5

Center for Health Workforce Studies, 2006

U.S. Average = 12.0

NY

PA

TN

MO

NM

MACT

MD

Note: Excludes Those Listing Radiation Oncology as Field of Work.

20

• Table 1 shows that more nuclear medicine scientists were located in the Mid-Central region (16.5% of all nuclear medicine scientists) of the U.S. than in other regional areas. Only 2.2% of identified nuclear medicine scientists were located in the Northwest region of the U.S. Nuclear medicine scientists were overrepresented in the New England, Northeast, Mid Atlantic, Mid West, and Southwest regions; and underrepresented in the Southeast, Mountain, Pacific, and Northwest regions.

Table 1. Geographic Distribution of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists,

by USDHHS Region, 2006

USDHHS Region Nuclear

Medicine Scientists

Total U.S. Population

New England 8.4% 4.8%

Northeast 12.3% 9.4%

Mid Atlantic 14.3% 9.7%

Southeast 12.8% 19.4%

Mid Central 16.5% 17.3%

Southwest 10.9% 4.5%

Mid West 9.1% 3.4%

Mountain 2.5% 12.0%

Pacific 10.9% 15.5%

Northwest 2.2% 4.0% Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.2

Demographics The demographic characteristics of nuclear medicine scientists provided insights about these professionals and created a context in which to understand other aspects of their work. In addition, knowing the age of respondents provided a basis for understanding how the professions may be changing as new people enter the field.

• Table 2 shows that nuclear medicine scientists were predominantly male. Survey respondents were 82.9% male and 17.1% female, compared to 48.9% and 51.1%, respectively, in the general U.S. population. Figure 2 contrasts the age distributions of active male and female nuclear medicine scientists in 2006. Figure 3 shows that younger cohorts of nuclear medicine scientists had larger proportions of women.

Table 2. Gender Mix of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006

Gender Percentage U.S. Pop, 2005

Male 82.9% 49.0%

Female 17.1% 51.0 %

Sources: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question A.2, U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2005

21

Figure 2. Age Distribution of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Gender, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.1 (processed) and A.2

Figure 3. Percentage of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Who Were Women, By Age Group, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.1 (processed) and A.2

1.9%

17.2%

26.6%

32.2%

18.7%

3.4%4.8%

23.8%

38.8%

23.8%

8.8%

0.0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

< 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 +Age Group

Male Female

35.0%

22.6% 23.6%

13.5%

9.1%

0.0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

< 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 +

Age Group

22

• Table 3 shows that Asian/Pacific Islanders were overrepresented in nuclear medicine science (17.5% compared to 4.3% in the general U.S. population in 2005). This overrepresentation occurred in the nuclear medicine physician workforce, as well. According to the American Medical Association in 2005, 12.4% of all self-identified nuclear medicine physicians also identified as Asian. Blacks/African-Americans (0.7% in nuclear medicine science vs. 12.1% in 2005 U.S. Population) and Hispanics/Latinos (1.7% in nuclear medicine science vs. 14.5% in 2005 U.S. Population) were underrepresented. While non-Hispanic Whites were slightly over represented compared to the general population, American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) were slightly underrepresented.

Table 3. Racial Ethnic Composition of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006,

and U.S. Population, 2005

Racial/Ethnic Group Percent of Active NM Scientists

Percent of U.S. Population, 2005

Asian/Pacific Islander 17.5% 4.3%

Black/African-American (NH) 0.7% 12.1%

American Indian/ Alaska Native 0.2% 0.8%

White (NH) 78.0% 74.7%

Hispanic/Latino 1.7% 14.5%

Sources: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question A.4, U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2005

• Table 4 shows that more than one-quarter of active nuclear medicine scientists (28.2%) were born in a country other than the U.S. This pattern was similar to that for physicians (32% of active nuclear medicine physicians were international medical graduates), suggesting that perhaps professional positions with high levels of technical expertise are especially attractive avenues for immigration to the U.S.

• Among those born outside the U.S., a large proportion indicated their birthplace as either China or India. A number of scientists working in the U.S. were also born in Canada and the United Kingdom. Survey respondents listed 22 different countries of origin.

Table 4. Place of Birth of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Age Group, 2006

Age Group % Born in U.S. < 30 80.0%

30 - 39 59.4% 40 - 49 70.1% 50 - 59 75.9% 60 - 69 75.2%

70 + 100.0% Total (830)* 71.8%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.3 and A.4 * The number in the parenthesis is the N for this group.

23

• Table 5 shows that the percentage of responding nuclear medicine scientists born outside the U.S. was only slightly lower (28%) for females than for males (30%).

Table 5. Place of Birth of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Gender, 2006

Place of Birth Gender

U.S. Other Nation Total

Male 70% 30% 720

Female 72% 28% 149

Total 70% 30% 869

Education and Training Education and training are a critical aspect of any profession. They define the knowledge and skills and level of education required for entry into a profession. Survey recipients were asked to indicate the area of academic study in which their most advanced degree had been obtained. Scientists were permitted to pick more than one area of study.

• Table 6 shows that in certain nuclear medicine science specialties a high proportion of current scientists were born in other nations. More than two-thirds (69.2%) of scientists working in nuclear medicine science instrumentation were born outside the U.S.

• More than half (55.2%) of active nuclear medicine chemists were born in a nation other than the U.S., as were half (50%) of currently active computer scientists working in nuclear medicine.

• Among nuclear medicine scientists with an advanced degree in medicine, 41% were born outside the U.S. As mentioned previously, this was corroborated by data on nuclear medicine physicians.

• Among scientists working in pharmacy/radiopharmacy, only 13% were born in a nation other than the U.S. One factor affecting this profession differently than other scientific specialties within nuclear medicine may be the requirement for state licensure of pharmacists, which may have impeded transfer of education and professional qualifications to the U.S.

• A small proportion of health physicists (14.8%) were born outside the U.S.

24

Table 6. Nuclear Medicine Specialties of Highest Degree of Nuclear Medicine Scientists, by Place of Birth, 2006

Place of Birth Nuclear Medicine Specialty USA Other

Nation Total

Health Physics 85.2% 14.8% 54

Medical Physics 65.0% 35.0% 180

Chemistry 44.8% 55.2% 134

Pharmacy/Radiopharmacy 87.0% 13.0% 207

Computer Science 50.0% 50.0% 14

Medicine 59.0% 41.0% 71

Radiologic Physics 72.1% 27.9% 61

Nuclear Physics 66.2% 33.8% 68

Molecular Biology 62.5% 37.5% 8

Nuclear Engineering 65.4% 34.6% 26

Instrumentation 30.8% 69.2% 13

Other 75.5% 24.5% 143

Total 69.0% 31.0% 979

Note: Specialties for which nuclear medicine scientists from other nations are at least half of total are shaded green. N is greater than 898 due to the option of multiple responses. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.3 and B.3

Educational Attainment of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Nuclear medicine scientists are highly educated professionals. A majority of survey respondents held professional degrees at the doctoral level or held combined doctoral/professional degrees as doctors of medicine/osteopathy and doctors of philosophy (Table 7).

• More than 59% of survey respondents held doctoral/professional degrees such as Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in a variety of disciplines, Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Osteopathy (DO), Doctor of Jurisprudence (JD), Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM), and Doctor of Science (ScD).

• Among the 2.3% of current nuclear medicine scientists who indicated “other” as the highest degree, some held Doctor of Science (SciD), Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM), Law degrees (LLB and JD), and Doctorates in Education (EdD).

25

Table 7. Highest Degree of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006

Highest Degree Percentage

Bachelor's 13.9 %

Master's 24.6%

PharmD 7.2%

PhD 44.0%

MD/DO 3.6%

MD/PhD 4.2%

Other 2.3%

Total (898) 100% Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question B.1

To better understand pathways to nuclear medicine science, respondents to the survey were asked to describe their major area of concentration at the bachelor’s level and area(s) of concentration for their most advanced degree.

• Table 8 shows that 27.1% of active nuclear medicine scientists earned their bachelor’s degree in Physics, followed by 22.4% in Pharmacy and 18.6% in Chemistry. A small percentage of respondents (4%) indicated they had dual majors.

Table 8. Disciplines in which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Earned Bachelor’s Degrees, 2006

Bach Degree Discipline Percent

Physics 27.1% Pharmacy 22.4% Chemistry 18.6% Engineering 9.7% Biology 8.7% Biology + Chemistry 1.7% Physics + Other 1.3% Computer Science 1.0% Other 9.4%

Total 100% Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question B.2

• Table 9 shows that most nuclear medicine scientists had a single major field of graduate

study. However, almost 10% of scientists active in nuclear medicine earned their highest degree in multiple fields of study. Although the percentage of respondents who studied in multiple fields was small, the largest percentage of those scientists (7.1%) earned their highest degree in two major fields of study.

26

Table 9. Number of Disciplines in Which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Earned Their Highest Degree, 2006

# of Fields for Highest Degree Percent

0 2.4%

1 88.0%

2 7.1%

3 1.5%

4 0.7%

5 0.3%

6 0.1%

Total 100% Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question B.3

Future Education

• Table 10 shows that a majority of active nuclear medicine scientists (88.5%) did not expect to pursue further academic education in the next five years.

• Among the 11.7% of scientists who expected to pursue further education in the near future, 22.4% indicated a bachelor’s degree as their highest current level of education.

• Among scientists expecting to pursue further education in the coming five years, more than a third already hold a terminal degree including PharmD, PhD, or combined professional degrees.

Table 10. Percentages of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Who Expect to Pursue More Education by Highest Current Degree Held

Highest Current Degree (N) Expect to Pursue More Education

Bachelor's (125) 22.4%

Master's (221) 16.3%

PharmD (65) 21.5

PhD (395) 4.3%

MD/DO (32) 12.5%

MD/PhD (38) 5.3%

Total N (101) 11.5%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B.1 and B.5

27

• Table 11 shows, as might be expected, half of nuclear medicine scientists (50%) who expected to pursue further education in the next five years were younger than age 30.

• Among current nuclear medicine scientists, female scientists reported an intention to pursue further education in the next five years more frequently than male scientists (15.0% vs. 11.4%).

• Similar percentages of U.S. born nuclear medicine scientists expected to pursue further education (11.6%) as those who were born in other nations (12.7%).

Table 11. Nuclear Medicine Scientists Expecting to Pursue Further Education in the Next

Five Years by Age and Gender, 2006

Expect to Pursue More Education Age Group

Male Female Total

< 30 46.2% 57.1% 50.0%

30 - 39 24.2% 22.9% 23.9%

40 - 49 14.1% 12.3% 13.6%

50 - 59 5.8% 8.6% 6.2%

60 - 69 2.3% 0.0% 2.1%

70 + 8.3% N/A 8.3%

Total All Ages 11.4% 15.0% 12.0%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey Questions A.1 and B.5

Level of Additional Future Education Many nuclear medicine scientists sought additional education after they begin their professional careers. Some of this education involved earning a more advanced degree; some was less structured.

• Table 12 shows that the PhD was cited as the degree objective of 38% of active nuclear medicine scientists who expected to pursue further academic education in the next five years. An additional 28% expected to seek a master’s degree, 11% a PharmD degree, 4% an MD/DO degree, and 19% “other.”

• A high percentage of scientists with a bachelor’s degree as their highest current degree expected to pursue further education in the next five years at the master’s degree (36%) level. At the same time, an additional 36% of those whose highest degree was currently a bachelor’s degree hoped to pursue a PharmD degree.

• Among those who currently hold a master’s degree as their highest degree, 71% of those expecting to pursue further academic education in the next five years expected to do so at the doctoral level.

• Among nuclear medicine scientists with current highest degree a PharmD, 50% of those expecting to pursue further academic education expected to do so at the Master’s level.

28

• Among those nuclear medicine scientists with doctoral/professional degrees (PhD, MD, DO and combined degrees) who expected to pursue further education in the next five years, the most frequently selected level was “other,” which included business administration, health care administration, and hospital administration, molecular and medical pharmacology, and molecular physiology.

Table 12: Levels of Additional Education Desired by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists,

by Current Highest Degree, 2006

Levels of Additional Education to Pursue Highest Current

Degree Master’s MD/DO PhD PharmD Other

Bachelor’s (28) 36% -- 21% 36% 7%

Master’s (35) 14% -- 71% 3% 11%

Pharm D (12) 50% 8% 25% -- 17%

PhD (15) 33% 13% 13% -- 40%

MD/DO (4) 25% -- 25% -- 50%

MD-PhD (2) -- -- -- -- 100%

PharmD + Other (1) -- 100% -- -- --

Total (97) 28% 4% 38% 11% 19%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B. 1 and B. 5a.

• Table 13 shows that among all nuclear medicine scientists expecting to pursue a master’s degree, 37% were scientists with a bachelor’s degree as their highest academic credential.

• Among current PhDs expecting to pursue further education in the coming five years, 50% expected to pursue medical or osteopathic education.

• Scientists indicated an interest in the disciplines of business and health administration in the “other” responses they supplied suggesting value for this type of education among scientists working in clinical settings.

29

Table 13. Levels of Additional Education Desired by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, by Current Highest Degree, 2006

Level of Additional Education Highest Degree of Active NMS Master's MD/DO PhD PharmD Other Total

Bachelor's 37% -- 16% 91% 11% 29%

Master's 19% -- 68% 9% 22% 36%

PharmD 22% 25% 8% -- 11% 12%

PhD 19% 50% 5% -- 33% 15%

MD/DO 4% -- 3% -- 11% 4%

MD-PhD -- -- -- -- 11% 2%

PharmD + Other -- 25% -- -- -- 1%

Total N 27 4 37 11 18 97

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B.1 and B.5a

• Table 14 shows that among nuclear medicine scientists currently working in physics, computer science/engineering, or in multiple branches of nuclear medicine science most of those expecting to pursue further education were interested in the doctoral level. This was not surprising considering the high level of current education of many nuclear medicine scientists and that advanced degrees are in demand.

• Among nuclear medicine scientists currently working in chemistry who wanted to pursue further education, 50% expected to pursue a master’s degree.

• Equal percentages of pharmacists (37%) expected to pursue further education at the master’s and at the doctoral level.

30

Table 14. Levels of Additional Education Desired, by Current Branch of Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006

Level of Additional Education to Pursue Branch of Science

Master's MD/DO PhD PharmD Other Total N

Chemistry 50% 13% 25% -- 13% 8

Pharmacy 37% 4% 11% 37% 11% 27

Physics 9% -- 59% -- 32% 22

Computer Science/Engineering 25% -- 75% -- -- 4

Multiple Branches 33% 6% 44% -- 17% 18

Not Specified 18% 5% 50% 5% 23% 22

Total 27% 4% 40% 11% 19% 101

Source: Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B.5a, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

• Table 15 shows that among all scientists expecting to pursue further education, 27% worked in nuclear medicine pharmacy/radiopharmacy and 22% worked in physics.

Table 15. Levels of Additional Education Desired by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists,

by Current Branch of Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006

Level of Additional Education to Pursue Branch of Science

Master's MD/DO PhD PharmD Other Total N

Chemist 15% 25% 5% -- 5% 8%

Pharmacy 37% 25% 8% 91% 16% 27%

Physics 7% -- 33% -- 37% 22%

Computer Science/Engineering 4% -- 8% -- -- 4%

Multiple Branches 22% 25% 20% -- 16% 18%

Not Specified 15% 25% 28% 9% 26% 22%

Total N 27 4 40 11 19 101

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B.5a, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

31

Discipline of Future Education The survey respondents provided insights about the discipline of additional education they expected to seek (Table 16). This information would be of special interest to educational planners.

• Among scientists stating plans to seek additional degrees, almost half (45.8%) indicated the chosen discipline as “other,” with the most frequently cited area of study being a Master’s of Business Administration (MBA).

• Of the scientific fields listed on the questionnaire, the largest percentage of nuclear medicine scientists indicated an interest in medical physics (17.7%) or pharmacy/radiopharmacy (15.6%) as a field for additional study.

Table 16. Discipline in which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Expect to Seek Additional Education in the Future, 2006

Discipline of Additional Education Percent

Medical Physics 17.7%

Pharmacy/Radiopharmacy 15.6%

Radiochemistry 5.2%

Health Physics 4.2%

Molecular Biology 4.2%

Medicine 4.2%

Nuclear Engineering 1.0%

Radiologic Physics 1.0%

Nuclear Physics 1.0%

Other 45.8%

Total 100%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B.5 and B.5b A high percentage of those planning to pursue further education in the coming five years expected to do so in a discipline other than their current discipline. With the exception of pharmacy (50% of those currently in pharmacy and planning to pursue further education expected to study pharmacy/radiopharmacy in the future), most other scientists from other branches of nuclear medicine science expected to study “other” subjects (Table 17). The “other” categories listed by survey respondents can be found in Appendix B.

32

Table 17. Disciplines of Expected Additional Education by Current Branch of Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006

Disciplines of Expected Additional Education

Current Branch of Science of Active Nuclear Medicine

Scientists

Hea

lth P

hysi

cs

Med

ical

Phy

sics

Rad

ioch

emis

try

Phar

mac

y/

Rad

ioph

arm

acy

Med

icin

e

Rad

iolo

gic

Phys

ics

Nuc

lear

Phy

sics

Mol

ecul

ar

Bio

logy

Nuc

lear

En

gine

erin

g

Oth

er

Total N

Chemistry -- -- 25% -- 13% -- -- 13% -- 50% 8

Pharmacy 4% 4% 4% 50% 4% -- 4% -- 31% 26

Physics 5% 48% -- -- -- -- 5% -- 43% 21

Computer Science / Engineering -- 25% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 75% 4

Multiple Branches 6% 24% 6% 6% 6% 6% -- -- 6% 41% 17

Not Specified -- 11% 5% 5% 5% -- -- 11% -- 63% 19

Total 3% 19% 5% 16% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 45% 95

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B.3 and B.5b.

33

Current Discipline in Nuclear Medicine Science and Educational Background

• Table 18 shows that when the major subject in which active nuclear medicine scientists received their bachelor’s degrees was linked with the branch of science in nuclear medicine in which the scientist was currently working, the major subject and current discipline generally coincided.

• Among those working in multiple branches of nuclear medicine science, almost one-third (30.4%) were educated in physics during undergraduate studies and another 23.2% were educated in pharmacy. Among all nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey, more than one-quarter (27%) indicated physics as their major area of study in undergraduate education.

Table 18. Disciplines in which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Earned Bachelor’s Degrees,

by Branch of Science of Current Work, 2006

Bachelor’s Degree Disciplines

Current Branch of Science of Active Nuclear Medicine

Scientists

Phys

ics

Engi

neer

ing

Phar

mac

y

Che

mis

try

Com

pute

r Sc

ienc

e

Bio

logy

Bio

logy

&

Che

mis

try

Phys

ics

&

Oth

er

Bio

logy

&

Phys

ics

Engi

neer

ing

&

Phys

ics

Phys

ics

&

Che

mis

try

Oth

er N

Chemistry 1.7% 2.5% 0.8% 84.7% -- 3.4% 3.4% -- -- -- -- 3.4% 118

Pharmacy -- -- 87% 3.4% -- 5.6% 0.6% -- -- -- -- 3.4% 177

Physics 60.4% 11.6% -- 2.7% 1% 7.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% -- 0.3% 11.9% 293

Computer Science / Engineering 8.3% 54.2% -- -- 4.2% 16.7% -- -- -- -- -- 16.7% 24

Multiple Branches 30.4% 13.8% 23.2% 15.2% 1.4% 2.9% 3.6% 1.4% -- 0.7% -- 7.2% 138

Not Specified 10.9% 12.5% 7.8% 21.9% 2.3% 21.9% -- 3.1% 1.6% -- -- 18.0% 128

Total 27.0% 9.7% 22.4% 18.6% 1% 8.3% 1.6% 1.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.1% 9.3% 878

Note: Percents are row percents. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B.2, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

34

• Table 19 shows that scientists with bachelor’s education in a variety of disciplines were working in physics in their nuclear medicine careers. As presumed, 75% of nuclear medicine scientists educated at the undergraduate level in physics were working in physics. However, 40% of respondents with engineering majors and 33% of computer science majors at the bachelor’s degree level also reported they worked in physics. Those with multiple areas of concentration at the bachelor’s level also reported they were working in physics.

Table 19. Disciplines in which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Earned Bachelor’s Degrees,

by Branch of Science of Current Work

Academic Discipline of Bachelor’s Degree

Current Branch of Science

Phys

ics

Engi

neer

ing

Phar

mac

y

Che

mis

try

Com

pute

r Sc

ienc

e

Bio

logy

Bio

logy

&

Che

mis

try

Phys

ics

& O

ther

Bio

logy

&

Phys

ics

Engi

neer

ing

&

Phys

ics

Phys

ics

&

Che

mis

try

Oth

er

Total

Chemistry 1% 4% 1% 61% -- 5% 29% -- -- -- -- 5% 13%

Pharmacy -- -- 78% 4% -- 14% 7% -- -- -- -- 7% 20%

Physics 75% 40% -- 5% 33% 32% 29% 40% 67% -- 100% 43% 33%

Computer Science / Engineering 1% 15% -- -- 11% 5% -- -- -- -- -- 5% 3%

Multiple Branches 18% 22% 16% 13% 22% 5% 36% 20% -- 100% -- 12% 16%

Not Specified 6% 19% 5% 17% 33% 38% -- 40% 33% -- -- 28% 15%

Total N 237 85 197 163 9 73 14 10 6 1 1 82 878

Note: Percents are column percents. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B.2, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

35

Entry into Nuclear Medicine Pathways to nuclear medicine science varied. It was important to understand historical pathways to the discipline to aid in the recruitment of new professionals to nuclear medicine science. Understanding effective recruitment strategies is an important tool for both current nuclear medicine professionals and policymakers. Several questions related to this subject were included in the 2006 survey.

First or Second Career Choice

• The younger the nuclear medicine scientist the more likely nuclear medicine science was the first career choice. The high percentage of those in the youngest age cohort (<30) selecting nuclear medicine as a first career (75%) would be expected for several reasons.

1) This group was too young to have had another career.

2) Nuclear medicine science was becoming better known as a profession.

3) The actual number of scientists in this younger age cohort was small and others younger than age 30 entered the field later as a second career.

4) Other potential nuclear medicine scientists younger than age 30 may be completing the required education to enter the field.

• Older nuclear medicine science professionals were less likely to have started their professional careers in nuclear medicine. This may be attributed to fewer opportunities in the field in past decades and perhaps to less knowledge historically of nuclear medicine science as a potential career choice.

• A much higher percentage (63%) of scientists younger than age 40 had selected nuclear medicine as a first career than had scientists 60 or older (28%) (Table 20). This suggested that expanding opportunities in nuclear medicine science have led to increased knowledge of the nuclear medicine science disciplines among younger professionals making first time career choices.

Table 20. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Whose First Career Choice Was

Nuclear Medicine Science by Age Group, 2006

Age Group NMS First Career Choice

Total # in Age Group

< 30 75.0% 20

30 - 39 61.5% 156

40 - 49 51.4% 243

50 - 59 37.7% 257

60 - 69 29.7% 145

70 + 16.7% 24

Total 45.0% 845 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question A.1 and C.6

36

Second Careers Table 21 shows that a majority (55.6%) of active nuclear medicine scientists reported that nuclear medicine science was not their first career. As indicated above, this was truer in the older age cohorts than among younger scientists.

Table 21. Percentage of Active Scientists For Whom Nuclear Medicine Science Was a First Career Choice

NM First Choice? Percentage No 55.6%

Yes 44.4%

Total 898

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey; Question C.6 Figure 4 shows that about three in five scientists (59%) spent five years or less in their previous careers.

Figure 4. Number of Years Nuclear Medicine Scientists Spent in Previous Career, 2006

N = 516 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question C.6b

Nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey were provided with the opportunity to list prior careers. Table 22 provides a summary of the 279 previous careers of nearly 500 scientists who offered that information. The breadth of experience that current scientists introduced to their careers in nuclear medicine suggested that the current professional field represents a synthesis of scientific interests and inquiry.

6 to 10 years22% 5 years or

less59%

11 to 15 years8%

16 to 20 years4%

31 years and more2%

21 to 30 years5%

37

Table 22. Prior Careers of Nuclear Medicine Scientists Pharmacy (44) Health Physics (25) Physics (22) Medical Physics (20) Chemistry (17) Radiation Therapy (16) Hospital Pharmacy (15) Engineering (14) Nuclear Physics (13) Radiation Oncology (13) Medicine (10) Internal Medicine (9) Organic Chemistry (9) Radiology (8) Electrical Engineering (7) Nuclear Engineering (7) Biochemistry (6) Education (6) Radiological Physics (6) Teaching Physics (6) Therapy Physics (6) Chemical Engineering (5) High Energy Physics (5) Molecular Biology (5) Physicist (5) Radiation Oncology Physicist (5) Teaching (5) Medicinal Chemistry (4) Neurology (4) Nuclear Chemistry (4) Physics Teacher (4) Radiation Biology (4) Radiochemistry (4) Retail Pharmacy (4) Solid State Physics (4) Academic Physics (3) Biophysics (3) Inorganic Chemistry (3) Nuclear Engineer (3) Nuclear Power / Nuclear Power H.P./Nuclear Power Plant Engineering (3) Pediatrics (3) Plasma Physics (3) Radiation Therapy Physics (3) Synthesis/Synthetic Chemistry (3) X-Ray Technologist (3) Academics / Academic Research (2) Analytical Chemistry (2) Astrophysics (2) Bio Chemistry / Biochemist (2) Biology (2)

Biomedical Engineering (2) Cardiology (2) Chemistry Teacher (2) Clinical Pharmacy (2) Diagnostic X-Ray (2) Diagnostic Radiology (2) Electronics (2) Environmental science (2) Geophysics Petroleum Exploration (2) Hospital Pharmacist (2) Marine Biology (2) Mathematics (2) Mechanical Engineering (2) Medical Chemistry (2) Music (2) Nuclear Physicist (2) Organic Chem Researcher (2) Pathology (2) Pharmaceutical Development (2) Pharmacology (2) Physical Therapy (2) Physics Basic Science (2) Pre Med/Medical School (2) Public Health (2) Radiation Physics (2) Radiation Safety (2) Radiologic Technology (2) Student (2) Theoretical Physics (2) Therapeutic Medical Physics (2) University Physics/ University Physics Professor (2) X-Ray imaging / X-Ray Imaging Science (2) Acute Care (Hospital) Pharmacy Aeronautical engineering Aerospace Engineering Ambulatory Pharmacy Analytical and Polymer Analytical Radiochemistry Archeology Art. Engineer Atmospheric Physics (2) Atomic Physics Behavioral Pharmacy Bench Chemist Bio Med Scientist Bioanalytical Chemistry Biochemical Analysis Biology Research Biomedical Devices not related to nuclear medicine Biopharmaceuticals

BSN (Nursing) Cancer Research Cardiovascular Pharmacology Chain Pharmacist (Retail) Chemical Pathology Chemistry /Teaching Chemistry Professor Civil Engineering Clinical Lab Research Community Pharmacy Computer Science Computer simulation of Defense systems Condensed Matter Physics Critical Care Pharmacy Cyclotron Technical Defense Ministry Detector Physics Detector Science Diagnostic Imaging Drafting Drug Development Drug development and Discovery Drug Discovery Drug Information Earth Sciences Ecology Education-High School Electro Chemistry Electronics Design Elementary Physics research Engineer Environmental Biology Exercise Science Experimental Nuclear Physics (3) Family Practice Food Service General Pharmacy General Physics General Relativity Geophysics Graphic Arts High School Math Teacher High School Teacher Hospital/Retail Pharmacy I am a diagnostic radiologist. Ichthyology, Limnology Image Guided Surgery Imaging Industrial Hygiene Industry, Academia, DOD Industry-Analytical Organic Chemist

38

Table 22. Continued

Instructor Internal Medicine and Cardiology Lab Tech, Molecular Biology Linac Technology Loan Financing Manager of Credit Bureau (Parent's Business) MD MD and Nuc Med Combined Medical Imaging Medical Oncology Medical Physics - Diagnostic and Therapeutic Medical Physics and current Medical Physics Radiation Imaging Medical Physics- Therapy Metallurgical Engineering Metallurgy and Material Science Microbiologist Military Molecular Biophysics MR Imaging (2) My field is mostly X-Ray CT not Nuclear Natural Products Synthesis Naval Officer - Active Duty NCRP/ICRU Neighborhood Pharmacy Nephrology Neuropathology Neuroscience Neurosurgery No previous field, just not my first choice Nuclear Astrophysics Nuclear Engineering Radiation Safety Nuclear Medicine Technology (2) Nuclear Physicist, Full Professor Nuclear Physics and Astronomy, Radiation Safety Nuclear Physics Engineering

Nuclear Science Nuclear Science Physics Nuclear Structure Physics Nursing Nursing Home Consultant OB-GYN Oceanography Oncology Research Oncology/X-ray Optical Imaging (OCT Research Organic Chemistry/ Pharmaceutical Chemistry Organic Syntheses Orthopedics Particle Physics Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Research Pharmacist Pharmacokinetics Pharmacology-New Drug Pharmacy Research Physical Chemistry Physics Laboratory Assistant Physics Major Physics Particle Physics Teacher, College Physics Teacher High School Physics, Imaging Process Physics/Chemistry Physics/Electronic Engineering Physics/Optics Physics/Thermal/Medical Applications Physiology, Radiation Therapy Physics Plain Pharmacy Pre-Med/ Health Physics Professional Football QC Chemist Quantum Optics R&D Radiation Oncology Physics Radar Engineering Radiation (X-Ray / Oncology) Radiation Chemistry

Radiation Medical Physics Radiation Therapy Radiobiology Radiochemical Synthesis and Analysis Radiologic Physics Radiologic Science Radiological Health Physics Radiological Imaging Radiology Education Radiology Engineering Regular Pharmacy Relativistic Heavy Ion Physics Research in Solid State Physics Research, Chemistry Retail Retail Pharmacy/Sales Rock Climbing/Skiing Instructor Rocket Engineering RSO Secondary Education Software Engineering Space Radiation Physics Statistician/Technology Consulting Surgery Talbot Seminary Teaching Chemistry Teaching of College Physics Technical Physics Theoretical Nuclear Physics Theoretical Physics, Math Therapeutic Radiological Physics Therapy Physics Traditional Pharmacy Tumor Immunology U.S. Marine Corps Ultrasound University Instructor Urology U.S. Army USAF Veterinary Medicine X-Ray-Crystallography

39

Introduction to Careers in Nuclear Medicine Science It is important for stakeholders concerned about maintaining a steady supply of nuclear medicine scientists to understand the reasons for the original interest of these professionals in nuclear medicine science and how they learned about career opportunities in nuclear medicine science.

• Table 23 reveals that more than one-quarter (36%) of current nuclear medicine scientists initially learned about the field of nuclear medicine science from a professor, followed by work experience (27%). The percentage of those learning about nuclear medicine science from a professor was somewhat higher in the younger age groups than in the older age groups.

• Among the older age cohorts, work experience was important to their initial knowledge of the field. For scientists age 60 and older, this was the most common exposure to the opportunities in nuclear medicine science. Among scientists between ages 50 and 59, work experience was the second most frequently selected reason for interest in nuclear medicine (23%).

• Availability of educational programs (18%), colleagues (16%), and postgraduate employment opportunities (12%) were all identified as avenues for developing interest in nuclear medicine science as a career.

Table 23. Reasons For Initial Interest in Nuclear Medicine Science by Age Group, 2006

Age Group Reasons for Initial Interest

in Nuclear Medicine < 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 + Total

Education Program Available 19% 13% 16% 15% 11% 6% 18%

Learned from a Professor 32% 34% 31% 27% 23% 21% 36%

Learned from a Colleague 6% 11% 13% 12% 16% 18% 16%

Work Experience 13% 15% 19% 23% 28% 30% 27%

Summer Intern/Fellowship 10% 7% 5% 2% 2% 6% 5%

Postgrad Employment Opportunity 3% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 12%

Newspaper/Magazine Article 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 0% 3%

Specialty Publication Article 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Other 10% 5% 4% 5% 6% 6% 7%

Total N 31 216 333 337 192 33 898 Respondents had the option to choose more than one response. Total cumulative responses

for this question were 1,142. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.1 and C.2

40

• Table 24 shows that more than one-third of current nuclear medicine scientists (36.1%) first learned about nuclear medicine science during their undergraduate education. An additional 22% of current nuclear medicine scientists learned about nuclear medicine opportunities at the graduate (master’s) level.

• Almost one-third of current nuclear medicine scientists (32.8%) learned about opportunities in nuclear medicine in their doctoral program or medical school (18.7%), or during postdoctoral training (14.1%).

Table 24. Education Level at First Knowledge of Nuclear Medicine Science

Career Opportunities, 2006

Education Level When First Learned About Nuclear

Medicine Percentage

Undergraduate 36.1% Graduate (Master's) 22.0% Graduate (Doctoral/Medical) 18.7% Postdoctoral 14.1% High School 2.8% Not Sure 6.3%

Total 100%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question C.1

The educational level at which current nuclear medicine scientists became aware of career opportunities in nuclear medicine science varied by disciplines of their most advanced degrees. Table 25 provides some details based on the survey responses.

• Among scientists with their most advanced degree in pharmacy/radiopharmacy, 67% became aware of nuclear medicine science opportunities during undergraduate education. This was consistent with the later finding that almost half of nuclear medicine scientists in pharmacy/radiopharmacy began their nuclear medicine science education in earnest as undergraduates.

• Among computer science professionals in nuclear science, 42.9% became aware of opportunities in nuclear medicine during undergraduate education. However, less than one-quarter of all scientists in nuclear medicine computer science specialties (21.4%) began their nuclear medicine education in earnest in undergraduate programs.

• Although more than one-third of scientists in nuclear medicine physics specialties became aware of opportunities in nuclear medicine science in their undergraduate education (44.6% of those with highest degree in health physics, 37.1% of those with highest degree in radiologic physics, and 35.9% of those with highest degree in medical physics), more than half of those scientists did not begin their education in their nuclear science physics specialty until graduate (at the master’s level) school (57.3% of scientists with highest degree in medical physics, 54.4% of scientists with highest degree in radiologic physics, and 49.1% of

41

scientists with highest degree in radiologic physics). These figures suggested that a proportion of scientists in selected physics disciplines entered graduate education with some definition in career focus. Graduate programs with a nuclear medicine focus may be more readily available in physics disciplines than in some other nuclear medicine science specialties.

• Awareness of professional opportunities in other nuclear medicine science specialty areas came much later to nuclear medicine scientists in nuclear physics, molecular biology, and medicine. The majority of scientists with highest degree in nuclear physics indicated initial awareness of nuclear medicine science career opportunities at the doctoral level (31.9%) or during postdoctoral studies (30.4%). Most scientists with highest degrees in molecular biology learned of opportunities in nuclear medicine science at the doctoral level (50%) or during postdoctoral studies (37.5%). Among nuclear medicine scientists with medical education, 54.2% learned about nuclear medicine science career opportunities during medical/doctoral studies and 22.2% learned during postdoctoral work.

Table 25. Educational Level at Which Nuclear Medicine Scientist Became Aware of

Careers in Nuclear Medicine Science by Academic Area of Most Advanced Degree, 2006

Education Level at Which NMS Became Aware of Career Opportunities in NMS

Academic Area of Most Advanced Degree (N) High

School Under-

graduate GraduateProf/

Doctoral/ Medical

Post Doctoral Not Sure

Health Physics (56) 1.8% 44.6% 39.3% 8.9% 3.6% 1.8%

Medical Physics (181) 2.8% 35.9% 40.9% 14.9% 3.9% 1.7%

Radiologic Physics (62) 1.6% 37.1% 38.7% 17.7% 3.2% 1.6%

Nuclear Physics (69) 4.3% 13.0% 13.0% 31.9% 30.4% 7.2%

Chemistry (132) 1.5% 16.7% 16.7% 18.2% 37.9% 9.1%

Molecular Biology (8) - - - 50.0% 37.5% 12.5%

Pharmacy/Radiopharmacy (209) 2.9% 67.0% 10.5% 10.5% 1.9% 7.2%

Computer Science (14) - 42.9% 21.4% 28.6% 7.1% -

Medicine (72) 5.6% 9.7% 8.3% 54.2% 22.2% -

Nuclear Engineering (27) - 37.0% 40.7% 22.2% - -

Instrumentation (13) - 23.1% 30.8% 38.5% 7.7% -

Other (145) 2.8% 24.8% 22.8% 17.2% 21.4% 11.0%

Note: N totals to more than 898 since scientists were permitted to choose more than one area of discipline for most advanced degree.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions B.3 and C.1

• Table 26 shows the educational level at which nuclear medicine scientists became aware of career opportunities in nuclear medicine by their current age. This table suggests that there was increasing knowledge of opportunities in nuclear medicine science at lower levels of education. Among those younger than age 30, 60% first learned of opportunities in nuclear

42

medicine science in their undergraduate years. Among those in the 50 to 59 year age group, only 35% first learned of nuclear medicine science opportunities at the undergraduate level.

• More than one-quarter of those ages 50 to 59 (27%) and 60 to 69 (27%) first learned of opportunities in nuclear medicine at the graduate (master’s level). A similar percentage of those age 60 to 69 (27%) and age 70 and older (27%) learned of opportunities in nuclear medicine during doctoral/medical studies.

Table 26. Educational Levels at which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Learned About Nuclear Medicine by Age Groups

Age Group Educational Level When First

Learned About NM < 30 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70+ Total

High School 5% 3% 2% 4% 3% -- 3%

Undergraduate 60% 47% 47% 35% 14% -- 37%

Master's 20% 16% 17% 27% 27% 32% 22%

Doctoral/Medical 5% 22% 15% 16% 27% 27% 19%

Postdoctoral -- 8% 12% 12% 20% 36% 13%

Not Sure 10% 5% 7% 6% 9% 5% 7%

Total N 20 154 243 252 142 22 833

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.1 and C.1

Educational Level at Which Formal Nuclear Science Education Began

• The educational level at which nuclear medicine scientists began their formal nuclear medicine education varied, with a relatively equal distribution of beginning points at all academic levels (Figure 5).

43

Figure 5. Academic Level At Which Formal Education in Nuclear Medicine Science Began, 2006

Master's29%

Doctoral26%

Post Doctoral

21% Undergrad24%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question C.3

Table 27 presents information on the academic level at which survey respondents began their formal education in different disciplines of nuclear medicine science. The variations in these responses were consistent with previous findings in this report that described scientists’ first knowledge of nuclear medicine science.

• Among scientists with the most advanced degree in pharmacy or radiopharmacy, 49.3% began their education in nuclear medicine during undergraduate education. This was the only discipline in which the largest number of scientists indicated undergraduate as the most usual academic level at which nuclear medicine science education began.

• Among nuclear medicine scientists with their highest degrees in physics, those with a medical physics concentration (57.3%), a radiologic physics concentration (54.4%), and a health physics concentration (49.1%) were most likely to have begun their nuclear medicine education at the graduate (master’s) level.

• Nuclear medicine scientists with highest degrees in nuclear engineering (48.1%) were also likely to begin nuclear medicine science education at the graduate (master’s) level.

• However, among those with a highest degree in nuclear physics (51.6%) or chemistry (53.6%), the most usual academic point at which the scientist began their education in nuclear medicine was at the postdoctoral level.

• Among those with highest degrees in molecular biology (62.5%), medicine (44.4%), instrumentation (38.5%), and computer science (35.7%), the most usual academic level at which scientists began their nuclear medicine education was during professional, doctoral, or medical studies.

44

Table 27. Academic Area of Most Advanced Degree by Academic Level at which the Scientist Began Nuclear Medicine Education in Earnest, 2006

Academic Level at Which NMS Began NM Education in Earnest

Academic Discipline of Most Advanced Degree Under-

graduate Graduate Professional/

Doctoral/ Medical

Post Doctoral

Health Physics (53) 28.3% 49.1% 20.8% 1.9%

Medical Physics (178) 18.5% 57.3% 16.9% 7.3%

Radiologic Physics (57) 19.3% 54.4% 21.1% 5.3%

Nuclear Physics (64) 6.3% 18.8% 23.4% 51.6%

Chemistry (125) 12.0% 12.8% 21.6% 53.6%

Molecular Biology (8) - - 62.5% 37.5%

Pharmacy/Radiopharmacy (201) 49.3% 18.4% 28.9% 3.5%

Computer Science (14) 21.4% 14.3% 35.7% 28.6%

Medicine (72) 6.9% 9.7% 44.4% 38.9%

Nuclear Engineering (27) 18.5% 48.1% 22.2% 11.1%

Instrumentation (13) 7.7% 30.8% 38.5% 23.1%

Other (135) 15.6% 29.6% 26.7% 28.1%

N totals greater than 898 since respondents were permitted to select more than one academic area for their highest degree. The shaded cells represent the education levels with the largest percentage of respondents for the respective disciplines.

Current Work Environment This section of the report focuses on current employment of active nuclear medicine scientists. Unless otherwise noted, the tabulations were only for those respondents indicating current professional activity in nuclear medicine science.

Primary and Secondary Employment Settings

• Table 28 shows that among active nuclear medicine scientists, medical centers (either academic or hospital) were the most usual primary work settings. Among respondents to the survey, 27.6% worked in academic medical centers and 23.2% worked in hospitals/medical centers. Another 18.3% of nuclear medicine scientist respondents worked primarily in radiopharmacies.

• Nearly half (47.6%) of active nuclear medicine scientists reported having a secondary employment setting. The three secondary work settings reported most were hospitals/medical centers (8.9%), academic institutions (6.2%), and academic medical centers (5.5%).

45

Table 28. Primary and Secondary Employment Settings of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006

Employment Setting Primary Secondary

Academic Medical Center 27.6% 5.5%

Hospital/Medical Center 23.2% 8.9%

Radiopharmacy 18.3% 4.0%

Academic Institution 5.9% 6.2%

Consulting Company 5.2% 4.9%

Pharmaceutical Company 4.5% 1.2%

Research Organization 3.9% 4.1%

Self Employed 2.0% 4.8%

Technology/Instrument Company 1.9% 0.7%

Oncology Specialty Center 1.3% 1.0%

Freestanding Radiology Center 0.9% 1.3%

Outpatient Hospital Clinic/Center 0.6% 1.7%

Freestanding NM Center 0.2% 0.8%

Physician Office/Private Radiologist 0.2% 0.6%

Cardiology Specialty Center 0.2% 0.7%

Staffing Organization 0% 0.1%

Mobile Unit 0% 0.1%

Other 1.8% 1.0%

None/Missing 2.3% 52.4%

Total N 898 898 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.1a

• Figure 6 shows that the primary place of employment of nearly three-quarters (71%) of active nuclear medicine scientists was an academic medical center, a hospital medical center, or a radiopharmacy. These settings suggested linkage with or roles and functions related to clinical nuclear medicine for many of the scientists in those settings. Although it cannot be assumed that basic or applied research in those settings was not a nuclear medicine scientist endeavor, it was a fair assumption that basic or applied research in those settings was not a primary nuclear medicine science endeavor (except perhaps in academic medical centers).

• Only 15% of the nuclear medicine science workforce listed their primary place of employment as an academic institution, a pharmaceutical company, or a research organization. These were settings where basic or applied research were more likely primary, focused endeavors independent of clinical, administrative or technical functions.

• “Other” settings described by responding scientists included government and regulatory settings as well as cyclotron and reactor sites.

46

Figure 6. Primary Employment Setting of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006

Academic Medical Center

28%

Hospital/ Medical Center

24%

Radio-pharmacy

19%

Consulting Company

5%

Academic Institution

6%

Pharma-ceutical

Company5%

Research Organiz-ation

4%

Other9%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.1a

47

Number of Years in Primary Employment Setting

• Figure 7 shows that more than one-third of nuclear medicine scientists (34%) have worked for their current primary employer for five years or less and more than half (52%) have worked for their current primary employer for ten years or less.

Figure 7. Number of Years of Employment With Current Primary Employer, 2006

N = 876 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.4

Organization of Nuclear Medicine Departments

• Figure 8 shows that among survey respondents, 45% worked in either a nuclear medicine center in a radiology department, a radiology department, or a nuclear medicine department. This suggested strong ties to clinical care for a large portion of nuclear medicine scientists.

• Only 9% of active nuclear medicine scientists worked in an academic research department and 7% worked in a corporate R&D department. An additional 1% of nuclear medicine scientists worked in corporate sales/marketing.

• “Other” departments were selected by 19% of responding scientists. These included radiation oncology departments, cardiology clinics and practices, and radiation therapy departments (again clinical services departments) as well as consulting firms and corporate offices.

16 to 20 years13%

21 to 25 years7%

26 to 30 years7%

31 years and more7%

11 to 15 years14%

6 to 10 years18%

less than 5 years34%

48

Figure 8. Departments in Which Nuclear Medicine Scientists Work, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.6

Branches of Science of Nuclear Medicine Scientists

• Nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey indicated the branch of science of their nuclear medicine activity (Figure 9). A number of scientists cited multiple fields (15.6%) of interest, while others did not specify any special field of interest (14.8%).

• One-third (33.2%) of all survey respondents identified themselves as physicists. One-fifth (20.2%) identified themselves as pharmacists/radiopharmacists.

Other19%

NM Center in Radiology Dept

18%

Radiology Department

16%

NM Department

11%

Corporate R&D Dept7%

Radio-pharmacy

19%Academic Research Dept

9%

Corporate Sales/

Marketing1%

49

Figure 9. Percentages of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Different Branches of Science, 2006

Chemistry13.6%

Pharmacy20.2%

Physics33.2%

Multiple Branches

15.6%

Computer Science/

Engineering2.7%

Not Specified14.8%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question

• Table 29 provides a detailed description of the branches of science identified by respondents

within nuclear medicine science. These data illustrated the interdisciplinary nature of nuclear medicine science research and clinical nuclear medicine services. The overlap in a number of areas of science was also reflected in the data (described in a previous section in this report) detailing future education plans of nuclear medicine scientists. Scientists were not confined by their current area of interest in their future educational plans but rather sought education in “other” fields.

Table 29. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Different Branches of Science, 2006

Branch of Science (15 Categories) Percent Physics 33.2% Pharmacy 20.2% Chemistry 13.6% Physics + Computer Science/Engineering 6.8% Chemistry + Pharmacy 4.2% Computer Science/Engineering 2.7% Chemistry + Physics 1.1% Chemistry + Pharmacy + Physics 1.1% Pharmacy + Physics 0.8% Chemistry + Pharmacy + Computer Science/Engineering 0.6% Pharmacy + Physics + Computer Science/Engineering 0.4% Chemistry + Pharmacy + Computer Science/Engineering 0.2% Chemistry + Pharmacy + Physics + Computer Science/Engineering 0.2% Chemistry + Computer Science/Engineering 0.1% None of the Four 14.8% Total N 898

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

50

Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Clinical Nuclear Medicine Departments

• Figure 10 shows that a high percentage (70.3%) of nuclear medicine scientists worked in a department that provided clinical nuclear medicine services.

• Among the duties of scientists in clinical departments, radiation safety monitoring (41.8% of respondents) and professional/patient education (41%) were the most frequently cited functions.

• About one in five (21.7%) of scientists in clinical settings were responsible for research protocol management. Research protocol management may be a function of physicians in clinical settings where research occurs.

Figure 10. Percent of Scientists Working in Clinical Nuclear Medicine Services and

Services Provided by Scientists in Clinical Settings, 2006

Note: The red represents the percent of all nuclear medicine scientists working in clinical settings. The yellow bars represent the percent of scientists working in clinical settings engaged in each task or role. Percentages total more than 100% because respondents

were able to mark more than one option.

Source: Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.7 and D.7a

7.2%

21.7%

30.5%

38.8%

41.0%

41.8%

70.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

Research ProtocolManagement

RadiopharmaceuticalPrep

Instrummentation andCalibration

Professional/PatientEducation

Radiation SafetyMonitoring

Clinical NM Services

51

Nuclear Medicine Scientists in R&D

• Figure 11 shows that among nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey, 45.9% indicated working in research and development (R&D).

• Among those scientists that worked in R& D, a majority (63%) worked in radiopharmaceutical development.

• About one-half of respondents (48%) working in R&D worked in “in vivo research” whereas only 23% worked in “in vitro research.”

• The percentage of active nuclear medicine scientists working in technology development (45%) is more than twice the percentage working in radionuclide development (20%) and cellular/molecular biology research (20%).

Figure 11. Areas of Interest of Nuclear Medicine Scientists

in Research and Development, 2006

Note: The red bar represents the percent of all nuclear medicine scientists working in R&D. The yellow bars represent the percent of scientists working in R&D engaged in each task or role. Percentages do not add to 100% because respondents were able to mark more than one option. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.8 and D.8b

8.8%

20.0%

20.3%

23.0%

44.7%

47.9%

62.8%

45.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

RadionuclideDevelopment

Cellular/MolecularBiology

In Vitro Research

TechnologyDevelopment

In Vivo Research

RadiopharmaceuticalDevelopment

NM R&D

Are

as o

f Int

eres

t in

R &

D

Percentages

52

• Figure 12 shows that scientists involved in R&D indicated a number of employment settings. Most scientists in R&D worked in academic medical centers (43%) or college/universities (25%).

• Private corporations employed 22% of survey respondents who reported they were engaged in R&D.

• “Other” settings described by nuclear medicine scientists working in R&D included national laboratories and research institutes.

Figure 12. Employment Settings for Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Working in R&D, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question 8a

Other Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Employment Settings

• Figure 13 shows that nearly eight of ten (79%) nuclear medicine scientists indicated there were other nuclear medicine scientists also working in their primary place of employment. This suggests that nuclear medicine scientists do not generally work alone.

• More than half (55%) of those reporting that they worked with other nuclear medicine scientists indicated that the primary specialty of the other scientists with whom they worked was physics. Another 50% of nuclear medicine scientists indicated that the primary scientific interest of co-workers was pharmacy/radiopharmacy.

• Chemistry was the least reported specialty of co-workers by nuclear medicine scientists (23%) who reported having nuclear medicine science co-workers.

Government Agency

5% College/ University

25%

Other5%

Private Corporation

22%

Academic Medical Center

43%

53

Figure 13. Interests of Other Nuclear Medicine Scientists Working at the

Primary Work Settings with the Respondent Nuclear Medicine Scientist, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.5a

The scientific specializations of the nuclear medicine scientists who reported having co-workers with nuclear medicine science interests are reported in Figure 14. Most of those reporting having co-workers were physicists (27%) or radiopharmacists (24%). It is interesting that physics and pharmacy/radiopharmacy were also the most reported specialties of co-workers.

18%

23%

40%

50%

55%

79%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Others' PrimaryInterest is Other

Others' PrimaryInterest is Chemistry

Others' PrimaryInterest is Computers

Others' PrimaryInterest is Pharmacy

Others' PrimaryInterest is Physics

Other NM Scientist atPri Emplyr

Inte

rest

s

Percentage

54

Figure 14. Specialty Areas of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Who Work With Other Nuclear Medicine Scientists at Their Primary Workplace, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.5, D.5a, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

Work in Clinical Nuclear Medicine Departments or R&D Nuclear medicine scientists were asked to indicate if they worked in a department that provides clinical nuclear medicine services and also if they worked in nuclear medicine R&D. Their responses are summarized in Table 30.

• About one-third (31%) of nuclear medicine scientists worked in a department that provided clinical nuclear medicine services and also worked in nuclear medicine R&D.

• More than one-third (39%) of nuclear medicine scientists worked in a department that provided clinical nuclear medicine services but did not work in nuclear medicine R&D.

• On1y 15% of scientists worked in nuclear medicine R&D only.

• Another 15% of scientists worked neither in a clinical nuclear medicine department nor in R&D. Presumably many of these scientists were working for employers in regulatory functions, administrative and technical support, and consulting roles.

Multiple Branches

16%

Not Specified

15%

Computer Science /

Engineering3%

Physics27%

Pharmacy24%

Chemistry15%

55

Table 30. Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Clinical Nuclear Medicine Departments and Nuclear Medicine Research and Development, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.7 and D.8 Table 31 reveals some differences in employment of nuclear medicine scientists in different branches of science working in clinical and non-clinical departments.

• Almost half of nuclear medicine scientists working only in clinical services departments were physicists (45%). Another quarter of scientists working only in clinical services departments were pharmacists (26%).

• More than one-third of scientists working only in R&D were chemists (35% of all scientists in R&D) while only one-sixth (16%) were physicists.

Table 31. Branch of Science of Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Working in Clinical Departments and in R&D

Branch of Science Clinical and R&D Clinical Only R&D Only

Neither Clinical nor

R&D

Chemistry 21% 3% 35% 5%

Pharmacy 10% 26% 8% 38%

Physics 26% 45% 16% 36%

Computer Science / Engineering 4% 2% 5% 2%

Multiple Branches 21% 12% 17% 11%

Not Specified 17% 13% 19% 8%

Total 276 346 133 132

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.7, D.8, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

Type of Nuclear Medicine Service

Nuclear Medicine

Research & Development

Not Nuclear Medicine

Research & Development

N

Clinical 31% 39% 622

Not Clinical 15% 15% 265

N 409 478 887

56

Employment Settings of Those Not Working in Clinical Nuclear Medicine or R&D

• Table 32 shows that of the 15% of scientists who indicated they worked in neither a clinical department nor in nuclear medicine R&D, more than 2 in 5 (41.2%) indicated that their primary employment setting was a radiopharmacy.

• Almost one-fifth (19.9%) worked in either a hospital or academic medical center presumably in administrative, regulatory, or technical capacities, since they were not engaged in clinical services or research.

Table 32. Employment Settings Of Scientists Not in Clinical or R&D Activities, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.1a, D.7, and D.8

Primary and Secondary Tasks and Roles in Nuclear Medicine Science Nuclear medicine scientists were asked to identify a primary task or role in their primary work setting in one, some, or all of four areas of scientific tasks and roles in their current employment settings: 1) basic science research, 2) applied research, 3) technical support, and 4) administrative support. Their responses are summarized below.

Types of Employment Settings Primary

Employment Setting

Secondary Employment

Setting

Radiopharmacy 41.2 % 11.1 % Hospital/Medical Center 16.8 % 15.6 % Consulting Company 13.7 % 8.9 % Self Employed 6.1 % 17.8 % Pharmaceutical Company 4.6 % 8.9 % Oncology Specialty Center 4.6 % -- Academic Institution 3.8 % 8.9 % Academic Medical Center 3.1 % 4.4 % Research Organization 1.5 % 2.2 % Outpatient Hospital Clinic/Center 0.8 % -- Cardiology Specialty Center -- 4.4 % Freestanding Nuclear Medicine Center -- 2.2 % Technology/Instrument Company -- 2.2 % Freestanding Radiology Center -- 2.2 % Physician Office/Private Radiologist -- 2.2 % Mobile Unit -- -- Staffing Organization -- -- Other 3.8 % 8.9 %

Total 131 45

57

• Figure 15 shows almost one-third (30%) of nuclear medicine scientists identified two or three roles in their current employment settings. These scientists were involved with basic research, applied research, technical support, and/or administrative support, as well as multiple roles in the workplace.

• One-fifth (20%) of nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey indicated they performed only basic science research. Fewer still (only 3%) indicated total involvement with only applied research. These percentages raised concerns in light of the already small number of scientists identifying as nuclear medicine scientists and the need for research to advance nuclear medicine science and further innovative clinical applications.

• One in eight (12%) scientists identified all four tasks and roles as primary responsibilities in their current workplace(s).

Figure 15. Percentages of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists with Different Primary

Tasks and Roles, 2006

Basic Science Research Only

20%

Applied Research Only

3%

Technical Support Only

15%

Administrative Support Only

5%

Two or Three Roles30%

All Four Roles12%

Not Specified15%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.10

• As seen in Table 33, although 55.2% of active nuclear medicine scientists indicated that basic science research was one of their roles in their primary employment settings, only 20.6% engaged solely in basic science research.

• The high percentage of nuclear medicine scientists who indicated employment in clinical settings suggested a likelihood of interaction with nuclear medicine physicians in applied research. In fact, almost one-quarter (23.9%) of nuclear medicine scientists indicated some involvement with applied research.

58

• More than 14% of responding nuclear medicine scientists worked only in technical support roles or administrative support roles (4.9%).

Table 33. Primary Roles of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

in Primary Work Settings, 2006

Primary Roles (16 Categories) Percent

Basic Science Research 20.6% Technical Support 14.6% Basic Science Research + Applied Research + Tech Support + Admin Support 11.6% Basic Science Research + Tech Support 7.3% Basic Science Research + Tech Support + Admin Support 6.2% Tech Support + Admin Support 5.6% Administrative Support 4.9% Basic Science Research + Applied Research 3.9% Applied Research 3.1% Basic Science Research + Admin Support 2.2% Basic Science Research + Applied Research + Tech Support 2.1% Applied Research + Tech Support + Admin Support 1.3% Basic Science Research + Applied Research + Admin Support 1.0% Applied Research + Tech Support 0.6% Applied Support + Admin Support 0.3% Not Specified 14.6%

Total N 898 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.10

Basic Science Research The responses to the survey questions and the personal narrative comments and descriptions they provided revealed that the umbrella of nuclear medicine science shelters a myriad of research activity and a broad array of scientific inquiry.

• Among scientists reporting basic science research as a primary endeavor, 37% worked in radiopharmaceutical development and 35.4% worked in “other” areas of basic science research. Table 34 lists the “other” areas of basic research as transcribed from survey responses.

59

Table 34. “Other” Services Provided by Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Primary and Secondary Roles in Basic Research

Clinical / Clinic(10) Radiation Oncology (9) Dosimetry (8) Dispensing (7) Radiation Safety (6) Medical Physics (5) PET / PET Clinical / PET Dispensing/PET Imaging (4) Physics (4) Health Physics (3) Patient Care (3) Radiopharmacy (3) Regulatory Affairs (3) Clinical Physics (2) Clinical Services (2) Data analysis (2) Image Analysis (2) Physicist (2) Radiopharmaceutical Preparation (2) Sales and Marketing/Sales Support (2) Software / Software Development (2) Administration Algorithm development All of the above Analytical Chemistry LC-MS Animal Model Development Automated Chemistry Bone Densitometry Cancer Imaging Central Radiopharmacy Clinical Medical Physics Clinical Monitor Clinical Neurology Clinical Nuclear Medicine Clinical Pharmacology / Pharmacokinetics Clinical Protocols Clinical Service, Teaching Clinical Therapy Coding/Dispensing Compliance Compounding and Dispensing of

Radiopharmaceuticals Compounding Radiopharmaceuticals Computer processing Consulting CT Develop Kinetic Modeling Methodology Director of Pharmacy Distribution Dose Calculation, Calibration & Dosimetry Drug Production FDC Production H + M Physics Human Psychiatric Research IGRT Image/Data Analysis Imaging applications in oncology In Vitro Imaging In Vivo Imaging In Vivo Research Inpatient Pharmacy Inspection Instrumentation Lab Director Mammography Physics Manager Medical Health Physics (2) Medical Physics, Radiation Safety Medicine MicroPET Modeling Molecular Imaging Monitoring Field Multi Modality Imaging Nanotechnology Nuclear Cardiology Oversight Owner Patient Services PET radiopharmaceutical Mfg PET/SPECT Human Research

Pharmacy Physics Support Physiology PI on Human Research Studies Production QA Testing QA Compliances QC of Research on Radiochemicals Quality Assurance Quality Control Radiation Physics Radiation Oncology., RSO Radiation Oncology Physics Radiation Safety Radiation Safety Licensing Radiation Therapy Radiochemistry Radiopharmaceutical Radiopharmaceutical Compounding Radiopharmaceutical Dispensing Radiopharmacy, Management of Compounding, etc. Radiotherapy Research Research Protocols RPN Safety Service Small Animal Scanning SPECT Target R&D Teach, Research Teaching Teaching NMT students Technical Supervising Therapy Treatment Planning for Cancer Pts Unit Dose USAF Policy Writing None / Not Applicable (2)

60

• Table 35 shows that more than one-quarter (27.4%) of scientists reporting secondary activity in basic science research in their primary work settings reported working in radiopharmaceutical development, new modality/technology research (22.1%), or organic chemistry (21.5%).

Table 35. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting Selected

Primary and Secondary Tasks and Roles in Basic Science Research, 2006

Tasks and Roles Basic Science Research

Primary Secondary

Radiopharmaceutical Development 37.0% 27.4%

New Modality/Technology 13.0% 22.1%

Radionuclide Development 5.3% 16.7%

Molecular/Cellular Biology 3.4% 18.0%

Organic Chemistry 2.6% 21.5%

Data Storage 1.8% 11.4%

Inorganic Chemistry 1.0% 13.6%

Miniaturization 0.4% 4.4%

Other 35.4% 20.5%

Total 494 317

None/Missing 404 581

Note: Scientists were asked to select only one primary activity in one, some or all of the four categories but were permitted to select multiple secondary activities in each of the four categories. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.10

Applied Science Research

• Table 36 shows that among scientists reporting primary activity in applied research roughly equal percentages indicated research in image processing (18.6%), new applications (18.1%), and “other” (18.l%). (See Appendix B for a listing of the “other” tasks and roles.)

• Among scientists reporting secondary activity in applied research endeavors, 41.1% worked in image processing, 40.1% worked in new applications, and 30.2% worked in instrumentation/controls.

61

Table 36. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting Selected Primary and Secondary Tasks and Roles in Applied Research, 2006

Tasks and Roles Applied Research

Primary Secondary

Image Processing 18.6% 41.1% New Applications 18.1% 40.1% Instrumentation/Controls 14.9% 30.2% Camera Design/Development 14.9% 13.4% Algorithms 6.5% 29.7% Image Fusion 5.1% 29.2% Software Design 3.7% 25.7% Other 18.1% 9.9% Total 215 202 None/Missing 683 696

Note: Scientists were asked to select only one primary activity in one, some or all of the four categories but were permitted to select multiple secondary activities. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.10.

Technical Support

• Table 37 shows that survey respondents reported primary roles in the technical support area of radiopharmaceutical preparation (35.7%) and radiation safety (31.2%).

• Among nuclear medicine scientists reporting secondary responsibilities in technical support endeavors, 50.4% reported responsibility for radiation safety, 43% reported responsibility for equipment calibration, and 27.1% were involved in technical support for clinical trials.

Table 37. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting

Selected Primary and Secondary Tasks and Roles in Technical Support, 2006

Tasks and Roles Technical Support

Primary Secondary Radiopharmaceutical Preparation 35.7% 15.9% Radiation Safety 31.2% 50.4% Equipment Calibration 15.1% 43.0% Interpreting Images 5.6% 12.4% Clinical Trials 5.2% 27.1% Image Storage and Retrieval 1.8% 13.3% Attenuation Correction 0.5% 12.2% Other 5.0% 5.0% Total 443 458 None/Missing 455 440

Note: Scientists were asked to select only one primary activity in one, some or all of the four categories but were permitted to select multiple secondary activities. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.10.

62

Administrative Support

• Almost one-quarter (23.5%) of all scientists responding to the survey indicated they performed administrative/management tasks as a primary responsibility in their workplace.

• Table 38 shows that among scientists providing administrative support as a primary endeavor, more than one-third (34.6%) were involved in regulatory oversight and 30.5% educating other clinicians and professionals.

• Scientists with secondary job responsibilities in the area of administrative support educated clinicians and professionals in the workplace (51.6%), provided regulatory oversight activity (42%), and were involved in administration/management (37.8%).

Table 38. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Reporting

Selected Primary and Secondary Tasks/Roles in Administrative Support, 2006 Tasks and Roles

Administrative Support Primary Secondary

Regulatory Oversight 34.6% 42.0% Educating Clinicians/Professionals 30.5% 51.6% Administration/Management 23.5% 37.8% Educating Patients 2.7% 23.7% Financial Management 2.0% 14.3% Privacy and Security 1.7% 10.9% Other 5.0% 4.0% Total 298 405 None/Missing 600 493

Note: Scientists were asked to select only one primary activity in one, some or all of the four categories, but were permitted to select multiple secondary activities.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.10

63

Salaries of Nuclear Medicine Scientists Data on the salaries of nuclear medicine scientists were collected as part of the survey. The question asked the scientists to provide an annual salary figure from all their nuclear medicine positions.

In some cases, scientists were employed in multiple settings so annual salaries included wages from multiple jobs. In other cases, scientists worked only part time in nuclear medicine with other time spent in another specialty area (like radiology or radiation therapy). Scientists supplied only that portion of their annual salary gained from their pursuits in nuclear medicine science. No question was asked to ascertain the proportion of total annual salary this represented so the following analysis was not adjusted for proportionate salaries. For that reason, the salary figures at the lower end of the scale may distort the mean. However, the small number of scientists reporting salaries in the ranges below $50,000 had little overall effect on the distribution.

• The mean annual salary of active nuclear medicine scientists in 2006 was $123,800, and the median was $108,000. Figure 16 shows the salary distribution for all active nuclear medicine scientists.

Figure 16. Distribution of Total Annual Salaries of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

from All Nuclear Medicine Positions, 2006

4.3%5.2%

8.2%

18.0%

27.4%

14.6%

10.5%

3.9%

7.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

< $25 $25 to$49

$50 to$74

$75 to$99

$100 to$124

$125 to$149

$150 to$174

$174 to$199

$200 +

Salary Group, $000s

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question E.1

64

Salary by Branch of Science When salary was analyzed by scientific specialty area, a wide range of salaries in all specialties was apparent (Table 39).

• A majority (53%) of pharmacists/radiopharmacists made between $100,000 and $125,000 per year.

• Physicists working in nuclear medicine earned different salaries. However, 42% of physicists in nuclear medicine earned an annual salary between $100,000 and $149,000 per year.

• Some of the salaries in the lower income groups described in the following table were reported by scientists working only part time in nuclear medicine who reported only that portion of their annual income earned from their endeavors in nuclear medicine. Although this had a distorting effect on mean salary, the small numbers in these income ranges limited the distortion.

Table 39. Salary Distribution of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006

Branch of Science Salary Group

($000) Chemistry Pharmacy Physics

Computer Science /

Engineering

Not Specified

Multiple Branches Total

< $25 1% 1% 6% 4% 8% 5% 4% $25 to $49 9% 1% 4% 4% 7% 9% 5%

$50 to $74 13% 5% 5% 17% 10% 12% 8%

$75 to $99 19% 20% 16% 29% 15% 18% 18%

$100 to $124 20% 53% 21% 17% 16% 24% 27% $125 to $149 13% 11% 21% 13% 7% 15% 15%

$150 to $174 12% 5% 16% -- 12% 6% 10%

$174 to $199 5% 1% 5% -- 5% 5% 4% $200 + 10% 1% 6% 17% 20% 7% 8%

Total N 111 166 258 24 106 128 793

Note: The green cells represent the highest percentages and the red cells represent the lowest. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question E.1, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

Salary of Scientists in One Employment Setting When salaries were analyzed by the number of jobs held by nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey, differences emerged.

• Almost one-third (31%) of scientists who cited one job (one place of employment) made an annual salary from their nuclear medicine science activity between $100,000 and $124,000.

• Another third (35%) of scientists cited annual incomes of $125,000 and above from their nuclear medicine science activities in one employment setting.

65

• Salaries were reported based on nuclear medicine science activity in the workplace. A scientist may have worked in several clinical areas in a single workplace so salaries in the lower ranges likely represented scientists whose activities at their workplace were not full time in nuclear medicine.

Figure 17. Distribution of Annual Salaries of Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Reporting One Nuclear Medicine Employment Setting ($000), 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.1a and E.1

4% 4%

7%

19%

31%

17%

9%

3%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

< $25 $25 to$49

$50 to$74

$75 to$99

$100 to$124

$125 to$149

$150 to$174

$175 to$199

$200 +

66

Salaries of Scientists in Two or More Employment Settings

• The mean salary for all nuclear medicine scientists was $123,800.

• Among scientists working in more than one setting, 60% earned annual salaries more than $100,000 per year. Forty percent of scientists working for two or more employers earned more than $125,000.

• Among nuclear medicine scientists reporting at least two employers, 10% cited annual salaries from nuclear medicine roles at $200,000 or more (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Distribution of Annual Salaries of Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Reporting Two or More Nuclear Medicine Employment Settings ($000), 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.1a and E.1

Salary of Scientists by Years Certified in a Nuclear Medicine Specialty

• Table 40 shows there was a fairly even distribution of salaries around the mean salary ($123,800) regardless of the number of years certified in a nuclear medicine science specialty.

• Table 40 also shows that higher percentages of those certified for 16 to 20 years or for 26 to 30 years made salaries of $150,000 or greater. However, there were also high percentages in the groups certified less than 15 years making salaries of $125,000 or more (greater than the mean). Two-thirds of scientists (66%) reporting both salary and the number of years certified in nuclear medicine stated they were certified 15 years or less.

5%6%

8%

17%

24%

13%12%

5%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

< $25 $25 to$49

$50 to$74

$75 to$99

$100 to$124

$125 to$149

$150 to$174

$174 to$199

$200 +

67

Table 40. Salary Distributions of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Number of Years Certified in a Nuclear Medicine Science Specialty

Salary Group ($000) Years Certified

in NM < $25 $25 to $49

$50 to $74

$75 to $99

$100 to

$124

$125 to

$149

$150 to

$174

$174 to

$199 $200+ Total

N

0 to 5 4% 5% 4% 28% 32% 14% 9% 1% 3% 94 6 to 10 3% 1% 8% 12% 35% 19% 9% 3% 10% 115

11 to 15 4% -- 8% 13% 38% 21% 8% 6% 3% 106 16 to 20 -- 7% -- 15% 33% 7% 24% -- 15% 46 21 to 25 3% 2% 8% 13% 27% 18% 10% 5% 15% 62 26 to 30 8% 4% 8% 8% 19% 12% 19% 12% 12% 26 31 to 35 10% 5% -- 33% 19% 5% 5% 10% 14% 21 36 to 40 20% 40% -- -- -- -- -- 20% 20% 5

41+ -- -- -- 33% 33% -- -- 33% -- 3 Total % 4% 3% 6% 17% 32% 16% 10% 4% 8% 478

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions E.1 and I.2

Work Hours of Full Time Nuclear Medicine Scientists For purposes of this analysis, full time work hours were defined as 30 or more hours per week. As expected, nuclear medicine scientists working for more than one employer worked more hours than nuclear medicine scientists who worked for a single employer.

• Figure 19 shows that although 95% of scientists working for either one or two employers worked 40 hours or more per week, only 34% of those with one employer worked 50 or more hours per week, while 50% of those with two employers worked 50 or more hours per week.

68

Figure 19. Work Hours of Full Time Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, by Number of Employers, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.1a and D.3

• Figure 20 shows that many nuclear medicine scientists with salaries $150,000 or more were working more than one job.

• As previously explained, because the survey asked only for salary from nuclear medicine endeavors, scientists indicating two jobs who were in the lower salary ranges likely reported salary from only one job in nuclear medicine and excluded salary from the second job in another area. The actual total annual salary for these scientists was likely higher than represented here.

5%

62%

24%

10%5%

45%

33%

17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 +Work Hours per Week

Perc

enta

ges

One job Two jobs

69

Figure 20. Salary Range Comparison of Full Time Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Number of Jobs Held, 2006

Source: Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.3 and E.1

Attitudes About Salaries in Nuclear Medicine Science

• Figure 21 shows that almost half (49%) of survey respondents indicated that nuclear medicine salaries were competitive in the marketplace.

• More than one-quarter (28%) of nuclear medicine scientists indicated that salaries in academic environments were not competitive with corporate salaries.

3.5% 3.5%

19.4%

30.8%

17.2%

9.1%

3.0%

6.1%5.2%

12.4%

5.2%

10.7%

7.3%

24.5%

3.7%

7.2%

17.9%

13.3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

< $25 $25 to$49

$50 to$74

$75 to$99

$100 to$124

$125 to$149

$150 to$174

$174 to$199

$200 +

One job Two jobs

70

Figure 21. Attitudes of Nuclear Medicine Scientists About Salaries, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question E.2

Mentors and Mentoring

• Table 41 shows that although nearly three of five (59.8%) active nuclear medicine scientists had a mentor in nuclear medicine in the past, only about one-third of nuclear medicine scientists (34.8%) indicated they now mentor a potential nuclear medicine scientist.

• A majority (81.1%) of scientists who were not mentored themselves do not currently mentor a prospective scientist. However, among those scientists who were mentored in the past, less than half (45.4%) currently mentor any prospective scientists. This may have implications for the future development of the nuclear medicine science workforce.

Table 41. Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Past History of Being Mentored

and Current History of Mentoring, 2006

Nuclear Medicine Scientist is Currently a Mentor

Nuclear Medicine Scientist Had a

Mentor Themselves No Yes Total

No 81.1% 18.9% 354

Yes 54.6% 45.4% 526

Total 65.2% 34.8% 880

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question C.4 and C.5

7%

17%

19%

28%

49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other

Low NM SalariesDiscourage New

Scientists

NM Salaries Are NotCompetitive

Academic Salaries NotCompetitve w/

Corporate

NM Salaries AreCompetitive

71

• Table 42 shows that a slightly larger percentage of younger nuclear medicine scientists had a mentor in the field than did older scientists. The fact that more than half of the scientists in all age groups had a nuclear science mentor suggested the importance of mentoring to recruitment and retention of new workforce in nuclear medicine science.

Table 42. Distribution of Age Group of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Who Had a Mentor, 2006

Age Group Had a Mentor N

< 30 65.0% 20

30 - 39 64.7% 156

40 - 49 59.8% 244

50 - 59 59.7% 258

60 - 69 54.2% 144

70 + 56.5% 23

Total 59.8% 845

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question A.1 and C.4 • Table 43 shows that although almost 60% of current nuclear medicine scientists were

mentored, fewer (34.8%) were serving as mentors to potential nuclear medicine scientists. Older nuclear medicine scientists were more likely to be serving as mentors, with 47.8% of those aged 70 and older serving as mentors, compared to 15% of those 30 and younger. This small percentage of mentors in the youngest age cohort was to be expected since younger nuclear medicine scientists may not yet have acquired enough experience in nuclear medicine science or occupy roles that would permit them to mentor new professionals.

Table 43. Nuclear Medicine Scientists Currently Serving as Mentors

for Potential Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Age Group, 2006

Age Group Currently Serving As Mentor

< 30 15.0% 30 - 39 32.3% 40 - 49 36.1% 50 - 59 35.7% 60 - 69 31.9%

70 + 47.8% Total 34.8%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.1 and C.5

72

Recruitment of New Scientists

• Table 44 shows that more than one in three (36%) of nuclear medicine scientists participated in recruitment of new scientists into nuclear medicine.

• Respondents working in chemistry (50%) or in multiple branches (46%) of nuclear medicine science were most likely to be involved in recruitment of new professionals. Nuclear medicine scientists working in computer science/engineering (17%) were least likely to be involved in the recruitment of new nuclear medicine science professionals.

Table 44. Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Recruiting New Scientists

to Nuclear Medicine Science by Branch of Science, 2006

Branch of Science Recruiting New NM Scientists

Chemistry (122) 50% Pharmacy (180) 37% Physics (296) 27% Computer Science/Engineering (24) 17% Multiple Branches (140) 46% Not Specified (121) 34%

Total (883) 36% Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions K.1, L.1, M.1, N.1 and F.1

• The level of involvement varied by employment setting, however, with 68.6% of scientists

working in research organizations actively participating in recruitment of new scientists while only 16.7% of nuclear medicine scientists working in hospital/medical centers participated in the recruitment process for new scientists (Figure 22).

Figure 22. Nuclear Medicine Scientists Recruiting New Scientists to Nuclear Medicine

by Primary Employment Setting, 2006

24.7%

16.7%

36.4%

42.2%

42.9%

43.6%

45.3%

68.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

Hospital/Medical Center

Consulting Company

Academic Medical Center

Radiopharmacy

Pharmaceutical Company

Academic Institution

Research Organization

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.1 and F.1.

73

• Table 45 shows that scientists who had direct involvement in recruitment of new scientists were most likely to be doing basic science research only. Scientists who reported responsibilities in all four areas of endeavor (basic research, applied research, technical support, and administrative support services) also reported a high degree of involvement in recruitment (41%).

• Respondents whose major employment responsibility was “administrative support only” reported the least involvement in the recruitment process for new scientists. Only 20% of nuclear medicine scientists in “administrative support only” roles recruited new scientists. This was somewhat surprising considering that recruitment is often considered an administrative function.

Table 45. Nuclear Medicine Scientists Recruiting New Scientists to Nuclear Medicine

by Major Role in Primary Work Setting, 2006

Major Role in Primary Work Setting Recruiting New NM Scientists

Basic Science Research Only (185) 46% Applied Research Only (28) 36% Technical Support Only (127) 22% Administrative Support Only (44) 20% All Four Roles (103) 41% Two or Three Roles (275) 37% Not Specified (121) 33%

Total (883) 36%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.10 and F.1

Recruiting Preferences

An examination of recruiting preferences among active nuclear medicine scientists revealed some interesting differences (Table 46).

• Nuclear medicine scientists working in academic institutions (71%), research organizations (67%), and academic medical centers (61%) were more likely to recruit new postdoctoral students. This preference may be a reflection of funding that was grant based and therefore, time limited.

• Scientists working in academic institutions (50%) were the most likely to recruit new PhD students. This finding was expected in light of the educational purposes of those institutions.

• Scientists working in consulting companies (88%) and in pharmaceutical companies (71%) preferred to recruit experienced professionals. Again, this might be expected given the applied market objectives of for-profit employers.

• Profession-specific options were not provided as a response option so the “other” category permitted scientists to be profession specific. Among nuclear medicine scientists who cited a preference for recruiting “other,” the largest percentage indicated pharmacy students,

74

PharmD, and pharmacists. Among nuclear medicine science professionals working in radiopharmacies, 49% indicated an “other” preference for recruiting. (See Appendix B for other and narrative comments by question).

Table 46. Recruiting Preferences of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Currently or

Recently Recruiting New Scientists by Primary Employment Setting, 2006

Recruiting Preferences

Primary Employment Settings I generally

recruit experienced

professionals

I generally recruit new postdocs

I generally recruit new

PhD students Other

Academic Medical Center (103) 43% 61% 29% 12% Hospital/Medical Center (34) 50% 44% 12% 26% Radiopharmacy (70) 51% 9% 0% 49% Academic Institution (24) 17% 71% 50% 8% Consulting Company (16) 88% 6% 6% 25% Pharmaceutical Company (17) 71% 35% 12% 6% Research Organization (24) 38% 67% 17% 17% Other (20) 55% 60% 20% 10%

Total (308) 48% 44% 19% 22% Note: Row percents do not sum to 100% because respondents could mark all that apply.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.1a and F.1a

• Table 47 shows that when the scientific specialty of active nuclear medicine scientists who were recruiting new nuclear medicine scientists was examined, those working in chemistry (50%) and those who identified with multiple branches of nuclear medicine science (46%) were the most likely to be recruiting new scientists.

Table 47. Percent of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Recruiting

New Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006

Branch of Science % Recruiting New Scientists

Chemistry (122) 50% Multiple Branches (140) 46% Pharmacy (180) 37% Not Specified (121) 34% Physics (296) 27% Computer Science/Engineering (24) 17%

Total (883) 36% Source: 2006, Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions F.1a, K.1, L.1, M.1 and N.1

75

• Table 48 and Figure 23 show that when recruiting or hiring preferences of current nuclear medicine scientists were examined by the kinds of funding reported by those scientists, scientists with funding from federal grants and contracts were more likely than others to hire postdoctoral fellows. This was important in light of recent decreases in federal funding for nuclear medicine science. Decreased funding may affect opportunities for postdoctoral fellows interested in pursuing nuclear medicine science careers.

• Scientists who indicated having institutional support for their research and who also recruited were equally likely to recruit new postdoctoral fellows (35% of scientists with institutional support) as to recruit experienced nuclear medicine science professionals (33% of nuclear medicine scientists with institutional support).

Table 48. Primary Source of Nuclear Medicine Scientist Funding

by Nuclear Medicine Scientist Preference for Postdoctoral Fellows or Experienced Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006

Primary Sources of Revenue Support

I generally recruit new postdocs

I generally recruit

experienced professionals

Federal Grants/Contracts 71% 30%

Foundation Grants/Contracts 15% 9%

Institutional Grants/Contracts 15% 14%

Corporate Grants/Contracts 27% 28%

Institutional Support 35% 33%

Other Support 14% 22%

Total 137 138 *The percentages do not add up to 100% as the respondents had opportunity to mark more than one option.

Source: 2006, Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.9 and F.1a

76

Figure 23. Nuclear Medicine Scientists’ Recruiting Preferences, by Source of Nuclear Medicine Science Research Funds, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.9 and F.1a

• Table 49 shows little variation by branch of science in recruitment of experienced professionals. Almost half (48%) of all scientists from single and multiple branches of nuclear medicine science recruited experienced professionals.

• The same was true for scientists who recruited PhD students. With the exception of scientists specializing in pharmacy in which only 1% indicated recruitment of new PhD students (this branch was expected to prefer PharmD professionals), most other scientific areas recruited new PhD students at the same rate.

• Differences did appear for branches of science related to hiring of postdoctoral fellows. Nuclear medicine scientists in computer science (100%) and chemistry (66%) indicated greater preference for hiring postdoctoral fellows than scientists in pharmacy (13%) (a preference for PharmD professionals was expected).

• Scientists in multiple branches of nuclear medicine science and those in physics expressed similar preference for experienced nuclear medicine scientists and new postdoctoral fellows.

21.7%

8.7%

13.8%

27.5%

33.3%

29.7%

13.9%

14.6%

15.3%

27.0%

35.0%

70.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other Support

FoundationGrants/Contracts

InstitutionalGrants/Contracts

Corporate Grants/Contracts

Institutional Support

Federal Grants/Contracts

I generally recruit newpost-docs

I generally recruitexperiencedprofessionals

77

Table 49. Recruiting Preferences of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Currently or Recently Recruiting New Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006

Recruiting Preference

Branch of Science (N) I generally recruit

experienced professionals

I generally recruit new postdocs

I generally recruit new

PhD students

Other

Chemistry (61) 43% 66% 23% 5%

Pharmacy (67) 52% 13% 1% 48%

Physics (79) 52% 41% 19% 18%

Computer Science/ Engineering (4) 50% 100% 25% 25%

Multiple Branches (64) 50% 52% 25% 17%

Not Specified (41) 39% 51% 29% 17%

Total (316) 48% 44% 19% 22% Row percents do not sum to 100% because the respondents were asked to mark all that apply.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions F.1b, K.1, L.1, M.1 and N.1

Attitudes About Current Supply of Qualified Nuclear Medicine Scientists Survey respondents indicated there was not an abundance of qualified nuclear medicine scientists available to fill available positions. Table 50 shows that a majority of respondents in all employment settings reported that there were few qualified candidates.

• Overall, only 10% of responding nuclear medicine scientists who were currently recruiting or had recruited scientists for jobs with their employer felt there were many new scientists available to fill positions.

• Only 21% of scientists working in research organizations and 18% of scientists working in hospital/medical centers who were recruiting new scientists indicated there were many qualified candidates to fill available positions.

• Among all respondents, 86% of scientists who recruited new scientists indicated there were too few new scientists to fill available positions. This was concerning and suggested that the professions within nuclear medicine science might encounter difficulty in the near future in replacing departing nuclear medicine scientists and in recruiting for new positions.

78

Table 50. Ratings of Availability of New Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Either Currently or Recently Recruiting New Scientists,

by Primary Employment Setting, 2006

Qualified Candidates Available Primary Employment Settings

Many Few None Academic Medical Center (109) 7% 90% 3% Hospital/Medical Center (40) 18% 73% 10% Radiopharmacy (69) 12% 84% 4% Academic Institution (25) 12% 88% 0% Consulting Company (18) 0% 100% 0% Pharmaceutical Company (17) 12% 88% 0% Research Organization (24) 21% 75% 4% Other (22) 5% 95% 0%

Total (324) 10% 86% 3%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.1a. and F.1b

When assessment of the supply of qualified nuclear medicine scientists for employment was examined by specialty area of active nuclear medicine scientists, few differences appeared (Table 51).

• Overall, 86% of active nuclear medicine scientists from all fields of nuclear medicine science indicated there were only a few qualified candidates for available jobs.

• Among nuclear medicine scientists working in computer science/engineering, 25% of active scientists indicated there were many qualified candidates to fill available jobs.

• Only 4% of scientists indicated there were no qualified candidates available to fill open positions.

79

Table 51. Assessment of the Supply of New Scientists by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Either Currently or Recently Recruiting New Scientists,

by Branch of Science, 2006

Qualified Candidates Available Branch of Science N

Many Few None Chemistry 60 8% 88% 3% Pharmacy 66 9% 86% 5% Physics 78 9% 87% 4% Computer Science/Engineering 4 25% 75% -- Not Specified 39 15% 79% 5% Multiple Branches 63 11% 86% 3%

Total 310 10% 86% 4% Source, 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions F.1b., K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

An assessment of scientists’ attitudes about the availability of new scientists revealed there was a pervasive perception of a shortage of qualified candidates for nuclear medicine science jobs for all types of recruitment efforts, whether for new or experienced scientists (Table 52).

• Whether scientists recruited experienced professionals, new postdoctoral fellows, or doctoral students, scientists overwhelmingly indicated there were few candidates available.

• Scientists who recruit “other” categories of workers (mostly described as pharmacy graduates, college students, or other graduate students [see Appendix B]) were less likely than scientists recruiting new or experienced professionals to indicate there were few candidates available to fill jobs. Nevertheless, more than three-quarters of scientists (77%) recruiting “other” candidates felt there were “few” qualified candidates available.

Table 52. Assessment of Supply of New Scientists Reported by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Currently or Recently Recruiting New Scientists by Recruiting Preferences,

2006

Qualified Candidates AvailableRecruiting Preferences of NM Scientists (N)

Many Few None

I generally recruit experienced professionals (148) 5% 90% 5%

I generally recruit new postdocs (135) 9% 87% 4%

I generally recruit new PhD students (57) 14% 84% 2%

Other (66) 21% 77% 2%

Total (406) 10% 86% 4%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions F.1a and F.1b

80

Strategies to Improve Workforce Recruiting Scientists responding to the survey suggested multiple strategies to improve recruitment of new professionals to nuclear medicine science (Figure 24).

• Many nuclear medicine scientists (46.9%) felt that improvement in salaries would redress some of the recruitment difficulties for new nuclear medicine scientists. This was interesting in light of the finding that 49% of current nuclear medicine scientists felt that salaries in nuclear medicine science were competitive with other opportunities.

• Almost equal numbers of nuclear medicine scientists felt that increased support for graduates in nuclear medicine related fields (35.2%), more fellowships in nuclear medicine science (34%), or endowed training grants for nuclear medicine scientists (32.9%) would help to increase the supply of new nuclear medicine scientists.

• More than a quarter of respondents (27.7%) felt that a national public relations campaign about nuclear medicine would help in the recruitment process.

Figure 24. Strategies to Improve Nuclear Medicine Science Workforce Recruitment

Identified by Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006

0.1%

1.4%

9.4%

27.7%

32.9%

34.0%

36.2%

46.9%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Other3

Other2

Other1

National PR Campaign for NM

Endowed Training Grants for NM Scientists

More NM Science Fellowships

More Support for Grads in NM-related Fields

Improved Salaries for NM Scientists

Percentage of Active NMS (Total N = 898)

Totals equal greater than 100%. Respondents were permitted to select more than one response. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question F.2.

81

• Table 53 shows that scientists from all branches of nuclear medicine science believed that improved salaries for nuclear medicine scientists was an important strategy for improving workforce recruiting.

• However, more scientists in chemistry (49.2%) rated more nuclear medicine science fellowships as an effective strategy for alleviating workforce shortages than improved salaries. Scientists in physics (40.3%) also felt strongly that this would be an important strategy to improve recruitment.

• Scientists in pharmacy (35.9%) were more likely than scientists in other specialty areas to feel that a national public relations campaign would improve workforce recruiting efforts. Scientists in pharmacy were less likely than scientists in other specialty areas to feel that more nuclear medicine science fellowships (18.2% of pharmacists) or more endowed training grants (19.3% of pharmacists) would improve workforce recruitment. Fellowship training may not be as pertinent in the education trajectories of radiopharmacists as in other nuclear medicine science specialties.

• Although more than one-quarter of scientists responding to the survey felt that a national public relations campaign would help in the efforts to recruit new scientists, it was, nevertheless, the least chosen strategy among those suggested in the responses to the survey.

Table 53. Strategies for Improving Workforce Recruitment by Branch of Science, 2006

Branch of Science (N)

Nat

iona

l PR

Cam

paig

n fo

r NM

Mor

e N

M S

cien

ce

Fello

wsh

ips

Endo

wed

Tra

inin

g G

rant

s fo

r NM

Sc

ient

ists

Impr

oved

Sal

arie

s fo

r N

M S

cien

tists

Mor

e Su

ppor

t for

Gra

ds

in N

M-r

elat

ed F

ield

s

Oth

er1

Oth

er2

Oth

er3

Chemistry (122) 25.4% 49.2% 41.0% 46.7% 41.8% 12.3% 2.5% 0%

Pharmacy (181) 35.9% 18.2% 19.3% 48.1% 28.7% 12.7% 2.8% 0.6%

Physics (298) 26.8% 40.3% 35.9% 43.0% 40.9% 9.4% 1.3% 0%

Computer Science/ Engineering (24) 25.0% 20.8% 33.3% 41.7% 33.3% 0% 0% 0%

Not Specified (133) 28.6% 30.8% 32.3% 51.1% 33.8% 6.0% 0.8% 0%

Multiple Branches (140) 20.7% 32.9% 37.1% 50.7% 33.6% 7.1% 0% 0%

Total (898) 27.7% 34.0% 32.9% 46.9% 36.2% 9.4% 1.4% 0.1%

Note: Green cells are the largest response percentages for each Branch of Science and red cells the smallest, excluding “Other” categories.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions F.2, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

82

Attitudes About Nuclear Medicine The survey instrument provided a number of opportunities for nuclear medicine scientists to express their opinions about their work and their profession. Many of these are summarized below.

Current Environmental Issues That Impact Nuclear Medicine Science Scientists were asked to indicate current environmental issues that affect nuclear medicine scientists. Scientists were permitted to select as many response options as desired and to also offer a description of other factors that were not listed.

• Table 54 shows that scientists were consistent across all specialties in selecting “government regulation” (61%) as a major environmental issue for nuclear medicine science.

• “Reimbursement and financial issues” was also consistently chosen by 60% of scientists as an environmental factor affecting nuclear medicine science professions. “Reimbursement and financial issues” was selected more frequently by pharmacists (68%) than any other profession. It was also the most common response among all pharmacists responding to this question on the survey. Only 48% of chemists selected “reimbursement and financial issues” as a current issue impacting nuclear medicine science. These differences between scientific specialties suggested different orientations to nuclear medicine science among the specialties within.

• Although 42% of active respondents selected “Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations” as an issue impacting scientists, 53% of physicists selected this factor as having current impact.

• Physicists (21%) indicated less impact from “Food and Drug Administration standards for alternative drug usage/development” than chemists (44%) and pharmacists (36%).

• Among all responses, “restriction on imports of nuclear material” was the least selected option (except “other”) with only 9% of scientists overall marking this response. However, 16% or respondent pharmacists selected this issue.

83

Table 54. Current Issues Impacting Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006

Current Issues Impacting Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Branch of Science (N)

Gov

ernm

ent R

egul

atio

ns

Rei

mbu

rsem

ent &

Fin

anci

al

Issu

es

NR

C R

egul

atio

ns

FDA

Sta

ndar

ds fo

r A

ltern

ativ

e D

rug

Usa

ge/D

ev

FDA

Res

earc

h Pr

otoc

ols

Poor

Ava

ilabi

lity

of N

on-

Stan

dard

Rad

ionu

clid

es

Res

tric

tions

on

Impo

rts

of

Nuc

lear

Mat

eria

ls

Lack

of A

ppre

ciat

ion

of N

M

Scie

ntis

ts b

y Em

ploy

ers

Oth

er

Chemist (122) 61% 48% 29% 44% 41% 38% 7% 33% 12%

Pharmacist (181) 66% 68% 46% 36% 15% 20% 16% 30% 11%

Physicist (298) 66% 64% 53% 21% 17% 17% 6% 43% 4%

Computer Scientist/Engineer (24) 67% 58% 29% 38% 42% 13% 4% 38% 8%

Multiple Branches (140) 54% 53% 39% 31% 23% 14% 7% 43% 9%

Not Specified (133) 47% 59% 27% 32% 20% 26% 12% 35% 7%

Total (898) 61% 60% 42% 31% 22% 21% 9% 38% 8%

*Percentages do not add up to 100% as the respondents had option to select multiple choices Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions G.3, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

Opinions About the Future of Nuclear Medicine

Scientists were asked to express agreement or disagreement with a number of statements that discussed the possible future of nuclear medicine. Nuclear medicine scientists were asked to select one of five opinions about each statement from a Likert scale on which +2 represented strong agreement with the statement and –2 represented strong disagreement.

• Table 55 shows that scientists expressed overall agreement with the statement that nuclear medicine will continue to grow in importance in health care (+1.02). This opinion was supported by general disagreement with the statement that nuclear medicine will become less important in the future (-0.88).

• There was also agreement with the statement that the costs of nuclear medicine studies will increase in the future (+0.74).

• Scientists were less consistent in their assessment of the effect of increased costs on usage (-0.02).

84

• Scientists agreed that nuclear medicine science will become more integrated in the future (+0.75).

• Scientists also agreed that regional centers of nuclear medicine science R&D should be established in the future (+0.70). However, there was less agreement that such centers would actually be established (+0.16).

Table 55. Attitudes of Nuclear Medicine Scientists about the Future of Nuclear Medicine,

2006

Attitude of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists About the Field of Nuclear Medicine N Mean

Scores Std

Deviation

NM will become more important 883 1.02 0.83

NM will become less important 876 -0.88 0.86

NM costs will increase 885 0.74 0.84

Increased accuracy will offset increased costs 880 0.49 0.85

Increasing costs of NM will restrict usage 882 -0.02 0.93

Shortages of NM scientists will limit research 880 0.56 0.87

Shortages of NM physicians will limit access 877 0.38 0.93

Shortages of NMTs will limit patient access 876 0.38 0.92

Reimbursement for NM will be reduced 877 0.51 0.80

NM Science will become more integrated 878 0.75 0.73

Regional NM R&D Centers should be created 877 0.70 0.89

Regional NM R&D Centers will be created 876 0.16 0.76

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question G.7

• Table 56 shows that almost three-quarters (74.1%) of nuclear medicine scientists disagreed or strongly disagreed that nuclear medicine will become less important in the future.

• Three in five scientists agreed or strongly agreed (59%) that shortages of nuclear medicine scientists will limit research. Almost half of responding scientists (48.8%) either agreed or strongly agreed that shortages of nuclear medicine physicians will limit clinical access. A similar percentage (50.3%) either agreed or disagreed that future shortages of nuclear medicine technologists will limit patient access.

85

Table 56. Attitudes of Current Nuclear Medicine Scientists about the Future of Nuclear Medicine, 2006

Attitude of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists About the Future of

Nuclear Medicine Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

NM will become more important 0.5% 3.6% 19.6% 46.4% 29.9%

NM will become less important 22.3% 51.8% 17.6% 7.9% 0.5%

NM costs will increase 0.5% 8.7%. 22.1% 53.3% 15.4%

Increased accuracy will offset increased costs 1.1% 9.8% 37.4% 41.7% 9.9%

Increasing costs of NM will restrict usage 3.6% 29.9% 34.4% 28.9% 3.2%

Shortages of NM scientists will limit research 0.8% 12.2% 28.1% 48.4% 10.6%

Shortages of NM physicians will limit access 1.7% 16.9% 32.6% 39.7% 9.1%

Shortages of NMTs will limit patient access 1.9% 16.6% 31.2% 42.2% 8.1%

Reimbursement for NM will be reduced 1.1% 8.7% 36.1% 46.3% 7.8%

NM Science will become more integrated 0.2% 4.2% 28% 55.1% 12.4%

Regional NM R&D Centers should be created 1.6% 7.3% 27.9% 46.2% 17%

Regional NM R&D Centers will be created 1.3% 13.6% 58.1% 22.5% 4.6%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question G.7

Opinions About the Effect of Molecular Imaging Science on Nuclear Medicine Science Overall, the majority of nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey perceived that molecular imaging science would have a positive effect on the work of nuclear medicine scientists. More than half (55.1%) of responding scientists believed that molecular imaging science will enhance employment opportunities for nuclear medicine scientists (Table 57).

Table 57. Opinions of the Effect of Molecular Imaging Science on the Work of Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006

Rating of the Effect Percentage

Make No Difference (68) 7.6%

Require Different Education and Training (363) 40.4%

Enhance Employment Opportunities (495) 55.1%

Enhance Research Funding Opportunities (290) 32.3%

Increase Interest in NM Science (513) 57.1%

Other (36) 4.0% The percentages add to more than 100% as the respondents had the option to mark more than one response. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question G.5

86

Opinions About the Professional Environment in the U.S. and Other Countries

• Table 58 shows that only about one-fifth (21.2%) of respondents indicated that nuclear medicine research in the U.S. was more restricted than in other countries.

• Two in five scientists (44.8%) expressed an opinion that scientists in the U.S. encountered more regulatory barriers to progress than scientists in other countries.

Table 58. Comparison of Professional Environment for Nuclear Medicine Scientists

in the U.S. and Other Countries

Rating of Environment Percentage

U.S. NM Research More Restricted (190) 21.2 %

U.S. NM Research Less Restricted (106) 11.8 %

U.S. Has More Regulatory Barriers (402) 44.8 %

U.S. Has Less Access to Radionuclides (167) 18.6 %

The percentages add to more than 100% as the respondents had the option to mark more than one response. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question G.6

Prototype for Nuclear Medicine Emulation Figure 25 summarizes the responses to a survey question asking respondents to identify the institution or city that was the best existing prototype for nuclear medicine science emulation elsewhere. The map shows the cities with at least five mentions by survey respondents. The full set of responses for question G.8 is provided in Appendix B.

87

Figure 25. Cities Identified as the Best Prototype for Nuclear Science Emulation by at Least Five Survey Respondents

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question G.8

Future Plans by Ease or Difficulty in Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career

• Table 59 shows that future plans of current nuclear medicine scientists varied by level of current ease or difficulty in sustaining nuclear medicine careers. Scientists indicating that sustaining a career in nuclear medicine was very easy, somewhat easy, or somewhat difficult were more likely to expect to remain in their current position in the future.

• Among scientists indicating that sustaining a nuclear medicine career was currently very difficult or moderately difficult, fewer scientists expected to remain in their current positions.

Center for Health Workforce Studies, 2006

TN

OH

WV

NH

VT

AR

LA

WI

NV

OR

MS

ME

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!82

78

45

32

27

!19

!15

14

!11

!10339

9

!8

!7

11

!5

Rochester

Palo Alto

Durham

NIH

!5Columbia

Seattle

Chicago

St. Louis

Atlanta

Pittsburgh

Albuquerque

Houston

Los Angeles

San FranciscoBaltimore

Philadelphia

New York

Boston

Note: Numbers in circles are number of mentions by survey respondents.

88

Table 59. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Views on the Ease of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career at Present, 2006

Ease of Sustaining Nuclear Medicine Science Career

N Remain in

Current Position

Seek Job in Same

Profession

Seek Job Outside

NM Retire Other

Very Difficult 19 58% 16% 11% 16% 21%

Moderately Difficult 97 69% 21% 7% 9% 6%

Somewhat Difficult 260 75% 16% 9% 6% 5%

Somewhat Easy 369 77% 13% 4% 11% 4%

Very Easy 134 75% 12% 2% 13% 4%

Total 879 75% 15% 6% 10% 5%

Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions G.1, G.2, and H.1

Key Factors for Future Careers in Nuclear Medicine Science. Scientists were also asked to identify key factors that would affect their ability to sustain a nuclear medicine science career in the future.

• Table 60 shows that in all specialties except chemistry and “not specified,” almost two-thirds of active nuclear medicine scientists indicated that continued reimbursement for nuclear medicine procedures by Medicare and other insurance carriers was of primary importance to sustenance of careers in nuclear medicine. This concern is likely explained by the high percentage of nuclear medicine scientists currently working in clinical nuclear medicine departments supported by patient and insurance fees.

• Almost three-quarters of chemists (70.5%) indicated continued financial support for nuclear medicine research was a primary factor for career sustainability in the future. This was expected in light of the high percentage of chemists found in “basic research only” roles. Overall, just over one-third (37.8%) of responding nuclear medicine scientists felt that this was key to sustenance of a future career in nuclear medicine.

• It was interesting that only 14.1% of active nuclear medicine scientists felt that relaxation of federal regulations would be significant to future career sustainability since federal regulation was considered the major current issue among scientists (selected by 61% of scientists as a concern). This discrepancy may indicate that although scientists were not necessarily comfortable with the level of federal regulation, scientists recognized that financing for nuclear medicine science was a primary factor impacting future careers.

89

Table 60. Key Factors to Sustaining Future Careers in Nuclear Medicine Science, by Branch of Science, 2006

Key Factors to Sustain NM Career Chemistry Pharmacy Physics

Computer Science/ Engineering

Not Specified

Multiple Branches Total

Continued Financial Support for NM Research 70.5% 13.8% 30.5% 54.2% 46.4% 44.4% 37.8%

Continued Involvement by My Employer 41.0% 33.7% 25.8% 45.8% 24.3% 37.6% 31.5%

Relaxation of Federal Regulations 13.9% 11.0% 11.7% 29.2% 10.0% 25.6% 14.1%

Continued Reimbursement by Medicare 41.8% 68.5% 68.8% 62.5% 51.4% 64.7% 61.6%

Other 4.9% 14.4% 10.1% 8.3% 7.9% 9.8% 9.8%

Total N 122 181 298 24 140 133 898

Note: Columns add to more than 100% because respondents marked more than one factor. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions G.4, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

Continued reimbursement by Medicare and other insurance carriers was also a prominent concern of active nuclear medicine scientists to the question of future sustainability of their careers. Table 61 summarizes the responses in more detail.

• For scientists working in “technical support only” (77.9%), “administrative support only” (70.5%), “all four roles” (69.2%) or “two or three roles” (66.2%), Medicare and insurance reimbursement was a primary concern. This was likely because of the high percentage of nuclear medicine scientists in clinical nuclear medicine (70% of all responding nuclear medicine scientists worked in clinical departments) where reimbursement was pivotal to continued provision of services.

• As would be expected among scientists who work only in research, their primary concern was continued financial support for research. High percentages of nuclear medicine scientists working in “basic science research only” (63.8%) or in “applied research only” (71.4%) cited funding as a primary concern. More than half of scientists (51.9%) working in all four roles indicated this concern. Overall, only 37.8% of scientists selected this concern; this percentage coincides with the 46% of scientists who reported they worked in full or in part in R&D.

90

Table 61. Key Factors to Sustenance of Future Careers by Primary Endeavor of Nuclear Medicine Scientist, 2006

Primary Role of NMS

Key Factors to Sustain NM Career

Basic Science

Research Only

Applied Research

Only

Technical Support

Only

Administrative

Support Only

Two or Three Roles

All Four Roles

Not Specified All Roles

Continued Financial Support for NM Research 63.8% 71.4% 9.2% 11.4% 36.7% 51.9% 22.1% 37.8%

Continued Involvement by My Employer 39.5% 57.1% 19.8% 27.3% 30.9% 40.4% 22.1% 31.5%

Relaxation of Federal Regulations 16.8% 0.0% 9.9% 18.2% 15.6% 18.3% 9.9% 14.1%

Continued Reimbursement by Medicare 41.1% 42.9% 77.9% 70.5% 66.2% 69.2% 59.5% 61.6%

Other 5.4% 0.0% 13.0% 15.9% 12.0% 13.5% 5.3% 9.8%

Total N 185 28 131 44 275 104 131 898

Notes: Columns add to more than 100% because respondents marked more than one factor. Green cells have largest response percentages for each row; red cells have smallest, excluding Other. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D. 10 and G. 4.

91

Nuclear medicine scientists were asked to rank their level of agreement or disagreement with statements about nuclear medicine and nuclear medicine science both currently and in the future. On a Likert scale with –2 representing strong disagreement and +2 representing strong agreement, scientists provided opinions on a number of topics (Table 62).

• Among responding scientists, the mean agreement score with the statement that “nuclear medicine will continue to grow in importance in health care” was +1.02 (agree). Conversely, the mean disagreement score of -0.88 (disagree) to the opposite statement that “nuclear medicine will become less important in the future” suggested that nuclear medicine scientists overall expected that nuclear medicine would increase in importance in the future.

• Scientists were less sure of the impact of increasing costs of nuclear medicine and the effect on utilization of nuclear medicine services. When asked an opinion on the statement “increasing costs of nuclear medicine studies will restrict nuclear medicine applications in usage,” the mean score for all scientists was neutral (-0.02). Scientists appeared to be unsure of the impact of cost on utilization.

• Overall, nuclear medicine scientists agreed (+0.74) with the statement “the costs of nuclear medicine studies will increase in the future.” Pharmacists/radiopharmacists had the highest level of agreement with this statement (+0.94). Computer scientists/engineers had the least agreement (+0.38).

• The mean score for the statement “reimbursement for nuclear medicine studies will be reduced in the future to cut costs” was +0.5l (between neutral and agree). Scientists in pharmacy (+0.65) and computer science and engineering (+0.65) agreed with this statement more than those in physics (+0.48) or those working in multiple branches of science (+0.48), although the differences in agreement scores were small.

• Scientists agreed more strongly with the statement “shortages of nuclear medicine scientists will limit research” (+0.56) than with the statement “shortages of nuclear medicine physicians will restrict clinical access” (+0.38) and “shortages of nuclear medicine technologists will limit patient access” (also +0.38).

• Nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey agreed “nuclear medicine science will become more integrated in the future” (+0.75). Computer scientists/engineers were the specialty area with the most agreement with this statement (+0.88).

• Although nuclear medicine scientists agreed “regional centers of nuclear medicine R&D should be established in the future” (+0.70), scientists were less certain if “regional centers of nuclear medicine R&D will be established in the future” (+0.16).

92

Table 62. Mean Attitude Scores of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006

Branch of Science N

M w

ill b

ecom

e m

ore

impo

rtan

t

NM

cos

ts w

ill in

crea

se

Incr

ease

d ac

cura

cy w

ill o

ffset

in

crea

sed

cost

s

NM

will

bec

ome

less

impo

rtan

t

Incr

easi

ng c

osts

of N

M w

ill

rest

rict u

sage

Shor

tage

s of

NM

sci

entis

ts w

ill

limit

rese

arch

Shor

tage

s of

NM

phy

sici

ans

will

lim

it ac

cess

Shor

tage

s of

NM

Ts w

ill li

mit

patie

nt a

cces

s

Rei

mbu

rsem

ent f

or N

M w

ill b

e re

duce

d

NM

Sci

ence

will

bec

ome

mor

e in

tegr

ated

Reg

iona

l NM

R&

D C

ente

rs s

houl

d be

cre

ated

Reg

iona

l NM

R&

D C

ente

rs w

ill b

e cr

eate

d

Chemistry (122) 1.14 0.78 0.68 -1.07 0.07 0.66 0.31 0.37 0.34 0.90 0.74 0.32

Pharmacy (181) 0.91 0.94 0.57 -0.73 -0.08 0.51 0.35 0.27 0.65 0.57 0.77 0.08

Physics (295) 0.97 0.71 0.32 -0.87 -0.08 0.49 0.40 0.36 0.48 0.79 0.56 0.05 Computer Science/ Engineering (24) 1.21 0.38 0.33 -0.96 0.00 0.29 0.13 0.67 0.65 0.75 0.88 0.17

Multiple Branches (140) 1.08 0.58 0.56 -0.86 0.09 0.71 0.51 0.58 0.48 0.79 0.82 0.28

Not Specified (123) 1.06 0.76 0.55 -0.90 0.02 0.57 0.33 0.33 0.54 0.74 0.72 0.20

Total (883) 1.02 0.74 0.49 -0.88 -0.02 0.56 0.38 0.38 0.51 0.75 0.70 0.16

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.7, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

93

• Scientists across the U.S. varied in their attitudes about the future importance of nuclear medicine in health care. Figure 26 revealed no clear regional patterns emerging, no apparent relationship of ease or difficulty in sustaining nuclear medicine careers, and no apparent relationship to nuclear medicine science penetration.

Figure 26. Extent of Agreement Across the United States with Statement

“Nuclear Medicine Will Continue to Grow in Importance in Health Care,” 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.7

MOCO

AK

AZ

HI

CA

NM

TX

OK

KS

WY

ID

UT

WA

OR

IANE

ND

SD

MN

IN

KY

MS

LA

AR

IL

GAAL

NC

SC

MD

PA

OH

WV

MIWI NY

NJ

DE

CTMA

VT

RI

NH

ME

Rating

1.3 to 2.0

1.0 to 1.3

.5 to 1.0

.0 to .5

Missing

Center for Health Workforce Studies, 2006

TN

NV

MT

FL

VA

U.S. Average = 1.02

Scale: -2 = Strongly Disagree, -1 = Disagree, 0 = Neutral, +1 = Agree, +2 = Strongly Agree

94

Certifications and Professional Associations Nuclear medicine scientists were variously credentialed depending on their specialty area within nuclear medicine science. Table 63 summarizes the credentials held by active nuclear medicine scientists.

• Scientists were board certified by the American Board of Health Physics (ABHP), the American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine (ABSNM), the American Board of Medical Physics (ABMP), the American Board of Radiology (ABR), the Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties (BPS), and were Board Certified in Nuclear Pharmacy (BCNP).

• Nuclear medicine scientists were also certified by a variety of other credentialing organizations (see Appendix B) including the American Board of Nuclear Medicine (ABNM) and the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board (NMTCB).

Table 63. Current Certifications of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006

Certifications N Percentage

ABHP 33 4%

ABSNM 68 8%

ABMP 75 8%

BCNP 196 22%

ABR 242 27%

BPS 13 1%

Other 106 12%

Total 898 100% Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question I.1

• Table 64 shows that more than half (58%) of physicists in nuclear medicine science were certified by the American Board of Radiology (ABR), a much higher percentage than physicists certified by the American Board of Medical Physics (19%) or the American Board of Health Physics (8%). Certification in radiologic physics by ABR indicates competency in diagnostic radiologic physics, medical nuclear physics, or therapeutic radiologic physics. Overall, more than one-quarter of all credentialed nuclear medicine scientists (27%) carried ABR certification.

• More than one-fifth of certified nuclear medicine scientists were certified in nuclear pharmacy (22%).

• Chemists in nuclear medicine were the least likely among the specialties to have a nuclear medicine science certification. This perhaps was because available nuclear medicine science certifications were not pertinent to radiochemists.

• Most (89%) pharmacists working in nuclear medicine science were credentialed by the BCNP.

95

• Scientists who did not specify a nuclear medicine specialty area and computer scientists/engineers working in nuclear medicine indicated “other” certification more frequently than other nuclear medicine scientists, 32% and 25%, respectively. Many of the scientists who did not specify a specialty area were likely medical doctors, as indicated by the high number in the “other” category listing board certification by ABNM. The reason for the high percentage of computer scientists selecting the “other” option was that the listed response options were not generally pertinent to computer science/engineering.

• Among scientists working in multiple branches of nuclear science, almost one-quarter (23%) were credentialed by the American Board of Radiology and one-fifth (20%) were Board Certified in Nuclear Pharmacy.

Table 64. Current Certifications of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists,

by Branch of Science, 2006

Branches of Science Current

Certifications Chemistry Pharmacy Physics Computer Science/

EngineeringMultiple

Branches Not

Specified Total

ABHP* 1% 0% 8% 0% 3% 2% 4%

ABMP** 1% 0% 19% 4% 10% 2% 8%

ABR*** 3% 0% 58% 21% 23% 22% 27%

ABSNM+ 4% 2% 9% 0% 12% 11% 8%

BCNP++ 0% 89% 0% 0% 20% 5% 22%

BPS+++ 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Other 13% 3% 8% 25% 8% 32% 12%

Total N 122 181 298 24 140 133 898 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions I.1, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

Percents sum to more than 100% since scientists may have more than one certification/credential. * ABHP, American Board of Health Physics ** ABMP, American Board of Medical Physics *** ABR, American Board of Radiology + ABSNM, American Board of Science in Nuclear Medicine ++ BCNP, Board Certified in Nuclear Pharmacy +++ BPS, Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties

Years Since Initial Certification

• Figure 27 shows that almost three-quarters of scientists (73%) indicated initial certification in a nuclear medicine science specialty in the last 15 years. This high percent with relatively recent certification may be attributed to second career scientists entering the field, increased demand for nuclear medicine scientists over the last two decades, or new certifications that were not previously available.

96

Figure 27. Active Nuclear Medicine Sciences by Number Of Years Since Initial Certification in a Nuclear Medicine Specialty, 2006.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question I.2

Years Certified by Branch of Science

• Table 65 shows that almost half (47%) of scientists certified in a nuclear medicine specialty for five years or less were pharmacists.

• The highest percentages of those certified in all other five year periods were physicists who also represented the largest share of nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey. Among scientists certified in a nuclear medicine specialty for 26 years or longer, half were physicists.

• Computer scientists/engineers were the least likely to indicate certification in a nuclear medicine science specialty and, therefore, represented small percentages of those certified for any period.

• Scientists who did not specify a nuclear medicine science specialty or who indicated they worked in multiple branches of science represented higher percentages of those certified 26 years or longer than any other specialty except physics.

18.1%

23.5%

21.8%

9.3%

13.2%

6.5% 6.0%

1.1% 0.6%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0-5 years 6-10years

11-15years

16-20years

21-25years

26-30years

31-35years

36-40years

41+years

Year Groupings

97

Table 65. Specialty of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Years Certified, 2006

Branches of Science Years Certified

in NM Chemistry Pharmacy Physics Computer Science /

Engineerng Not

Specified Multiple

Branches N

0 to 5 years 3% 47% 27% 2% 8% 12% 97

6 to 10 years 1% 33% 36% 2% 13% 15% 126

11 to 15 years -- 37% 37% 1% 13% 13% 117

16 to 20 years 2% 16% 42% -- 20% 20% 50

21 to 25 years 3% 35% 37% 1% 13% 11% 71

26 to 30 years 9% 3% 49% 3% 17% 20% 35

31 to 35 years 6% 3% 53% -- 31% 6% 32

36 to 40 years -- -- 50% -- 17% 33% 6

41+ -- -- 33% -- -- 67% 3

Total 2% 31% 37% 1% 14% 14% 537 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions I.2, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

Years Certified by Employment Setting

• As previously indicated, pharmacists represented the greatest proportion of scientists certified 15 years or less. Table 66 shows that the highest percentage of nuclear medicine scientists certified 15 years or less were working in radiopharmacies.

• Among scientists certified in a nuclear medicine specialty for 26 years or longer, more than three-quarters worked in either an academic medical center or hospital medical center.

98

Table 66. Primary Employment Setting of Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Years Certified in a Nuclear Medicine Specialty, 2006

Primary Employment Setting Years Certified

in NM Academic Medical Center

Hospital/ Medical Center

Radio- pharmacy

Academic Institution

Consulting Company

Pharma-ceutical

Company Research

Org Other N

0 to 5 20% 21% 46% 3% 3% -- -- 7% 96

6 to 10 14% 29% 35% 2% 8% 4% 1% 7% 123

11 to 15 20% 28% 35% 3% 4% 3% 1% 7% 114

16 to 20 27% 39% 14% -- 12% 2% -- 6% 49

21 to 25 29% 33% 17% -- 4% 3% 1% 13% 70

26 to 30 49% 31% 3% -- 11% -- -- 6% 35

31 to 35 28% 50% 3% 3% 6% 6% -- 3% 32

36 to 40 75% -- -- -- -- -- -- 25% 4

41+ -- 33% -- -- 33% -- -- 33% 3

Total 23% 30% 28% 2% 6% 2% 1% 8% 526 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.1a and I.2

Years Certified by Work Clinical Nuclear Medicine Department and R&D More than 70% of nuclear medicine scientists indicated they worked in a department providing clinical nuclear medicine services. Some of these scientists also worked in R&D. Only 15% of nuclear medicine scientists worked only in R&D and another 15% worked in neither clinical departments nor in research.

Table 67 represents those who indicated working in clinical departments or in nuclear medicine R&D. In some cases scientists do both. In other cases, they worked exclusively in clinical or research activities. For that reason, percentages total greater than 100%.

• Those certified 16 or more years in a nuclear medicine science specialty were more likely to be working in R&D than those certified 15 or fewer years.

• Among scientists with more years of certification, high percentages worked in both clinical settings and doing research. This was supported by the high percentages of scientists with many years of certification who worked in academic medical centers where research was a likely activity along with patient care.

99

Table 67. Years Certified in a Nuclear Medicine Science Specialty, by Work in a Clinical Department or R&D, 2006

Years Certified in NM Clinical NM Departments

Work in NM R&D N

0 to 5 years 80% 22% 95 6 to 10 years 65% 21% 126

11 to 15 years 74% 22% 116 16 to 20 years 76% 36% 50 21 to 25 years 76% 37% 71 26 to 30 years 91% 23% 35 31 to 35 years 88% 31% 32 36 to 40 years 50% 50% 6

41+ 67% 33% 3 Total 75% 26% 534

*Percentages total greater than 100 because scientists were permitted to select more than one option Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.7, D.8, and I.2

Membership in Professional Associations Nuclear medicine scientists reported membership in many professional associations (Table 68). Membership in those associations varied with the professional interests of the scientists.

Table 68. Professional Association Memberships of Nuclear Medicine Scientists, 2006

Professional Associations Percentage Society of Nuclear Medicine 56% American Association of Physicists in Medicine 35% Health Physics Society 16% American Pharmacists Association 13% American Chemical Society 12% IEEE 11% Academy of Molecular Imaging 11% Society of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences 10% Radiological Society of North America 10% Society of Molecular Imaging 7% American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 7% Radiochemistry Society 1% Other 1* 26% Other 2 and Other 3 10% Total N 898

See Appendix B for description of Other 1, Other 2, Other 3. Note: Percentages total greater than 100 because scientists marked more than one option when applicable. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question I.3

100

• Table 70 shows that more than half (56%) of all survey respondents belonged to the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Membership in SNM was lowest among physicists (41%) and pharmacists (53%). Membership in SNM was expected to be high since the organization is a multi-disciplinary professional association including physicians, scientists, and technologists working in the common area of nuclear medicine.

• A high percentage of responding physicists (81%) belonged to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). About a third of scientists indicating multiple branches of nuclear medicine also belonged to AAPM.

• A higher percentage of chemists in nuclear medicine belonged to the Academy of Molecular Imaging (21% of responding chemists) and the Society of Molecular Imaging (23%) than scientists from other specialty areas.

• Four of ten computer scientists/engineers (42%) indicated membership in “other” professional organizations.

Reasons for Belonging to a Professional Association The reasons that nuclear medicine scientists belonged to professional associations are summarized in Table 69. Scientists indicated a variety of reasons for membership in professional groups with similar percentages citing annual meeting opportunities, publications, education, and peer interaction as important.

Table 69. Reasons for Belonging to A Professional Association, 2006

Reasons for Belonging to a Professional Association Percentage

Annual Meetings 64.4 % Association Publications 63.0 % Educational Opportunities 58.7 % Opportunities to Meet Peers 57.8 % Other 4.3 %

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question I.4

Figure 28 shows that the most common ways of maintaining professional currency for nuclear medicine scientists were attendance at professional meetings (40.1%) and reading of professional journal publications (39.1%).

101

Table 70. Professional Associations to which Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Belong by Branch of Science, 2006

Branch of Science Professional Association

Chemistry Pharmacy Physics Computer Science/

EngineeringMultiple

Branches Not

Specified Total

Society of Nuclear Medicine 78% 53% 41% 63% 60% 67% 56% American Assn of Physicists in Med 3% 0% 81% 13% 33% 17% 35% Health Physics Society 2% 1% 37% 4% 10% 8% 16% American Pharmacists Association 0% 52% 0% 0% 14% 4% 13% American Chemical Society 60% 1% 2% 4% 13% 9% 12% IEEE 2% 0% 17% 38% 22% 5% 11% Academy of Molecular Imaging 21% 4% 5% 17% 17% 19% 11% Soc of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences 43% 4% 1% 0% 14% 7% 10% Radiological Society of North America 7% 0% 11% 21% 12% 17% 10% Society of Molecular Imaging 23% 1% 4% 4% 6% 10% 7% American Soc of Nuclear Cardiology 8% 3% 5% 17% 6% 15% 7% Radiochemistry Society 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% Other 1 23% 17% 36% 42% 17% 27% 26% Other 2 8% 2% 11% 13% 6% 14% 8% Other 3 3% 0% 2% 4% 3% 3% 2%

Total N 122 181 298 24 140 133 898 Note: Dark green cells are most frequently cited Association; light green cells are second most frequently cited.

See Appendix B for description of Other 1, Other 2, and Other 3 for Question I.3. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question

Figure 28. Most Important Ways that Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Maintain Professional Currency, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question I.6

Professional Meetings

40.1%

Journal Publications

39.1%

Academic Courses

6.4%

Other2.6%

E-Mail/ Online11.7%

102

• Nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey were asked to describe ways that their professional identity as a nuclear medicine scientist was encouraged in the workplace. Table 71 shows that “peer connections at place of employment” was cited most often by pharmacists (52%), physicists (48%), and scientists who did not cite a specialty (42%) as a support to their professional identity.

• Chemists most frequently cited publication in peer reviewed journals (59%) or collaborative research in the field of interest (57%) as a source of encouragement of professional identity.

• Computer scientists/engineers (54%) and those in multiple branches of nuclear medicine science (49%) also cited collaborative research as a supportive to professional identity. Pharmacists/radiopharmacists cited collaborative research least (10%) among all choices.

• Although mentoring new professionals was cited by 22% of nuclear medicine scientists as a tool to reinforcement of professional identity, it was the least selected response option (with the exception of “other”) among all nuclear medicine science specialties except pharmacists. This was another indicator that mentoring of new scientists may be on the decline.

Table 71. Ways That Professional Identity of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Is

Encouraged by Branch of Science, 2006

Branches of Science Professional Identity as NMS is

Encouraged Through Chemistry Pharmacy Physics

Computer Science

/EngineeringMultiple

Branches Not

Specified Total

Peer Connections at My Employer 35% 52% 48% 25% 39% 42% 44%

My Organizational Affiliations 39% 28% 51% 42% 40% 32% 40%

Collaborative Research in My Field 57% 10% 30% 54% 49% 38% 34%

Publication in Peer- Reviewed Journals 59% 13% 36% 46% 43% 37% 36%

Mentoring New Professionals 17% 36% 19% 4% 24% 15% 22%

Other 5% 3% 5% 0% 3% 2% 4%

Total N 122 181 298 24 140 133 898

Notes: Green cells are maximum percents in each column; red cells are minimums. Percentages sum to more than 100% because respondents marked more than one reason.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question I. 5.

Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists Future plans of nuclear medicine scientists can reveal insights about the trajectories that these professions may follow in the future.

103

Future Plans by Branch of Science

• Table 72 shows that nearly three quarters (73.8%) of active nuclear medicine scientists responding to the survey expected to remain in their current position for the next five years.

• One in five (21%) of the computer scientists/engineers responding to the survey indicated they would seek another job in the same profession in the coming five years.

• Only 9.5% of nuclear medicine scientists expected to retire in the coming five years. Physicists (13%) indicated retirement plans more frequently than nuclear medicine scientists in other specialty areas.

Table 72. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006

Branches of Science N Remain in

Current Position

Seek Job in same

Profession

Seek Job Outside

NM Retire Other

Chemistry 122 78% 16% 7% 6% 4% Pharmacy 181 78% 17% 8% 5% 2% Physics 298 78% 12% 2% 13% 3% Computer Science/Engineering 24 75% 21% 4% 0% 13% Multiple Branches 140 69% 16% 8% 11% 6% Not Specified 133 59% 15% 7% 11% 11%

Total N 898 663 132 51 85 44 Row percentages do not add to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question H. 1.

• Table 73 shows that physicists were the most likely of the different scientists to remain in their current positions (35%). Physicists were also the most likely of scientists to seek another job in the same profession in the next five years (27%).

• Physicists represented the largest percentage (46%) of nuclear medicine scientists who expected to retire within five years. This was due in part to the high numbers of physicists in nuclear medicine science compared to other specialties in nuclear medicine. One-third (33%) of survey respondents were nuclear medicine physicists.

104

Table 73. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Branch of Science, 2006

Branch of Science N Remain in

Current Position

Seek Job in same

Profession

Seek Job Outside

NM Retire Other

Chemistry 122 14% 15% 18% 8% 11%

Pharmacy 181 21% 23% 29% 11% 9%

Physics 298 35% 27% 12% 46% 23%

Computer Science / Engineering 24 3% 4% 2% 0% 7%

Multiple Branches 140 15% 17% 22% 19% 18%

Not Specified 133 12% 15% 18% 16% 32%

Total N 898 663 132 51 85 44

Note: Percents are column percents. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question H.1, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

Future Plans by Roles and Functions

• Future plans were examined by the tasks and roles of nuclear medicine scientists to get a sense of any unusual gaps in services that might result. Table 74 shows that most scientists working in applied research were expecting to remain in their current position for the next five years (86%).

• Scientists working in only basic research expressed the most interest in seeking another job in the same profession (19%). Those working in two or three roles also indicated more desire to seek another job in the same profession (16%) than those in other roles, although the differences were small.

105

Table 74. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists, by Primary Roles in Primary Work Setting, 2006

Primary Role in Primary Work Setting N

Remain in Current Position

Seek Job in Same

Profession

Seek Job Outside Nuclear

Medicine

Retire Other

Basic Science Research Only 185 69% 19% 6% 10% 5%

Applied Research Only 28 86% 7% 0-- 7% 4%

Technical Support Only 131 78% 13% 8% 11% 5%

Administrative Support Only 44 70% 14% 7% 9% 2%

Two or Three Roles 275 75% 16% 6% 10% 4%

All Four Roles 104 75% 12% 4% 12% 9%

Not Specified 131 72% 12% 5% 5% 4%

Total 898 663 132 51 85 44

Row percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question D.10 and H.1

Future Plans by Expected Ease or Difficulty of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Career

• Table 75 shows that among all nuclear medicine scientists expecting to remain in their current position over the next five years, almost three-quarters (73%) expected it to be somewhat easy or only somewhat difficult to sustain their careers.

• Conversely, almost three-quarters (71%) of nuclear medicine scientists expecting to seek a job outside nuclear medicine science in the next five years expressed expectations of some difficulty, moderate difficulty, or greater difficulty in sustaining a nuclear medicine science career.

• More than half of nuclear medicine scientists indicating an expectation that it would be somewhat easy or very easy to maintain a nuclear medicine career in the future (54%) expected to retire.

106

Table 75. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Expected Ease or Difficulty of Sustaining

a Nuclear Medicine Science Career, 2006

Future Plans Future Ease of

Sustaining Nuclear Medicine Science

Career All Remain in

Current Position

Seek Job in same

Profession

Seek Job Outside Nuclear

Medicine Retire Other

Very Difficult 5% 4% 7% 18% 6% 11%

Moderately Difficult 12% 11% 17% 16% 6% 20%

Somewhat Difficult 32% 31% 33% 37% 24% 32%

Somewhat Easy 40% 42% 36% 25% 39% 25%

Very Easy 12% 12% 8% 4% 25% 11%

Total N 881 657 132 51 83 44

Note: Percents are column percents. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question G.2 and H.2

• Table 76 shows, as might be expected, scientists who expected greater difficulty in sustaining nuclear medicine science careers in the future expressed intentions to seek other jobs in nuclear medicine science (22%) or outside nuclear medicine science (22%) more often than those who said it would be very easy to sustain a nuclear medicine science career in the future (10% expect to seek another job in nuclear medicine science and only 2% expect to seek a job outside nuclear medicine science).

• The greatest percentages of those who expected to retire in the next five years were those who foresaw great ease in the future in sustaining nuclear medicine careers (19%) and those who thought it to be very difficult to sustain a nuclear medicine career (12%).

107

Table 76. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Expected Ease or Difficulty of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career, 2006.

Future Ease of Sustaining NM

Career N

Remain in Current Position

Seek Job in same

Profession

Seek Job Outside

NM Retire Other

Very Difficult 41 59% 22% 22% 12% 12%

Moderately Difficult 103 70% 21% 8% 5% 9%

Somewhat Difficult 279 73% 15% 7% 7% 5%

Somewhat Easy 348 79% 14% 4% 9% 3%

Very Easy 110 74% 10% 2% 19% 5%

Total N 881 657 132 51 83 44 Row percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions G.2 and H.1

Future Plans by Location

• Regional differences in future plans of nuclear medicine scientists emerged when a geographic analysis of the data obtained from the survey was completed (Table 77). Fewer scientists in the Northwest (63%) and the Midwest (69%) expected to remain in their current positions than scientists in other geographic areas.

• A greater proportion of scientists in the Midwest (12%) and in the Northwest (11%) expected to seek jobs outside nuclear medicine science than in other regions of the country. At the same time, 26% of nuclear medicine scientists in the Northwest and 21% of scientists in the Midwest expected to seek other nuclear medicine science jobs. Taken together, these statistics suggested some instability in demand for and opportunities available to nuclear medicine scientists in these regions.

• Although 21% of nuclear medicine scientists in the Mid-Atlantic and 18% in the Northeast expected to seek other jobs in nuclear medicine science in the coming five years, the profession in those regions seemed relatively stable. Only 7% of nuclear medicine scientists in the Mid-Atlantic wanted to leave the profession and only 3% in the Northeast expected to seek a job outside the profession.

108

Table 77. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Regions, 2006

USDHHS Region N

Remain in Current Position

Seek Job in same

ProfessionSeek Job

Outside NM Retire Other

New England 72 76% 17% 3% 8% 6% Northeast 105 72% 18% 3% 8% 8% Mid Atlantic 122 70% 21% 7% 10% 4% Southeast 109 78% 10% 5% 15% 5% Mid Central 141 77% 10% 6% 11% 4% Southwest 93 74% 14% 5% 8% 1% Midwest 78 69% 18% 12% 5% 8% Mountain 21 81% 10% 10% 5% 5% Pacific 93 74% 13% 5% 9% 8% Northwest 19 63% 26% 11% 11% 0%

Total N 853 632 128 50 80 42 Row percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices.

Sources: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.2 and H.1

Future Plans by Primary Employment Setting

• Table 78 presents future plans of nuclear medicine scientists by primary employment setting to determine if unexpected consequences might be expected. Since there was a high percentage of active nuclear medicine scientists who expected to remain in their current positions over the next five years, little difference across employment settings was revealed in this analysis.

• Among nuclear medicine scientists working in academic institutions, 23% expected to seek another job in nuclear medicine science in the next five years. This may be reason for concern because there could be difficulty in finding replacement educators or academics in some geographic areas.

• The same percentage (23%) of nuclear medicine scientists in research organizations expressed intention to seek another job in nuclear medicine in the next five years. Current funding issues in the public sector for nuclear medicine science research may be affecting attitudes about the future for research scientists. This concern was further reinforced by observing that an additional 11% of nuclear medicine scientists in research organizations were expecting to seek a job outside nuclear medicine science in the next five years.

• Nearly one in five (19%) of those working in consulting companies expected to retire within the coming five years. This suggested that older scientists were working for consulting companies. The earlier finding that consulting companies preferred to hire experienced professionals rather than new scientists reinforces this interpretation.

109

Table 78. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Primary Employment Setting, 2006

Primary Employment Setting N

Remain in Current Position

Seek Job in Same

Profession

Seek Job Outside Nuclear

Medicine Retire Other

Academic Medical Center 248 72% 15% 6% 11% 6%

Hospital/Medical Center 208 77% 10% 4% 14% 4%

Radiopharmacy 164 77% 18% 9% 3% 3%

Academic Institution 53 70% 23% 8% 2% 4%

Consulting Company 47 72% 2% 2% 19% 4%

Pharmaceutical Company 40 73% 15% 5% 0% 10%

Research Organization 35 74% 23% 11% 6% 9%

Other 82 71% 15% 4% 12% 5%

Total N 877 650 126 51 84 42

Row percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.1a and H.1

• Table 79 shows that more than one-quarter of nuclear medicine scientists expecting to seek jobs outside nuclear medicine worked in academic medical centers (27%) or radiopharmacies (27%).

• These percentages were similar among nuclear medicine scientists expecting to seek another job in the same profession. More than one-quarter of those expecting to change jobs within nuclear medicine science in the next five years worked in academic medical centers (29%) and 23% worked in radiopharmacies. Taken together, these statistics suggested that academic medical centers and radiopharmacies were dynamic workplaces for nuclear medicine scientists.

• Among all scientists expecting to retire, one-third (33%) worked in academic medical centers and more than one-third (35%) worked in hospital medical centers. These figures suggested that clinical settings will be impacted by scientist retirements in the coming five years.

110

Table 79. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Primary Employment Setting, 2006

Primary Employment Setting N

Remain in Current Position

Seek Job in same

ProfessionSeek Job

Outside NM Retire Other

Academic Medical Center 248 28% 29% 27% 33% 33%

Hospital/Medical Center 208 25% 17% 18% 35% 19%

Radiopharmacy 164 19% 23% 27% 6% 12%

Academic Institution 53 6% 10% 8% 1% 5%

Consulting Company 47 5% 1% 2% 11% 5%

Pharmaceutical Company 40 4% 5% 4% 0% 10%

Research Organization 35 4% 6% 8% 2% 7%

Other 82 9% 10% 6% 12% 10%

Total N 877 650 126 51 84 42 Note: Percents are column percents.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions D.1a and H. 1

Future Plans by Gender

• As would be expected from previous findings that higher percentages of women are in younger age cohorts, a higher percentage of male nuclear medicine scientists expected to retire in the coming five years than female nuclear medicine scientists (Table 80).

Table 80. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Gender, 2006

Gender N Remain in

Current Position

Seek Job in same

ProfessionSeek Job

Outside NM Retire Other

Male 737 74% 15% 6% 11% 4%

Female 150 73% 15% 6% 3% 8%

Total N 887 657 130 50 83 44

Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.2 and H.1

111

Future Plans by Place of Birth

• Table 81 shows that a higher percentage of nuclear medicine scientists born in the U.S. (11%) than born in other nations (5%) are expected to retire in the coming five years.

• A higher percentage of scientists born in “other nations” (21%) expected to seek another nuclear medicine science job in the coming five years than U.S. born scientists (12%).

Table 81. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

by Place of Birth, 2006

Place of Birth N Remain in

Current Position

Seek Job in same

Profession Seek Job

Outside NM Retire Other

USA 613 75% 12% 5% 11% 6%

Other Nation 260 72% 21% 7% 5% 4%

Total N 873 646 130 50 79 44

Row percentages do not sum to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.3 and H.1

Future Plans by Age

• Table 82 shows that more job movement was anticipated in the younger age cohort of nuclear medicine scientists than among the older age groups. With the exception of retirement, the highest percentages of expected job change were in the age 39 and younger groups.

• Only 55% of those younger than age 30 and 66% of those between ages 30 and 39 expected to remain in their current nuclear medicine science position for the next five years.

• More than one-quarter of those age 30 to 39 (30%) and 25% of those younger than age 30 expected to seek another nuclear medicine science job in the coming five years.

• The highest percentages of those expecting to leave nuclear medicine science were in the younger age groups with 15% of nuclear medicine scientists younger than age 30 and 10% of those ages 30 to 39 expected to leave the profession in the coming five years.

• Again, as would be expected, 91% of nuclear medicine scientists planning to retire were older than age 60.

112

Table 82. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Age Group, 2006

Age Group Total Remain in

Current Position

Seek Job in same

Profession Seek Job

Outside NM Retire Other

< 30 20 55% 25% 15% 0% 10%

30 - 39 156 66% 30% 10% 0% 8%

40 - 49 244 82% 14% 5% 1% 5%

50 - 59 261 82% 12% 5% 6% 4%

60 - 69 147 65% 5% 3% 37% 3%

70 + 24 42% 0% 0% 54% 8%

Total N 852 632 125 48 84 43

Row percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A. 1 and H. 1

Table 83 presents a comparison of future plans of nuclear medicine scientists in different age groups. The patterns generally conformed to anticipated results.

• Among those expecting to seek other jobs in nuclear medicine science or outside the profession, the most anticipated movement was in the group age 30 to 39. Thirty-eight percent of all scientists expecting to move to another nuclear medicine job were age 30 to 39. Among scientists expecting to leave nuclear medicine in the coming five years 31% were age 30 to 39.

• Among all scientists expecting to remain in their current position, the highest percentages were in the age 50 to 59 group (34%) and in the age 40 to 49 group (31%).

• Ninety-eight percent of all nuclear medicine scientists expecting to retire in the coming five years were age 50 and older.

113

Table 83. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Age Group, 2006

Age Group N Remain in

Current Position

Seek Job in same

Profession Seek Job

Outside NM Retire Other

< 30 20 2% 4% 6% 0% 5%

30 - 39 156 16% 38% 31% 0% 28%

40 - 49 244 31% 28% 27% 2% 28%

50 - 59 261 34% 25% 27% 18% 23%

60 - 69 147 15% 6% 8% 64% 12%

70 + 24 2% 0% 0% 15% 5%

Total N 852 632 125 48 84 43

Note: Percents are column percents. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.1 and H.1

Future Plans by Salary

• Table 84 shows that the intention to remain in a current nuclear medicine scientist position varied by salary with an increasingly higher percentage of scientists expecting to remain in their current job as salaries increased.

• Scientists who indicated an annual salary from nuclear medicine science professional activities that was in the range from $25,000 to $49,000 were more likely to be considering a search for a new job in the same profession in the next five years.

• Scientists in that same salary range ($25,000 to $49,000) were also more likely to be considering seeking a job outside of nuclear medicine science in the next five years. As explained earlier, a partial explanation for this stratification was that some of the scientists in the lower salary ranges were working only part time in nuclear medicine and were engaged in other scientific activities to make a transition out of nuclear medicine less difficult.

114

Table 84. Future Plans of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists by Salary Group, 2006

Salary Group ($000) N Remain in

Current Position

Seek Job in same

Profession

Seek Job Outside

NM Retire Other

< $25 34 59% 24% 6% 18% 6%

$25 to $49 41 44% 39% 20% 5% 15%

$50 to $74 65 65% 14% 11% 8% 11%

$75 to $99 143 76% 17% 5% 7% 8%

$100 to $124 217 77% 14% 6% 6% 2%

$125 to $149 116 78% 16% 1% 10% 3%

$150 to $174 83 84% 8% 7% 11% 1%

$174 to $199 31 84% 6% 6% 10% 0%

$200 + 63 81% 10% 2% 11% 5%

Total N 793 594 122 48 68 39

Note: Percents are row percents. Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions E.1 and H.1

Expected Ease or Difficulty in Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career Overall, nuclear medicine scientists indicated concerns about both the current and future ease of sustaining careers in nuclear medicine. However, the level of difficulty indicated by most scientists bordered on relative ease.

On a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being very easy, scientists indicated average current ease or difficulty in sustaining their careers at 3.57 (between somewhat difficult and somewhat easy). Figure 29 shows that scientists working in the Northern Plains region indicated more difficulty than others in sustaining careers. The locations of those who indicated ease in sustaining careers were scattered across the U.S.

115

Figure 29. Rating of the Current Ease or Difficulty of Sustaining a Career in Nuclear Medicine in the United States, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions G.1 • Pharmacists/radiopharmacists indicated the most ease with sustaining a career in nuclear

medicine. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being very easy, pharmacists in nuclear medicine ranked current ease of sustaining a nuclear medicine career at 3.96 (somewhat easy) and anticipated future ease of sustaining a nuclear medicine career a bit lower at 3.81 (but still approaching somewhat easy).

• Table 85 shows that scientists working in multiple branches of nuclear medicine and those in chemistry indicated more difficulty with sustaining current nuclear medicine careers and also more expected difficulty in sustaining a nuclear medicine career in the future.

MOCO

AK

AZ

HI

CA

NM

TX

OK

KS

WY

ID

UT

WA

MT

IANE

ND

SD

MN

IN

KY

IL

GAAL

FL

VA

NC

SC

MD

PA

MI NY

NJ

DE

CTMA

RI

Rating

3.90 to 4.00

3.65 to 3.90

3.30 to 3.65

3.00 to 3.30

2.50 to 3.00

Missing

Center for Health Workforce Studies, 2006

TN

OH

WV

NH

VT

AR

LA

WI

NV

OR

MS

ME

Scale: 1 = Very Difficult, 2 = Moderately Difficult, 3 = Somewhat Difficult, 4 = Somewhat Easy, 5 = Very Easy

U.S. Average = 3.57

116

Table 85. Mean Scores of Current and Future Ease of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career by Professional Branch of Science, 2006

Branches of Profession Average Current Ease of Sustaining NM Career

Average Future Ease of Sustaining NM Career

Chemist 3.36 3.07

Pharmacist 3.96 3.81

Physicist 3.62 3.51

Computer Science/Engineer 3.46 3.46

Multiple Branches 3.29 3.25

Not Specified 3.43 3.26

Total 3.57 3.43

Scale: 1 = Very Difficult, 2 =Moderately Difficult, 3 = Somewhat Difficult, 4 = Somewhat Easy, 5 = Very Easy Source: Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions G.1, G.2, K.1, L.1, M.1, and N.1

When asked to assess the ease or difficulty of sustaining a nuclear medicine science career in the future, the evaluation of scientists varied by their major roles (Table 86).

• On a Likert scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being very easy and 5 being very difficult, nuclear medicine scientists indicated that sustaining careers in nuclear medicine science was between somewhat difficult and somewhat easy (Mean score 3.57). Expectations for the future were somewhat less certain.

• Scientists indicated more expected difficulty in sustaining nuclear medicine scientist careers in the future (Mean score 3.43) although scientists still expected that it would be somewhat difficult to somewhat easy in the future.

• Scientists whose major role in their primary work setting was to provide only technical support reported the most current ease (Mean score 3.88) and expected future ease (Mean score 3.74) in sustaining nuclear medicine scientific careers. This level of ease may be attributed to linkages with clinical nuclear medicine in which insurance reimbursement for patient services supported salaries of clinical and support personnel.

• Scientists in only applied research (mean score 3.39) and only basic research (mean score 3.41) reported below mean difficulty in sustaining nuclear medicine scientists’ careers. When asked about future ease of sustaining a nuclear medicine scientist career, scientists working in applied research expressed the greatest degree of expected difficulty (mean score 3.04).

117

Table 86. Mean Scores of Current and Future Ease of Sustaining Nuclear Medicine Science Careers by Major Role in Primary Work Setting, 2006

Major Role in Primary Work Setting

Current Ease of Sustaining NM Science

Career (Mean Score)

Future Ease of Sustaining NM Science

Career (Mean Score)

Basic Science Research Only 3.41 3.29

Applied Research Only 3.39 3.04

Technical Support Only 3.88 3.74

Administrative Support Only 3.50 3.48

Two or Three Roles 3.58 3.45

All Four Roles 3.51 3.41

Not Specified 3.58 3.40

All Roles 3.57 3.43 Scale: 1 = Very Difficult, 2=Moderately Difficult, 3 = Somewhat Difficult, 4 = Somewhat Easy, 5 = Very Easy.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions

Expected Ease or Difficulty by Career Sustainability Factors

• High percentages of the nuclear medicine scientists who expected difficulty (71%) or moderate difficulty (59%) in sustaining nuclear medicine science careers identified continued financial support for nuclear medicine research as a critical factor for future careers (Table 87).

• More than two-thirds of those who expected sustenance of future careers to be somewhat (70%) or very easy (67%) identified “continued reimbursement by Medicare” as a key factor for the future of nuclear medicine science.

Table 87. Key Factors in Sustaining Nuclear Medicine Careers in the Future,

by Level of Anticipated Difficulty, 2006

Future Ease of Sustaining

NM Career N

Continued Financial

Support for NM

Research

Continued Involve-

ment by My Employer

Relaxation of Federal

Regulations

Continued Reimburse-

ment by Medicare

Other

Very Difficult 41 71% 41% 20% 46% 20%

Moderately Difficult 103 59% 34% 16% 57% 14%

Somewhat Difficult 279 46% 34% 15% 55% 10%

Somewhat Easy 348 26% 30% 11% 70% 8%

Very Easy 110 25% 27% 17% 67% 10%

Total 881 38% 32% 14% 63% 10% *Percentages do not add up to 100% as the respondents had option to select multiple choices

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, 2006, Questions G.2 and G. 4

118

Expected Ease or Difficulty by Salary Level Table 88 shows that salary level appears to have had some impact on attitudes about future ease of sustaining a nuclear medicine science career.

• A higher percentage of nuclear medicine scientists in the higher salary ranges indicated anticipated ease in sustaining nuclear medicine careers in the future. This may be due to factors such as age and established career trajectories.

• Among those who thought they would experience some difficulty in the future in sustaining a nuclear medicine career, those in the lower salary ranges expressed more expected difficulty. However, there was still concern among some scientists in the higher salary ranges about the future.

Table 88. Future Ease of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career by Salary, 2006

Future Ease of Sustaining Nuclear Medicine Science Career Salary Group

($000) Very Difficult

Moderately Difficult

Somewhat Difficult

Somewhat Easy Very Easy N

< $25 9% 15% 33% 30% 12% 33

$25 to $49 5% 12% 41% 34% 7% 41

$50 to $74 9% 17% 37% 25% 12% 65

$75 to $99 5% 12% 31% 42% 10% 143

$100 to $124 3% 9% 33% 43% 12% 215

$125 to $149 7% 10% 29% 46% 8% 116

$150 to $174 2% 12% 22% 48% 16% 82

$174 to $199 3% 17% 20% 40% 20% 30

$200 + 5% 16% 32% 31% 16% 62

Total 5% 12% 31% 40% 12% 787 Note: Percents are row percents.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions E.1 and G.2 When expected future difficulty in sustaining a nuclear medicine career was grouped into the dichotomous categories of not so difficult (somewhat difficult, somewhat easy, and very easy) and very difficult (moderately difficult and very difficult), differences in salary level appeared to affect perceptions about the future (Table 89).

• A higher percentage of scientists (26%) in the salary range from $50,000 to $74,000 (below mean salary) expressed expected difficulty in sustaining nuclear medicine science careers in the future than others in other salary ranges. Conversely, a higher percentage of scientists (88%) in the $100,000 to $124,000 range expressed expectations of relative ease in sustaining their nuclear medicine careers than in other salary ranges.

119

Table 89. Anticipated Level of Difficulty in Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career by Salary Category, 2006

Future Difficulty in Sustaining Nuclear Medicine Science Career Salary Group

($000) N Not So Difficult Very Difficult

< $25 33 76% 24%

$25 to $49 41 83% 17%

$50 to $74 65 74% 26%

$75 to $99 143 83% 17%

$100 to $124 215 88% 12%

$125 to $149 116 83% 17%

$150 to $174 82 85% 15%

$174 to $199 30 80% 20%

$200 + 62 79% 21%

All Salaries 787 83% 17% Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions E.1 and G.2

Expected Ease or Difficulty by Age Group Relatively consistent percentages of nuclear medicine scientists in all age groups expressed a range of attitudes about expected ease or difficulty in sustaining a nuclear medicine career (Table 90).

Table 90. Anticipated Level of Ease or Difficulty in Sustaining a Future Career in Nuclear Medicine Science by Age Group, 2006

Future Ease of Sustaining a Nuclear Medicine Science Career Age Group

Very Difficult Moderately Difficult

Somewhat Difficult

Somewhat Easy Very Easy N

< 30 5% 10% 30% 40% 15% 20

30 - 39 2% 11% 31% 44% 12% 154

40 - 49 5% 11% 33% 39% 12% 242

50 - 59 4% 14% 31% 42% 9% 256

60 - 69 9% 11% 28% 35% 17% 141

70 + 4% 13% 22% 39% 22% 23

All Ages 5% 12% 31% 40% 12% 836 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Questions A.1 and G.2

120

Chemists Nuclear medicine scientists who identified as chemists were asked to provide additional details about their subspecialization in chemistry. This section summarizes the information they provided.

• Table 91 shows that more than one-third (36.9%) of scientists who identified as chemists selected radiochemistry as their major area of interest. An additional 21.3% indicated interest in organic chemistry.

Table 91. Subspecialty of Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Who Identified Themselves as Chemists, 2006

Chemistry Subspecialty Percentage

Radiochemistry 36.9%

Organic Chemistry 21.3%

Biochemistry 10.7%

Inorganic Chemistry 10.7%

Nuclear Chemistry 9.8%

Medicinal Chemistry 5.7%

Analytical Chemistry 2.5%

Physical Chemistry 1.6%

Other 0.8%

Total 122

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question K.1

Chemists in nuclear medicine science were asked to indicate percent of time spent in clinical activities, research, administration, education, or other activities. Chemists were the least likely of nuclear medicine scientists to be involved in clinical nuclear medicine.

• Table 92 shows that more than half of responding chemists (56%) indicated spending no time in clinical nuclear medicine activity.

• Almost one-third (30%) of responding chemists spent 75% to 99% of their time in research. An additional 21% of chemists spent 50% to 74% of their time in research.

• More than half of responding chemists spent 1% to 24% of their time on administrative functions, education functions, and other activities in their workplaces.

121

Table 92. Percent of Time Spent by Chemists in Nuclear Medicine Science, by Different Work Activities, 2006

Percent of Time Type of Activity (N)

0% 1% - 24%

25% - 49%

50% - 74%

75% - 99% 100%

Clinical Activities (88) 56% 25% 3% 13% 3% 0%

Research (118) 3% 10% 17% 21% 30% 19%

Administration (85) 14% 55% 19% 9% 0% 2%

Education (76) 18% 66% 14% 1% 0% 0%

Other Activities (43) 33% 51% 12% 5% 0% 0%

Total N in Chemistry Specialty = 122 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question K.2

Scientists working in chemistry were asked to select one primary area of research and one or more areas of secondary research. The responses are summarized in Figure 30.

• More than two-thirds of chemists (68.2%) working in nuclear medicine science indicated primary research in radiopharmaceutical development. Organic radiopharmaceutical development (36.4%), inorganic radiopharmaceutical development (20.9%), and therapeutic radiopharmaceutical development (10.9%) were selected by chemists working in nuclear medicine as primary areas of research.

Figure 30. Primary Research Area within Chemistry Specialty, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question K.3

8.2%

1.8%

2.7%

2.7%

4.5%

4.5%

7.3%

10.9%

20.9%

36.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Other

Neurology

Automated Synthesis

Clinical Trials / Applications

Radionuclide / Target Development

Isotope Production

Oncology

Radiopharmaceuticals (Therapeutic)

Radiopharmaceuticals (Inorganic)

Radiopharmaceuticals (Organic)

122

• Table 93 shows that the most common secondary area of interest in research was oncology (24.6%) followed by automated synthesis (21.3%).

Table 93. Primary and Secondary Areas of Research of Nuclear Medicine Scientists

in Chemistry, 2006

Research Area in Chemistry Primary Secondary

Radiopharmaceutical Development (Organic) 36.4% 11.5% Radiopharmaceutical Development (Inorganic) 20.9% 18.0% Radiopharmaceutical Development (Therapeutic) 10.9% 19.7% Oncology 7.3% 24.6% Radionuclide/Target Development 4.5% 18.0% Isotope Production 4.5% 18.0% Automated Synthesis 2.7% 21.3% Clinical Trials / Applications 2.7% 18.9% Neurology 1.8% 13.1% Cardiology 0% 13.1% Nanochemistry / Nanoparticles 0% 8.2% Dosimetry 0% 4.1% Other 1 8.2% 3.3% Other 2 0% 0.8%

Total N 110 122 Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices.

Total N in Chemistry Specialty = 122 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question K.3

Nuclear medicine scientists who were chemists were asked to select primary and secondary clinical areas to which their research applied. Their responses are summarized in Figure 31.

• Half (50%) of responding chemists selected oncology as the primary area of application for their current work.

• Neurology (18%) and cardiology (16%) were the other most common clinical areas for application of current chemists’ work.

123

Figure 31. Primary Areas of Clinical Application of Chemists’ Work in Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question K.3

Table 94 shows that the most common secondary area for clinical application of chemists’ work was cardiology (27%) followed by oncology (22.1%).

Table 94. Primary and Secondary Clinical Application Areas of Work in Chemistry in Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006

Clinical Area in Chemistry Primary Secondary*

Oncology 50.9% 22.1% Neurology 17.5% 18.0% Cardiology 15.8% 27.0% Radiation Therapy 8.8% 16.4% Endocrinology 0.9% 3.3% Pediatrics 0% 4.1% Other 1 6.1% 4.1% Other 2 0% 0.8%

Total N 114 122 Notes: Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents

had option to select multiple choices. Total N in Chemistry Specialty = 122

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question K. 4.

Oncology50.9%

Neurology17.5%

Cardiology15.8%

Radiation Therapy

8.8%

Other 16.1%

Endocrinology0.9%

124

Pharmacists Nuclear medicine scientists who identified as pharmacists were asked to provide additional details about their subspecialization in pharmacy. This section summarizes the information they provided.

• More than three-quarters (78.5%) of pharmacists indicated a subspecialization in standard radiopharmacy (Table 95). An additional 17.1% of scientists in pharmacy indicated subspecialization in PET Radiopharmacy.

Table 95. Subspecialty of Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Who Identified Themselves as Pharmacists, 2006

Pharmacy Subspecialty Percentage Standard Radiopharmacy (142) 78.5%

PET Radiopharmacy (31) 17.1%

Pharmacotherapy (2) 1.1%

Pharmacokinetics (1) 0.6%

Other (5) 2.8%

Total (181) 100% Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question L.1

• Table 96 shows that 58% of pharmacists/radiopharmacists spent no time on research, and only 6% spent 50% or more time in research. About one-third of pharmacists (34%) spent from 1% to 24% of their time in research.

• Almost two-thirds of scientists working in pharmacy (65%) spent 1% to 24% of their time in activities related to education presumably about radiopharmaceuticals.

• One-fifth (20%) of scientists in pharmacy spend 75% to 99% of their time in clinical activities.

Table 96. Percent of Time Spent by Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Pharmacy,

by Different Work Activities, 2006

Percentage of Time Spent on Activity Types of Activity

0% 1% - 24%

25% - 49%

50% - 74%

75% - 99% 100%

Clinical Activities (165) 13% 39% 12% 15% 20% 2%

Research (137) 58% 34% 4% 4% 1% 1%

Administration (161) 12% 40% 22% 17% 9% 0%

Education (153) 12% 65% 17% 3% 3% 1%

Other Activities (110) 20% 44% 11% 14% 7% 5%

Total N in Pharmacy Specialty = 181 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question L.2

125

Nuclear medicine scientists working in pharmacy were asked to select one primary area and one or more secondary areas of research in pharmacy

• Figure 32 shows that a majority of scientists in pharmacy (61%) indicated that radiopharmaceutical preparation and formulation was their primary research activity. Radiopharmaceutical development and testing for PET was the second most frequent primary research activity for the scientists (13%).

Figure 32. Primary Research Activities within Pharmacy Specialty

in Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question L.3

Drug Dispensing andDelivery

4%

Automated Synthes2%

Other5% Radio-

pharmaceutical Development (PET)

13%

Radio-pharmaceutical

Preparation/ Formulation

61%

Radio-pharmaceutical Development

(Standard)5%

Radio-immunotherapy

2%

Clinical Trials8%

126

• Table 97 shows that although scientists working in pharmacy reported a broad range of secondary research activities, radiopharmaceutical interactions was the most often selected secondary research area.

Table 97. Primary and Secondary Areas of Research of Scientists in Pharmacy, 2006

Research Area in Pharmacy Primary Secondary

Radiopharmaceutical Preparation/Formulation 62.1% 13.3%

Radiopharmaceutical Development (PET) 13.6% 8.8%

Clinical Trials 7.6% 12.7%

Radiopharmaceutical Development (Standard) 5.3% 13.3%

New Dispensing Techniques/ modes of Drug Delivery 3.8% 8.8%

Radio-immunotherapy 1.5% 11.6%

Automated Synthesis 1.5% 4.4%

Radiopharmaceutical Interactions 0% 16.0%

Molecular Immunology 0% 1.7%

Other 4.5% 1.7%

Total N 132 181 Notes: Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had the option to select multiple choices.

Total N in Pharmacy Specialty = 181 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question L.3

• Among nuclear medicine scientists working in pharmacy, 96.7% were authorized nuclear

pharmacist according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements.

• Figure 33 shows that cardiology and oncology were the most common clinical areas for pharmacy specialists, with 58.8% and 27.5% of respondents, respectively.

• Table 98 shows that the most common secondary area for clinical applications was oncology, with 32% of respondents.

127

Figure 33. Primary Clinical Areas within Pharmacy Specialty, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question L.4

Table 98. Primary and Secondary Areas of Clinical Application of Nuclear Medicine Science Pharmacy, 2006

Clinical Area in Pharmacy Primary Secondary*

Cardiology 58.8% 12.2%

Oncology 27.5% 32.0%

Neurology 3.3% 10.5%

Radiation Therapy 1.3% 14.9%

Endocrinology 0% 13.3%

Pediatrics 0% 5.5%

Other 1 8.5% 2.8%

Other 2 0.7% 2.8%

Total N 153 181 Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had the option to select multiple choices

Total N in Pharmacy Specialty = 181 Source: Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question L. 4

Cardiology60%

Radiation Therapy

1%

Other 18%

Oncology27%

Neurology3%

Other 21%

128

Physicists Nuclear medicine scientists who identified as physicists were asked to provide additional details about their subspecialization in physics. This section summarizes the information they provided.

• Table 99 shows that almost half (49.3%) of nuclear medicine scientists identifying as physicists indicated their subspecialty was nuclear medicine physics.

• More than one-fourth (28.9%) of scientists in physics indicated “other” subspecialty than the offered responses. These subspecialties (listed in Appendix B) included radiologic physics, therapeutic physics, medical physics, and radiation oncology physics.

Table 99. Subspecialty of Nuclear Medicine Scientists

Who Identified Themselves as Physicists, 2006

Physics Subspecialty Percentage

Health Physics (64) 21.5%

Nuclear Medicine Physics (147) 49.3%

Manufacturer/Engineering (1) 0.3%

Other (86) 28.9%

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question M.1 • Table 100 shows that only 10% of physicists spent 75% to 99% of their time in research.

More than one-quarter (25.4%) of scientists in physics spent no time doing research. About four of ten (40.7%) of scientists in physics spent 1% to 24% of their time in research.

• More than 90% of physicists spent some time in clinical activities.

• A high percentage of scientists in physics (74.6%) spent 1% to 24% of their time providing education. More than half of scientists in physics (52.1%) also spent 1% to 24% of their time in administration.

• Almost half of scientists in physics (48%) indicated spending 1% to 24% of their time in other work activities.

129

Table 100. Percent of Time Spent by Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Physics by Different Work Activity, 2006

Percentage of Time Spent on Activity Type of Work Activity

0% 1% - 24% 25% - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 99% 100%

Clinical Activities (266) 9.8% 24.8% 17.7% 18.4% 21.4% 7.9%

Research (209) 25.4% 40.7% 13.4% 7.2% 10.0% 3.3%

Administration (217) 12.0% 52.1% 24.0% 7.4% 4.1% 0.5%

Education (232) 4.7% 74.6% 16.8% 3.4% 0.4% 0.0%

Other Activities (123) 22.0% 48.0% 14.6% 6.5% 3.3% 5.7%

Total N in Physics Specialty = 298 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question M.2

Scientists identifying as physicists in nuclear medicine science were asked to select one primary area of interest and one or more secondary areas of interest. These choices are summarized in Figure 34 and Table 101.

• More than one-quarter of physicists (30.4%) responding to the survey indicated primary activity in quality assurance and 29% indicated primary interest in radiation therapy.

• Similar percentages of physicists selected primary interest in clinical image processing or data analysis 12%) or “other” (12%) as a primary areas of interest. The areas of interest identified as “other” (found in Appendix B of this report) included radiation safety, regulatory, instrumentation, and mammography.

• The most selected secondary area of interest selected by physicists responding to the survey was quality assurance (38.6%), followed by clinical image processing or data analysis (27.9%).

130

Figure 34. Percentage Distribution of Primary Interest Area within Physics Specialty, 2006

Source: Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question M.3

Table 101. Primary and Secondary Areas of Interest of Scientists in Physics, 2006

Area of Interest in Physics Specialty Primary Secondary* Quality Assurance 30.4% 38.6% Radiation Therapy/Oncology 28.6% 17.8% Clinical Image Processing 11.8% 27.9% Developing Radiation Instruments 7.1% 10.7% Image Reconstruction 4.6% 20.5% Internal Dosimetry 4.3% 25.5% Clinical Trials 1.1% 17.4% Other 12.1% 7.0%

Total N 280 298 Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question M. 3.

Quality Assurance

30%

Other12%

Clinical Image Processing

12%

Image Reconstruction

5%

Internal Dosimetry

4%

Developing Radiation

Instruments7%

Clinical Trials1%

Radiation Therapy/ Oncology

29%

131

• Nearly half (46.4%) of physicists in nuclear medicine science were radiation safety officers for their primary employer.

• About six in ten (62.9%) of physicists in nuclear medicine science were authorized medical physicists according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements.

• Figure 35 shows that 29% of physicists indicated radiation therapy was their primary clinical area and 28% indicated oncology.

• One-fourth (25%) of physicists indicated that their work primarily applied to “other” clinical areas. “Other” responses (summarized in Appendix B of this report) included nuclear medicine, diagnostic radiology, and imaging and radiation safety.

Figure 35. Primary Clinical Areas within Physics Specialty, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question M.4 .

Radiation Therapy

29%

Oncology28%

Other 125%

Cardiology13%

Pediatrics1%

Neurology3%

Endocrinology1%

132

Computer Scientists and Engineers Nuclear medicine scientists who identified themselves as computer scientists and engineers were asked to provide additional details about their subspecialization. This section summarizes the information they provided.

Figure 36 shows that among computer scientists and engineers working in nuclear medicine science, 41% worked primarily in image analysis and modeling.

• Equal percentages of computer scientists and engineers in nuclear medicine science worked primarily in software applications (17%) and hardware (17%).

Figure 36. Primary Specialties of Computer Scientists and Engineers

Working in Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question N.1 • Table 102 shows that more than half of computer scientists and engineers (58.3%) indicated

software applications as a secondary area of interest in nuclear medicine science. About one-fifth (20.8%) of computer scientists and engineers selected hardware as a secondary interest.

• Only 8.3% of computer scientists and engineers working in nuclear medicine science selected image analysis and modeling as a secondary interest.

Image Analysis and Modeling

41%

Hardware17%

Software17%

Instrumentation13%

Reconstruction8%

Networking/ PACS

4%

133

• Image reconstruction was a primary interest (8.3% of computer scientists and engineers) or a secondary interest (12.5% of computer scientists and engineers) of only a few of those working in this area of nuclear medicine science.

Table 102. Primary and Secondary Areas of Interest of Active Nuclear Medicine Scientists

in Computer Science and Engineering, 2006

Area of Interest in Computer Science and Engineering Primary Secondary

Image Analysis and Modeling 41.7% 8.3% Software 16.7% 58.3% Hardware 16.7% 20.8% Instrumentation 12.5% 25% Reconstruction 8.3% 12.5% Networking/PACS 4.2% 16.7%

Total N 24 24 Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices.

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question N. 1.

Computer scientists and engineers working in nuclear medicine science appeared to be multi-focused. Many of these scientists were involved in several professional activities rather than exclusively in one activity (Table 103).

• High percentages of computer scientists and engineers spent 1% to 24% of their time providing education (76.5%) or performing administrative activities (68.8%). About one-third (35.3%) of computer scientists and engineers spent 1% to 24% of their time in clinical activities. Half (50%) of computer scientists and engineers spent 1% to 24% of their time in “other” activities, such as calibration.

• However, some in computer science and engineering had more singular pursuits. More than one-third (38.9%) of computer scientists and engineers working in nuclear medicine science spent 75% to 99% of their time in research activities.

134

Table 103. Time Spent by Nuclear Medicine Scientists in Computer Science and Engineering by Type of Work, 2006

Percent of Time Spent in Different Types of Work within the

Specialty Area Type of Work

0% 1%-24% 25%-49%

50%-74%

75%-99% 100%

Clinical Activities (17) 23.5% 35.3% 0% 17.6% 17.6% 5.9%

Research (18) 5.6% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1% 38.9% 11.1%

Administration (16) 6.3% 68.8% 18.8% 0% 6.3% 0%

Education (17) 11.8% 76.5% 5.9% 0% 5.9% 0%

Other Activities (10) 30.0% 50.0% 20.0% 0% 0% 0%

Total N in Computer Science and Engineering Specialty = 24 Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question N.2

• Computer scientists and engineers were asked to indicate one primary clinical area and one

or more secondary clinical areas to which their work applied. Figure 37 shows that more than two in five (44%) indicated that the primary clinical area to which their work applied was oncology.

• Another one-quarter of computer scientists and engineers (23%) indicated “other” primary clinical areas, including psychiatry, neuroscience, and radiology.

Figure 37. Percentage Distribution of Clinical Area of Primary Work Application, 2006

Source: 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question N.3

Oncology44%

Other 23%

Neurology14%

Cardiology14%

Radiation Therapy

5%

135

• Table 104 shows that the most common secondary clinical area indicated by computer scientists and engineers was cardiology, with more than one-third (37.5%) of respondents.

Table 104. Primary and Secondary Clinical Areas Impacted by Computer Scientists and

Engineers in Nuclear Medicine Science, 2006

Clinical Area of Primary Work Application Primary Secondary*

Oncology 45.5% 16.7% Cardiology 13.6% 37.5% Neurology 13.6% 25% Radiation Therapy 4.5% 12.5% Endocrinology 0% 12.5% Pediatrics 0% 0% Other 1 22.7% 0% Other 2 0% 4.2%

Total N 22 24 Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents had option to select multiple choices.

Source: Nuclear Medicine Scientist Survey, Question N.3

136

Appendix A. 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist Workforce Questionnaire

The survey instrument sent to 4,309 nuclear medicine scientists by the Center for Health Workforce Studies follows.

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA [SERIAL]

NUCLEAR MEDICINE WORKFORCE STUDY2006 NUCLEAR MEDICINE SCIENTIST SURVEY

Center for Health Workforce StudiesSchool of Public Health, University at Albany

You have been selected to receive this questionnaire as part of a national study of the nuclear medicine workforce. Your response isneeded to assure the representativeness of the survey for different groupings of respondents. Your participation is voluntary. Yourresponses will be confidential and will be reported only in averages and totals for subsets of those who answer the survey. In nocase will your identity be attached to a specific response or comment. The instrument should take approximately 25 minutes tocomplete. Questions about the survey can be addressed to Margie Langelier at 518-402-0250.

Please indicate the year in which you were born.

Please indicate your race/ethnicity.

Please indicate your gender.

Place of birth:

• Use a No. 2 pencil or a blue or black ink pen only.• Do not use pens with ink that soaks through the paper.• Make solid marks that fill the response completely.

• Make no stray marks on this form.• Do not fold, tear or mutilate this form.

CORRECT: INCORRECT:

A. DEMOGRAPHICS

Please indicate your most advanced degree. (Ifyou have dual professional degrees, pleaseindicate by marking both.)

1.

2.

3.

4.

B. EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Male Female

USA

1.

Please indicate the academic area in which youobtained your most advanced degree. Please markall that apply.

Other nation: ______

3.

4. In what year did you obtain your bachelor's degreeand your most advanced degree?

Year19

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

5. Do you expect to pursue further academic educationin the next five years?

NoYes

5a. If yes, at what level are you expecting to pursue afurther degree?

Master's degreeMD/DO degreeOther: ______________________________

PhD degreePharmD degree

Radiologic PhysicsNuclear PhysicsMolecular BiologyNuclear EngineeringInstrumentation

Health PhysicsMedical PhysicsRadiochemistryPharmacy/RadiopharmacyComputer ScienceMedicineOther: ______________________________________

Bachelor's0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

Most advanced0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

Year Year

MARKING INSTRUCTIONS

Bachelor's degreeMaster's degreePharm.D degreeOther: _________________________________

PhD degreeMD/DO degree

2. Please indicate the academic discipline in whichyou were awarded a bachelor's degree. (If youhave dual professional degrees, please indicate bymarking both.)

PhysicsEngineeringPharmacyOther: _________________________________

ChemistryComputer ScienceBiology

Asian or Pacific IslanderBlack/African American (Non-Hispanic)American Indian/Alaska NativeWhite (Non-Hispanic)HispanicOther: ______________________

PAGE 1

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263

6b. For how many years did you work in this previouscareer?

5b. If yes, in what area of academic discipline do youexpect to pursue that degree?

Radiologic PhysicsNuclear PhysicsMolecular BiologyNuclear EngineeringInstrumentation

Health PhysicsMedical PhysicsRadiochemistryPharmacy/RadiopharmacyComputer ScienceMedicineOther: ______________________________________

1. At what educational level did you first learn aboutopportunities in nuclear medicine science?

During high schoolDuring undergraduate educationDuring graduate education at the master's levelDuring doctoral/medical studiesDuring post doctoral fellowshipNot sure

2. Please indicate how you initially became interestedin the field of nuclear medicine science. Pleasemark all that apply.

3. At what academic level did you begin youreducation in nuclear medicine science in earnest?

During undergraduate educationDuring graduate education at the master's levelDuring professional/doctoral educationDuring post doctoral fellowship

4. Did you have a mentor in nuclear medicine science?NoYes

5. Do you currently mentor a potential nuclear medicinescientist?

NoYes

C. ENTRY INTO NUCLEAR MEDICINEYears

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Educational program was availableLearned about it from a professor/teacherLearned about it from a colleagueLearned about it from a work experienceSummer internship/fellowshipA post-graduate employment opportunityArticle in a newspaper or magazineArticle in a specialty or technical publicationProfile or segment on TV/radioOther, please describe: ___________________

6. Was nuclear medicine science a primary careerchoice?

NoYes

6a. If no, please indicate your previous primary career.Previous field: ____________________________

1a.

D. CURRENT WORK ENVIRONMENT

1. Do you currently work in nuclear medicine science?

If yes, in what settings do you currently work? Please identify the most appropriate primary worksetting where you work the most hours and onesecondary setting, if applicable.Please mark only once in each column.

Academic Medical CenterHospital/Medical CenterOutpatient Hospital Clinic/CenterFreestanding Radiology CenterFreestanding Nuclear Medicine CenterPhysician Office/Private RadiologistCardiology Specialty CenterOncology Specialty CenterAcademic/Educational InstitutionRadiopharmacyPharmaceutical CompanyTechnology/Instrument CompanyConsulting CompanyStaffing OrganizationResearch OrganizationMobile UnitSelf EmployedOther, please specify: _______________

SecondaryPrimary

No (If no, plese skip to section G.)Yes

PAGE 2

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA [SERIAL]

2. Please provide the zip code, city, and state for theemployer at which you primarily work.

City

State

Zip Code

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

3. Please indicate how many hours per week, onaverage you work for your primary and secondaryemployer.

4. In what year did you begin working with your currentprimary employer?

5. Are there other nuclear medicine scientists employedin the facility where you primarily work?

NoYes

5a. If yes, what is their primary area of interest? Please mark all that apply.

Physics/InstrumentationChemistryPharmacyComputersOther. Please describe: ___________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

Year

Primary Employer Secondary Employer

Hours0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Hours0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Please describe your department in your primaryworkplace. Please mark the most approriatedescription.

6.

Nuclear medicine departmentNuclear medicine center in radiology departmentRadiology departmentAcademic research departmentCorporate research and development departmentRadiopharmacyCorporate Sales/MarketingOther. Please describe: ___________________

7. Do you work in a department that provides clinicalnuclear medicine services?

NoYes

If yes, do you provide any of the followingservices? Please mark all that apply.

8. Do you work in nuclear medicine R & D?NoYes

7a.

8a. If yes, please describe the organization in whichyou work.

8b. If yes, please indicate your area of interest.Please mark all that apply.

9. What are primary sources of revenue that supportyour work? Please mark all that apply and indicateagency/organization that provides funding.

Radiation safety monitoringRadiopharmaceutical preparationInstrumentation and calibration servicesProfessional/patient educationManagement of research protocolsOther. Please describe: __________________

Radionuclide developmentRadiopharmaceutical developmentTechnology developmentCellular biology/molecular biologyIn vitro researchIn vivo researchOther. Please describe: __________________

Federal grant or contract: ___________________Foundation grant or contract: ________________Institutional grant or contract: ________________Corporate grant or contract: _________________Institutional support other than grant or contract

(i.e., for clinical service or teaching):_____________________________________

Other. Please describe: ____________________

Private CoporationGovernment Agency

PAGE 3

College/UniversityAcademic medical centerOther. Please desribe: __________________________

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263

10. Please indicate your major tasks and roles in yourprimary work setting. Please mark one primary andall that apply in secondary.

SecondaryPrimary

Camera design/developmentSoftware DesignImage ProcessingImage FusionInstrumentation/ControlsAlgorithmsNew applications for exising equipmentOther. Please describe: _____________

Applied Research

Radiopharmaceutical DevelopmentRadionuclide DevelopmentMolecular/Cellular BiologyOrganic ChemistryInorganic ChemistryData StorageMiniaturizationNew modality/technology (i.e., optical

imaging)Other. Please describe: _____________

Basic Science Research

Privacy and SecurityRegulatory OversightFinancial ManagementEducating Clinicians/ProfessionalsEducating PatientsAdministration/ManagementOther. Please describe: _____________

Administrative Support

E. SALARIES

1. Please indicate your total annual salary from all yournuclear medicine positions (in thousands).

Annual Salary

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

$ ,000

2. Please describe salaries for professionals in nuclearmedicine science. Please mark all that apply.

F. RECRUITMENT OF NEWSCIENTISTS

1. Are you currently recruiting or have you recentlyrecruited new scientists to nuclear medicine?

NoYes

1a. If yes, please describe your preference. Pleasemark all that apply.

I generally recruit experienced professionalsI generally recruit new post-doctoral fellowsI generally recruit new PhD students interested

in writing a dissertation.Other. Please describe: __________________

If yes, please describe the supply of new scientists.1b.Many qualified candidates are availableFew qualified candidates are availableNo qualified candidates are available

9a. Please indicate the proportion of support for yourwork obtained from each source. Please mark allthat apply.

0% 1-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99% 100%

Federal grant/contractFoundation grant/contractInstitutional grant/contractCorporate grant/contractOther institutional supportOther: _________________

Equipment CalibrationClinical TrialsRadiation SafetyAttenuation CorrectionImage storage and RetrievalInterpreting ImagesRadiopharmaceutical Preparation/

CompoundingOther. Please describe: _____________

Technical Support

Salaries in nuclear medicine are competitive withother employment opportunities

Salaries in nuclear medicine are not competitivewith other employment opportunities

Salaries in academic research settings are notcompetitive with those available from corporateemployers

Low salaries for nuclear medicine scientistsdiscourage new professionals from entering thefield

Other. Please describe: ____________________________________________________________

PAGE 4

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA [SERIAL]

6. Please compare the professional environment fornuclear medicine scientists in the US and othercountries. Please mark all that apply.

7. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being strong agreement,please indicate your opinion about the followingstatements.

1 2 3 4 5

DISAGREE

STRONGLY AGREE

AGREE

NEUTRAL

STRONGLY DISAGREE

a. Nuclear medicine will continue to growin importance in health care.

b. The costs of nuclear medicine studieswill increase in the future.

c. Increased accuracy of nuclear medicinestudies will offset the increased costs.

d. Nuclear medicine will become lessimportant in the future.

e. Increasing costs of nuclear medicinestudies will restrict nuclear medicineapplications in usage.

f. Shortages of nuclear medicine scientistswill limit research.

g. Shortages of nuclear medicinephysicians will restrict clinical access.

h. Shortages of nuclear medicinetechnologists will limit patient access.

i. Reimbursement for nuclear medicinestudies will be reduced in the future tocut costs.

j. Nuclear medicine science will becomemore integrated in the future.

k. Regional centers of nuclear medicineresearch and development should beestablished in the future.

l. Regional centers of nuclear medicineresearch and development will beestablished in the future.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

What could/should be done to improve workforcerecruiting? Please mark all that apply.

G. ATTITUDES ABOUT NUCLEARMEDICINE

2.

1. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being very easy, pleaserank the ease/difficulty you have experienced insustaining your career in nuclear medicine science.

VERYDIFFICULT

MODERATELYDIFFICULT

1 2 3 4 5

SOMEWHATDIFFICULT

SOMEWHATEASY

VERYEASY

2. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being very easy, pleaseindicate how easy/difficult it will be to sustain yournuclear medicine career in the future.

VERYDIFFICULT

MODERATELYDIFFICULT

1 2 3 4 5

SOMEWHATDIFFICULT

SOMEWHATEASY

VERYEASY

3. Please indicate current issues that impact nuclearmedicine scientists. Please mark all that apply.

What are the key factors needed to sustain yournuclear medicine career in the future?Please mark all that apply.

Continued financial support for my nuclearmedicine research

Continued involvement of my employer in nuclearmedicine research

Relaxation of Federal regulationsContinued reimbursement for nuclear medicine by

Medicare, et alOther. Please describe: _____________________

4.

5. Please indicate how the introduction of molecularimaging science will affect the work of nuclearmedicine scientists. Please mark all that apply.

It will make no differenceIt will require different education and trainingIt will enhance the opportunity for employmentIt will increase the funding available for researchIt will increase the interest of scientists in nuclear

medicineOther. Please describe: ____________________

National PR campaign for NMMore fellowships in nuclear medicine scienceEndowed training grants for nuclear medicine scientistsImproved salaries for nuclear medicine scientistsIncreased support for graduates in NM-related fieldsOther: ______________________________________Other: ______________________________________Other: ______________________________________

Government regulationReimbursement and financial issuesNuclear Regulatory Commission regulationsFDA standards for alternative drug usage/

developmentFDA research protocolsPoor availability of non-standard radionuclidesRestrictions on importation of nuclear materialsLack of appreciation by employers of nuclear

medicine scientistsOther. Please describe: _____________________

Research in the US is significantly restrictedcompared to research in comparable nations

Research in the US is less restricted compared toresearch in comparable nations

Nuclear medicine scientists in the US encountermore significant regulatory barriers to progress innuclear medicine science than scientists in othercountries.

Radionuclides are more accessible to internationalreseachers than to US researchers.

PAGE 5

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263 8. Please identify the institution or city in the US that is

the best existing prototype for nuclear medicinescience emulation elsewhere.

1. Please indicate your future work plans for the next 5years. Please mark all that apply.

H. FUTURE PLANS

I plan to remain in my current positionI plan to seek another job in the same professionI plan to seek another job outside nuclear medicineI plan to leave scientific medicineI plan to leave my clinical position and do researchI plan to leave research for a clinical positionI plan to retireOther: ____________________________________

I. CERTIFICATION & PROFESSIONALASSOCIATIONS

1. Please indicate and describe the certification(s) youcurrently hold. Please mark all that apply.

2. Please indicate the year of your initial certification in anuclear medicine scientific specialty.

4. If you belong to a professional association, please cite your reasons. Please mark all that apply.

Educational opportunities providedOpportunities to meet with my peersAnnual meetingsPublications of the associationOther. Please describe _____________________

5. Please indicate how your professional identity as anuclear medicine scientist is encouraged.Please mark all that apply.Through peer connections at my employerThrough my organizational affiliationsThrough collaborative research in my field of interestThrough publication in peer reviewed journalsThrough mentoring of new professionalsOther. Please describe _______________________

6. Please indicate your most important way ofmaintaining professional currency.Please mark only one.

Academic coursesOther ___________________________________

Journal publications Professional meetingsE-mail/on-line

To what professional associations do you belong?Please mark all that apply.

3.

Please share any concerns you may have about nuclearmedicine science.

J. NARRATIVE

Please share any suggestions you may have about how toimprove the field of nuclear medicine.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

Year

BCNP ______ABHP _______ ABMP _______

BPS _______ABR _______

ABSNM ______Other ________________

PAGE 6

Society of Nuclear MedicineThe Academy of Molecular ImagingSociety of Molecular ImagingSociety of Radiopharmaceutical SciencesThe American Pharmacists AssociationRadiochemistry SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican Association of Physicists in MedicineHealth Physics SocietyAmerican Society of Nuclear CardiologyRadiological Society of North AmericaIEEEOther. Please describe: ___________________Other. Please describe: ___________________Other. Please describe: ___________________

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263

BiochemistryRadiochemistryNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistryOther: __________________________________

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA [SERIAL]

Sections K, L, M, and N that follow contain profession-specific content. Please answer questions in one or moreof the appropriate sections.

1. What is your primary area of sub-specialization inchemisty? Please mark the most appropriate/closestchoice.

1. What is your area of sub-specialization in pharmacy?Please mark the most appropriate/closest choice.

PharmacogeneticsPharmacodynamicsPharmacotherapy

Radiopharmacy - standardRadiopharmacy - PETPharmacokineticsOther: __________________________________

3. Please indicate your primary (please choose onlyone) and secondary (please mark all that apply) areasof research. Radiopharmaceutical development and

testing: standardRadiopharmaceutical development and

testing: PETNew dispensing techniques / modes of

drug deliveryAutomated synthesisRadiopharmaceutical preparation/

formulationRadiopharmaceutical interactionsClinical TrialsMolecular immunologyRadioimmunotherapyOther: ____________________________

SecondaryPrimary

5. Are you an authorized nuclear pharmacist accordingto Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements?

NoYes

To which clinical areas does your work primarilyapply? Please mark one primary area and onesecondary area.

4.

SecondaryPrimaryNeurologyOncologyCardiologyEndocrinologyPediatricsRadiation TherapyOther: ____________________________Other: ____________________________

3. Please indicate your primary (please choose onlyone) and secondary (please mark all that apply) areas of research.

11

99m

90

Radiopharmaceutical development:Organic (e.g., C)

Radiopharmaceutical development:Inorganic (e.g., Tc)

Radiopharmaceutical development:Therapeutic (e.g., Y)

Radionuclide/target developmentNanochemistry/nanoparticlesIsotope productionAutomated synthesisNeurologyOncologyCardiologyClinical trials/applicationsDosimetryOther: ____________________________Other: ____________________________

Primary Secondary

4. To which clinical areas does your work primarilyapply? Please mark one primary area and onesecondary area.

NeurologyOncologyCardiologyEndocrinologyPediatricsRadiation TherapyOther: ____________________________Other: ____________________________

SecondaryPrimary

K. CHEMISTS L. PHARMACISTS

Inorganic chemistryMedicinal chemistryPhysical chemistryAnalytical chemistry

2. Please indicate how much time you spend in clinicalpractice, research, administration, education, andother activities. Please mark only once in each row.

1-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99% 100%

Clinical activitiesResearchAdministrationEducationOther activities

0%

2. Please indicate how much time you spend in clinicalpractice, research, administration, education, andother activities. Please mark only once in each row.

1-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99% 100%

Clinical activitiesResearchAdministrationEducationOther activities

0%

PAGE 7

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263

N. COMPUTER SCIENTISTS /ENGINEERS

1. What is your area of sub-specialization in physics?Please mark the most appropriate/closest choice.

Health PhysicsNuclear Medicine PhysicsManufacturer/EngineeringOther: __________________________________Other: __________________________________

3.

1. Please indicate your primary (please choose onlyone) and secondary (please mark all that apply) areasof interest.

HardwareSoftwareInstrumentationNetworking/PACSImage Analysis and ModelingReconstructionOther: ____________________________Other: ____________________________

SecondaryPrimary

Please indicate your primary (please choose onlyone) and secondary (please mark all that apply) areasof interest.

Radiation Therapy/ Radiation OncologyClinical Image Processing or Data

AnalysisImage ReconstructionInternal DosimetryQuality AssuranceDeveloping Radiation InstrumentationClinical TrialsOther. Please describe: ______________

SecondaryPrimary

5. Are you the radiation safety officer for your primaryemployer?

6. Are you an authorized medical physicist according toNuclear Regulatory Commission requirements?

NoYes

NoYes

M. PHYSICISTS

2. Please indicate how much time you spend in clinicalpractice, research, administration, education, andother activities. Please mark only once in each row.

To which clinical areas does your work primarilyapply? Please mark one primary area and onesecondary area.

4.

SecondaryNeurologyOncologyCardiologyEndocrinologyPediatricsRadiation TherapyOther: ____________________________Other: ____________________________

Primary

1-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99% 100%

Clinical activitiesResearchAdministrationEducationOther activities

0%

NeurologyOncologyCardiologyEndocrinologyPediatricsRadiation TherapyOther: ____________________________Other: ____________________________

SecondaryPrimary

To which clinical areas does your work primarilyapply? Please mark one primary area and onesecondary area.

3.

2. Please indicate how much time you spend in clinicalpractice, research, administration, education, andother activities. Please mark only once in each row.

1-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99% 100%

Clinical activitiesResearchAdministrationEducationOther activities

0%

Thank You for Completing this Survey!

Please send the completed questionnaire in thepre-addressed, postage paid envelope included with this

packet to

Center for Health Workforce StudiesSchool of Public Health, University at Albany

7 University Place, Room B334Rensselaer, NY 12144-3458

(518) 402-0250

PAGE 8

145

Appendix B. Responses to Open-Ended Questions by Nuclear Medicine Scientists

This appendix contains a verbatim transcription of the “other” responses to various questions and to the narrative questions on the 2006 Nuclear Medicine Scientist survey questionnaire. These responses were an important way to learn about the variety of choices of nuclear medicine scientists and their professional paths in their scientific careers. An effort was made to cluster identical responses to the different questions. Responses are presented in alphabetical order for different numbers of cases.

146

Question A.3. Place of Birth (Other Nation): China (45) India (37) Canada (19) Germany (9) Bangladesh (5) Belgium (5) Argentina (3) Hong Kong (3) Egypt (2) England (2) Egypt (2) Hungary (2) Bosnia Bulgaria Cambodia Columbia Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Europe Egypt France Greece

Question A.4. Please indicate your race/ethnicity: Human (2) Mixed (2) Persian (2) Arabic/Berber Asian American Asian-White Asian/Indian Caucasian East Asian East Indian Guess Indian Iranian-American Irish South Asian Turkish Cypriot

Question B.1. Please indicate your most advanced degree. (If you have dual professional degrees, please indicate by marking both):

Sci D (6) BCNP (3) MBA (3) JD Degree (2) ABNM BSPH, MSPH Cand. Pharm (Norway) Certification X-Ray DVM

147

DEE EdD Electrical Engin German Diploma LMP LLB-Law / Patent Attorney Medical Physics MPH Pharmacy Postgraduate Studies Registered Pharmacist Residency - Nuclear Pharmacy

Question B.2. Please indicate the academic discipline in which you were awarded a bachelor’s degree. (If you have dual professional degrees, please indicate by marking both):

Mathematics (24) Medical Physics (6) Nuclear Medicine (6) Nuclear Medicine Technology (6) Biochemistry (5) Pre-Medicine (5) Zoology (4) Business / Business Administration / MBA (3) Health Sciences (3) History (3) Radiologic Science (3) Radiologic Technology (3) Agriculture (2) Anthropology (2) Environmental Science (2) Health Physics (2) Life Science (2) Psychology (2) Radiation Science (2) Radiological Health / Radiological Health Sciences (2) 6 Year Medical School Allied Health Allied Health Education Anatomy Animal Science ART Bacteriology Basic Sciences Biodensity, Biophysics Biomedical Science-Radiology Chemistry and Pharmacy College Scholar Education -Physics Minor Environmental Health/Health Physics Genetics Geophysics German BA Graduate School Fair Humanities MBBS

148

Medical Biophysics Medical Technology Medicine Medicine and Surgery Metallurgy Molecular and Cancer Biology Molecular Biology and Biophysics N/A according to Russian education system No BA No bachelor's only doctorate None Nuclear Medicine Technology BS Optical Science Pharm Chemistry Pharmacology Philosophy Physics and Math Pre-med Public Health Radiologic Health Physics Radiological Physics Reactor Physics Russian Language Science Statistics

Question B.3. Please indicate the academic area in which you obtained your most advanced degree. Please mark all that apply:

Physics (35) Biophysics (19) Biomedical Engineering (14) Biochemistry (9) Biology (7) Business (6) Bioengineering (5) Electrical Engineering (5) Radiation Biology (5) Solid State Physics (5) Environmental Health (4) MBA (4) Biochemistry and Biophysics (3) Chemical Engineering (3) Physiology (3) Applied Science (2) Astrophysics (2) Atomic Physics (2) Bionucleonics (2) Business Administration (2) Education (2) Engineering (2) High Energy Physics (2) Immunology (2) Particle Physics (2) Pharmacology (2) Radiation Biophysics (2)

149

Radiation Science (2) Radiochemistry (2) Theoretical Physics (2) ABNM Accelerator based atomic physics Accelerator Physics Administrative Studies Allied Health Applied Biological Chemistry Applied Mathematics Applied Physics Bio Med Eng Bio Med Sciences Biological Physics Biology and Radiation Biology and Biomedical Science Biomedical Physics Biomedical Sciences Biophysical Sciences Biophysics / med physics Biostatistics and radiation health Biotechnology Biology Business (MBA) Cell Biology Chemical physics Chemistry Comparative Literature Condensed matter physics Earth Sciences Electronics Engineering Physics Engineering Science Engineering-Applied Science Environmental Biology Environmental Science and Engineering Experimental High Energy Physics Finance Health Sciences Health Service Administration Healthcare Administration History Law Low Temperature Physics Math; Physics; Technical Education. Mathematics MD Medical Biophysics Medical Engineering Medical sciences Medicinal Chemistry Metallurgy Microbiology Molecular Physics Neurobiology Neurochemistry, In vitro research, In vivo behavioral research Neuropharmacology

150

Neuroscience Nuclear chemistry Nuclear Physics Optical Sciences Optics Pharmacology/Biophysics Physics (3 MS degrees) Plasma Physics Preventive Medicine Psychology Radiation Biology and Biophysics Radiation Physics Radio/Nuclear Chemistry Radiologic Science Radiological Sciences Radiology Technology Safety Sciences Statistics

Question B.5. Do you expect to pursue further academic education in the next five years?

B.5a. If yes, at what level are you expecting to pursue a further degree? MBA (9) D Sci (2) ABR Academic Interest topics non degree Areas of Interests; not necessary aiming for a specific degree Bachelor’s Business Certificate Certification in Medical Physics Consulting Continuing education courses DrPH Fellowship Graduate studies Hobby/Interest I am studying German but not expecting to obtain a degree. Mathematics Modelers Postdoc Radiochemist Take courses

B.5b. If yes, in what area of academic discipline do you expect to pursue that degree?

Business (6) MBA (5) Business Administration (2) Health Care Administration / Health Administration (2) Astronomy Bioengineering (Imaging) Divinity Engineering Systems Epidemiology Finance

151

Health Science Health Sciences Leadership Hospital Administration Law Management Medical Informatics Molecular and Medical Pharmacology Molecular, Cellular, Integrative Physiology Neuroscience Nuclear Medicine Nuclear target isotope PET/CT Public Health or Health Administration Quantum Chemistry Rad therapy Radiology Regulatory Affairs Required continuing education - no degree Several non-medical areas Statistics To be decided

Question C.2. Please indicate how you initially became interested in the field of nuclear medicine science. Please mark all that apply:

Job Opportunities (2) Ad for a job AF experience After 10 years of teaching academic physics at University, a job offer As a regulator employee with the New York State Department of Health As application for materials I dealt with As sabbatical At work Book C and E news and job offer College College catalog College Open House Conference presentation Consulting Medical Physicist Course in Medical Physics During internal medicine residency During rotation During volunteer work Elective in Pathology Residency Employment Family member has testing done, caught interest. Family member- Treatment Father died of cancer. Father is Radiologist Father was a patient and I spoke to staff From my work From teaching health physics at the graduate level, from training radiologists and … Graduate studies Had a friend who worked in nuclear medicine. Hospital visit

152

I don't know, I'm a PhD Student Inherited Duties as RSO Instrument Development Jimmy Carter stopped nuclear power Job ad in newspaper Job offer Later during career Learned about from family friend Learned about it from my wife Liked nuclear physics Luck Med. Chemistry background Mother worked in hospital My wife NM Residency Not in nuclear medicine On campus recruiting On the job, corporate expansion Parent Part of radiology residency Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy AEC Personal Contact Pharmacy Careers Book Pharmacy recruiter PharmD case study Physician/relative Position available in newspaper Radiology Residency Radiology residency Radiology Residency, Part of Residency Reading books Research Research Opportunity Research Project Residency ROTC RSO Responsibilities School placement Secretarial work Seminar at nuclear med department Seminars Text book To pursue research Want Ad While practicing as a medical health physicist While working after undergraduate Word of mouth

Question C.6. Was nuclear medicine science your first career choice? C.6a. If no, please indicate your previous career. Previous field:

Pharmacy (44) Health Physics (25) Physics (22) Medical Physics (20) Chemistry (17)

153

Radiation Therapy (16) Hospital Pharmacy (15) Engineering (14) Nuclear Physics (13) Radiation Oncology (13) Medicine (10) Internal Medicine (9) Organic Chemistry (9) Radiology (8) Electrical Engineering (7) Nuclear Engineering (7) Biochemistry (6) Education (6) Radiological Physics (6) Teaching Physics (6) Therapy Physics (6) Chemical Engineering (5) High Energy Physics (5) Molecular Biology (5) Physicist (5) Radiation Oncology Physicist (5) Teaching (5) Medicinal Chemistry (4) Neurology (4) Nuclear Chemistry (4) Physics Teacher (4) Radiation Biology (4) Radiochemistry (4) Retail Pharmacy (4) Solid state Physics (4) Academic Physics (3) Biophysics (3) Inorganic Chemistry (3) Nuclear Engineer (3) Nuclear Power / Nuclear Power HP / Nuclear Power Plant Engineering (3) Pediatrics (3) Plasma Physics (3) Radiation Therapy Physics (3) Synthesis/Synthetic Chemistry (3) X-Ray Technologist (3) Academics / Academic Research (2) Analytical Chemistry (2) Astrophysics (2) Bio Chemistry / Biochemist (2) Biology (2) Biomedical Engineering (2) Cardiology (2) Chemistry Teacher (2) Clinical Pharmacy (2) Diagnostic X-Ray (2) Diagnostic Radiology (2) Electronics (2) Environmental science (2) Geophysics Petroleum Exploration (2) Hospital Pharmacist (2) Marine Biology (2)

154

Mathematics (2) Mechanical Engineering (2) Medical Chemistry (2) MRI (2) Music (2) Nuclear Physicist (2) Organic Chemistry Researcher (2) Pathology (2) Pharmaceutical Development (2) Pharmacology (2) Physical Therapy (2) Physics Basic Science (2) Pre Med/Medical School (2) Public Health (2) Radiation Physics (2) Radiation Safety (2) Radiologic Technology (2) Student (2) Theoretical Physics (2) Therapeutic Medical Physics (2) University Physics / University Physics Professor (2) X-Ray imaging / X-Ray imaging science (2) Acute care (hospital) pharmacy Aeronautical engineering Aerospace Engineering Ambulatory Pharmacy Analytical and Polymer Analytical Radiochemistry Archeology Art. Engineer Atmospheric Physics Atomic physics Behavioral Pharmacy Bench Chemist Bio Med Scientist Bio-Analytical Chemistry Biochemical Analysis Biology Research Biomedical Devices not related to nuclear medicine Biopharmaceuticals BSN (Nursing) Cancer Research Cardiovascular pharmacology Chain Pharmacist (Retail) Chemical Pathology Chemistry / Teaching Chemistry Professor Civil Engineering Clinical Lab Research Community Pharmacy Computer Science Computer Simulation of Defense Systems Condensed Matter Physics Critical Care Pharmacy Cyclotron Technical Defense Ministry

155

Detector Physics Detector Science Diagnostic Imaging Drafting Drug Development Drug development and discovery Drug Discovery Drug Information Earth Sciences Ecology Education-High School Electro Chemistry Electronics Design Elementary Physics research Engineer Environmental Biology Exercise Science Exp. Nuclear Physics Experimental Nuclear Physics Experimental Nuclear Physics Family Practice Food Service General General Pharmacy General Physics General Relativity Geophysics Graphic Arts High school Math Teacher High School Teacher Hospital / Retail Pharmacy I am a diagnostic radiologist. Ichthyology, Limnology Image Guided Surgery Imaging Industrial Hygiene Industry, academia, DOD Industry-analytical organic chemist Instructor Internal Medicine and Cardiology Lab tech, Mol Bio Linac Technology Loan Financing Manager of Credit Bureau (Parent's Business) MD MD and Nuclear Medicine Combined Medical Imaging Medical Oncology Medical Physics - Diagnostic and Therapeutic Medical Physics and current Medical Physics Radiation Imaging Medical Physics - Therapy Metallurgical Engineering Metallurgy and Material Science Microbiologist Military

156

Molecular Biophysics My field is mostly X-Ray CT not Nuclear Natural products synthesis Naval Officer - Active Duty NCRP/ICRU Neighborhood Pharmacy Nephrology Neuropathology Neuroscience Neurosurgery No previous field, just not my first choice Nuclear Astrophysics Nuclear Engineering Radiation Safety Nuclear Medicine Technology Nuclear Medicine Technology Nuclear Physicist, full Professor. Nuclear Physics and Astronomy, Radiation Safety Nuclear Physics Engineering Nuclear Science Nuclear Science Physics Nuclear Structure Physics Nursing Nursing home consultant OB-GYN Oceanography Oncology Research Oncology/X-ray Optical Imaging (OCT Research) Organic Chemistry/Pharmaceutical Chemistry Organic syntheses Orthopedics Particle Physics Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Research Pharmacist Pharmacokinetics Pharmacology-new drug Pharmacy research Physical Chemistry Physics- atmospheric Physics Lab Assistant Physics Major Physics Particle Physics Teacher, College Physics Teacher, High School Physics, Imaging Process Physics/Chemistry Physics/Electronic Engineering Physics/Optics Physics/Thermal/Medical Applications Physiology, Radiation Therapy Physics Plain Pharmacy Pre-Med/ Health Phys Professional Football QC Chemist Quantum Optics

157

Research and Development Rad Oncology Physics Radar Engineering Radiation (X-Ray / Oncology) Radiation Chemistry Radiation Medical Physics Radiation Therapy Radiobiology Radiochemical synthesis and analysis Radiologic Physics Radiologic Science Radiological Health Physics Radiological Imaging Radiology Education Radiology Engineering Regular Pharmacy Relativistic Heavy Ion Physics Research in Solid State Physics Research, Chemistry Retail Retail Pharmacy/Sales Rock climbing/Skiing Instructor Rocket Engineering RSO Secondary Education Software Engineering Space Radiation Physics Statistician/Technology Consulting Surgery Talbot Seminary Teaching chemistry Teaching of College Physics Technical physics Theoretical Nuclear Physics Theoretical Physics, Mathematics Therapeutic Radiological Physics Therapy Physics Traditional Pharmacy Tumor Immunology U.S. Marine Corps Ultrasound University Instructor Urology U.S. Army USAF Veterinary Medicine X-Ray-Crystallography

Question D.1. Do you currently work in nuclear medicine science?

D.1a. If yes, in what settings do you currently work? Please identify the most appropriate primary work setting where you work the most hours and one secondary setting, if applicable. Please mark only once in each column.

Primary: Government (3) Free Standing Oncology Center (2)

158

Regulatory (2) Cancer Center Corporation Dept of Defense Federal Government Federal Government/FDA Free Standing Radiation Therapy Government Lab National Lab. PET PET Manufacturing Retired Throughout Texas VAMC

Secondary:

Cyclotron Day Trader Reactor Retail Pharmacy Society Committee Stable Isotope Supplier

Question D.5. Are there other nuclear medicine scientists employed in the facility where you primarily work? D.5a. If yes, what is their primary area of interest? Please mark all that apply:

Biology Clinical (7) Medicine (7) Physicians (6) Health Physics (4) Nuclear Medicine (4) Patient Care (4) Radiation Safety (4) Technologists (4) Medical Physics (3) Molecular Imaging (3) Pharmacology (3) Regulatory (3) All above / All of the above (2) Clinical Medicine (2) Clinical Nuclear Medicine (2) Medical (2) Positron Emission Tomography/ PET (2) Radiation Oncology (2) Radiopharmacy (2) Academics Antibody Conjugates Biology/Biochemistry Brain Modeling in PET Business Clinical Nuclear Med Clinical Applications Clinical Medical Physics CNMT

159

CT, Mammography, VIS, MRI Cyclotron operators, Statisticians, Modelers Cyclotron Engineer Dosimetry Electro-mechanical Design Health Physics/ Radiation Safety Imaging Imaging "Targeting" Imaging, Therapy Interpretation Medical Doctors Medical Research Medicine, Psychiatry Medicine/Radiology Modeling Molecular Biologist Molecular Imaging and Therapy Nanotechnology Neurology, psychiatry, oncology, cardiology Neurosciences Nuclear Med Techs Nuclear engineering Nuclear medicine research Patient diagnosis PET/CT Pharmacy Physics Preclinical studies Product development and quality control Radiation Safety Radiation Biology Radiation Oncology Physics Radiation Therapy Radiobiology Radiologist Radiology Radiotherapy Radiation Therapy Reconstruction Regulation Research RSO Safety Scanners Several of these areas Software Development Therapy Tracer Kinetic Modeling

Question D.6. Please describe your department in your primary workplace. Please mark the most appropriate description:

Radiation Oncology (44) Radiation Therapy (9) Radiation Safety (8) Consulting (7)

160

Medical Physics (6) Radiation Oncology (4) Radiation Oncology Department (4) Consultant (3) Government (3) Chemistry (2) Clinical research (2) Consultant to Various Nuc Med Departments (2) Consulting Firm (2) Consulting Group (2) Consulting Physics (2) Health Physics Consulting (2) Home Office (2) Imaging Physics (2) Medical Physics Consulting Firm (2) Oncology (2) Pharmacy (2) Physics (2) R & D (2) Radiation Therapy (2) Radiation Physics (2) Radiation Safety Officer (2) Regulatory (2) Academic Dept. Academic Teaching Cancer center Cardiology Cardiology Division Consultant to above Consultant to whole facility Consultants for Medical Physics Consulting Co Consulting Company Consulting HQ Consulting Physics group Consulting self-employed Consulting to nuclear medicine department Consulting with clients Corporate office Cardinal Health Corporate Quality Corporate Services CRO Drug safety/Quality EHTS Engineering FDA Federal Research Lab Government - Regulatory Government Lab Home Imaging and Radiation Biology Inpatient pharmacy Medical Health Physics Medicine Molecular Imaging National Lab

161

Nuclear Medicine Consulting Nuclear Medicine in Internal Medicine Oncology at present Oncology Center Outpatient Cancer Center Outpatient PET/CT PET facility, Licensed Nuclear Pharmacy Pharmaceutical mfg Physics Consulting Physics Department Physics Dept. Product development and quality control- infection imaging agent Production Psychiatry Psychiatry Department Radiation Oncology Dept Hospital Radiation Medicine Radiation Oncology Center Radiation Oncology/therapy Radiation Physics Consulting Radio Therapy Department Radiochemistry Radiology Research Division Radiopharmacist in Nuclear Medicine Dept Radiotherapy Regulatory and Quality Affairs RSO Self-employed consultant Software Development Tech Education Teleradiology facility The Cancer Center Therapeutic Oncology Center

Question D.7. Do you work in a department that provided clinical nuclear medicine services?

D.7a. If yes, do you provide any of the following services? Please mark all that apply: Research (6) QA / Question A. Testing / QA Reviews / QA and Regulatory Compliance (5) Teaching (4) Clinical / Clinical Activities / Clinical Services (3) RSO (3) Treatment / Treatment Planning (3) All of the above / All above (2) Dosimetry (2) Management (2) Regulatory (2) Accreditation Business owner Clinical Quality Assurance Clinical work, Patient care Data analysis Developmental Dose Calculation Dosimetry, Computer Services

162

Drug development Education Education techs and residents GLP Radiopharmaceutical QA I read studies Instrument R & D Internal Dosimetry Management, QC Program Medical Physics Services N/A Do not participate in clinical services NM Tech Teaching None PACS Patient Care Patient dose Physician Reads Radiation Oncology Radiation Use Committee/ IRAT Consultant Radio-Nuclear Therapy Radionuclide Rx Range of Nuclear Medicine Studies Reg. Compliance Regulatory Compliance Research Director Resident teaching RIA Lab Software development Therapeutic Administration

Question D.8. Do you work in nuclear medicine R & D? D.8a. If yes, please describe the organization in which you work:

National Laboratory (5) Consulting (2) Research Institute (2) Academic Med Center Community Hospital Consultant FDA Hospital Hospital/Medical Center Industry Non-profit research institute Private Non Profit Medical Center Radio pharmacy Research Center - private - non-profit

D.8b. If yes, please indicate your area of interest. Please mark all that apply: Clinical (4) Dosimetry (3) Image processing (2) Instrumentation (2) Radiation Oncology (2) Software / Software Dev (2) 3D Imaging Applications in oncology imaging

163

Clinical applications Clinical neuroscience Clinical Oncology Clinical research Computer applications Consulting Data processing Drug Development Imaging Science Instrumentation Development Internal Dosimetry Isotope Production Metabolism Molecular Modeling Multi modality imaging Patient Dosimetry PET Pharmacokinetics Pharmacology Pre-clinical Quality and Assurance Radiation Therapy Radiopharmacy Radiopharmacy research Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Safety Tech Assessment

Question D.9. What are primary sources of revenue that support your work? Please mark all that apply and indicate agency/organization that provides funding:

Federal Grants Corporate Grants Administrative Support Other Inst Support

NIH (75) GE (2) Consulting (2) Clinical Service (4)

DOE, NIH (18) GE Healthcare (2) None (2) Institutional support- Teaching (3)

NCI (10) GE, Siemens (2) Patient Care (2) Anazao Health

NIH, NCI (9) BMS ACR Accreditation Clinical PET Imaging

NIH, DOD (6) Clinical Trials All of the Above Corporate overhead

NIH, DOE, DOD (3) Corp contract- Biotech Companies Clinical Hospital salary

DOE (2) Corp Contract- PETNET Corp Clinical Physics Institutional Support- Lilly

N/A (2) Corp grant- clinical trials Consultant to architects/builders Johns Hopkins

VA (2) Corp grant/funding- Pharmaceutical Educate. Residents Salaried Staff

2% salary from MH/NU Corporate- Several Educating Fellows State of NY

ACRIN Corporate-GE/Philips Educating Graduate students UAMS

BMS-MI COVANCE Educating students in chemistry/radiochemistry UNIV WIS

Business CRADA'S Equipment Purchase, Faculty Recruitment UPENN Training Grant

Community Pharmacy Drug companies Grant Support

164

Department of Defense GE Internal Owner

Dept of Homeland Security Genzyme Radiologist

DOE, NCI GPO contracts Radiopharmacy/Sales

FDA GSK Regulatory compliance

FDA, NIH HGS Resident Training

FIPSE Grant IBA RSO

ICMIC Mallinckrodt Section Head

Intramural Mallinckrodt, Amersham Teaching

NCI, DOD Multiple corporate grants or contracts Vice Chair (Research)

NCI, NIBIB Pfizer

NHLBI Pharmaceutical Company

NIAAA Philip Morris, Inc. USA

NIC, NCI Phillips

NIDA/ NIAAA Private

NIH - ARMY Private funds

NIH PO 1

NIH, DOE, NCI

NIH, DOE, NSF

NIH, NIMH, DOE

NIH, SBIR

NIH, VA

NIM/NCI

NIMH

Product sales

Profits

Prostate SPORE

Salary

SBIR

SBIR/NIH Student research assistantship

VA Med Centers

Other Salary (7) Clinical Services (6) Fee for Service (6) Hospital (6) Sales (6) Patient Billing (4) Patient care (4) Clinical (3) Consulting Fees (3) Consulting (3)

165

Corporation (3) Government (3) Hospitals/clinics / Hospital Outpatient Clinics (3) Clinical funds (2) Clinical reimbursement (2) HMO (2) Hospital salary (2) Internal Funding (2) Manufacturer (2) Pharmaceutical sales (2) Private (2) Private Company (2) Private Corporation (2) Radiopharmaceutical Sales (2) Retail / Retail Sales (2) Sale of Radiopharmaceuticals (2) 1) Hospital Nuclear Medicine Department 2) Cardiac Clinics Academic Administrative Bill for Radiopharmaceuticals Billing Business Revenue Canadian Funding Charge for services provided Charge back account for Cyclotron Services Client facilities Clinic Clinical Practice Clinical Service Center Clinical service, teaching Clinical work Commercial Business Commercial Consulting Commercial distribution Commercial radiopharmacy Commercial sales of goods and services Company funds/budget Company product sales Company revenue Consultant Fees Consultation Contracted Services Contracts Corp for profit Corporate Budget Corporate Company Cardinal Health Corporate Division Corporate funding Corporate Payroll Corporate Salary Corporate Sales Corporation and sales Corporation owned CRS Customers Dana Foundation

166

Departmental Funds Departmental support Direct Billing Donors Dose Service Employer Employment Fed Budget (Tax payers $) Fed Government Federal Grant- NIH Federal Salary Fee for service to hospitals and radiology offices Fees For Profit Nuclear Pharmacy For Profit Radiopharmacy Freelance consultant Gov contracts- DOE and DOD Gov Salary Government Agency Hospital Contracts Hospital employed I don't understand the options. There is no choice for simple insurance reimbursements. I only get paid a salary from my employer. I'm a consultant paid by the institutions, doctors' offices, etc. Imaging Centers Institute Insurance company Investors LA Gene Therapy Consortium Licensing fees Medical Practice Reimbursement Military Multiple hospital contracts NIH Fellow NIH Intramural No research anymore Not allowed to discuss Not Applicable NRSA (NCI) Nuc Med Physicist Nuclear Pharmacy Revenue Oklahoma Tech grant Operational Budget Patient fees Patient payments Patient Revenue Patient Services Patient treatments Patients Payment from Hospitals Payroll PET Scanning Pharma Co. Pharmacy Sales Private business/ownership Private grant or contract

167

Private Practice Product Development Product sales Products and Services Provincial Funding Pt. Care funds R & D Budget Radiology Practice Radiopharmacy products and services Recharges Research and Development Funds Retirement activities Revenue Revenue from radiopharmaceutical doses Revenues from sales Royalties Salaried Employee Salary as a clinician Salary by Employer Salary Employee Salary-Siemens Sale of Pharmaceuticals Sales income Sales of radiopharmaceuticals School of Medicine Self-supported Selling unit dose to institutions Service to PET facility Services Rendered Software Royalties Software Sales State - Audited charge - Back account for cyclotron operation State Advanced Research Program State Grant State grant (MEDC) Taxpayers Teaching Teaching – University of Tennessee Tuition Unfunded Research University - Teaching and Research USVA Various Vendor Venture capital We are a pharmacy that charges hospitals and clinics.

D.9a. Please indicate the proportion of support for your work obtained from each source. Please mark all that apply: Hospital (8) Sales (7) Salary (6) Private Corporation (4) Clinical Services (3) Consulting (3)

168

Consulting Fees (3) Corporate Budget / Corporate Revenue / Sales (3) Federal Government / Federal Budget (3) Royalties (3) Clinical (2) Clinical Funds / Reimbursement (2) Commercial (2) Company (2) Corporation (2) Employer / Employment (2) Fee for service (2) Government (2) HMO (2) Institute Employee / Institute Salary (2) PET / PET program (2) Pharmaceutical Sales (2) Private Company (2) Academic Bill for radiopharmaceuticals Billings Charge back to operating account Client Clinical activities Clinical and research study revenue Commercial radiopharmacy Commercial sales Consulting Firm Consulting medical physics Contract Corporate division Corporate HR Corporation owned Customers Cyclotron operation Dept of Defense Direct billing Donors FDA Fees Freelance consultant Hospital payments Institutional Funds Internal Funding Investor Funding Investors Licensing Manufacture Military NIH Intramural No comment Not Applicable Nuclear Pharmacy Revenue OEM Vendors Patient billing Patient care Patient Payments

169

Patient reimbursement Patient Revenue Pharmacy Dispensing Practice Private Private Funds Product sales Products/services Profit Revenue Radiation Oncology Radiology Practice Radiopharmaceuticals Radiopharmacy products and services Recharges RP sales Sale of radiopharmaceuticals Sales income Self support Self/revenue Siemens Stable Isotope sales State State, NY Tenure Salary Tuition USVA Vendor Venture Capital

Question D.10. Please indicate your major tasks and roles in your primary setting. Please mark one primary and all that apply in secondary:

Basic Research Applied Research Clinical (9) None (5) Radiation Oncology (9) Clinical (2) Dosimetry (8) Health Physics (2) Dispensing (7) N/A (2) Radiation Safety (6) Radiopharmacy (2) Medical Physics (5) ADME/PK PET / PET Clinical / PET Dispensing (4) All of the Above Physics (4) Automation of Chemistry Health Physics (3) Brain PET Imaging Patient Care (3) Calibration Radiopharmacy (3) Clinical Application Regulatory Affairs (3) Clinical research Clinical Physics (2) Clinical Trials Clinical Services (2) Hospital Data analysis (2) In vivo Data Analysis Image Analysis (2) Inspection None / Not Applicable (2) New isotopes Physicist (2) New Therapy Radiopharmaceutical Preparation (2) Not Applicable

170

Sales and Marketing / Sales Support (2) Optical detection Software / Software Development (2) Owner Administration Patient Care Algorithm development Pharmacy All of the Above Physics service Analytical Chemistry LC-MS Quality control Animal Model Development Radiation physics Automated Chemistry Radiation Safety Bone Densitometry Regulatory Affairs Cancer imaging System design Central Radiopharmacy Treating patients Clinic Treatment Planning Clinical medical physics Treatment Techniques Clinical monitor Tumor metrics/Image quality Clinical neurology Clinical Nuclear Medicine Clinical Pharmacology Pharmacokinetics Clinical Protocols Clinical service, teaching Clinical Therapy Coding/Dispensing Compliance Compounding and Dispensing of Radiopharmaceuticals

Compounding Radiopharmaceuticals Computer processing Consulting CT Develop kinetic modeling methodology Director of Pharmacy Distribution Dose Calculation, Calibration and Dosimetry Drug Production FDC production H + M Physics Human Psychiatric Research IGRT Image/Data Analysis Imaging applications in oncology In vitro In vitro Imaging In vivo Imaging In vivo research Inpatient pharmacy Inspection Instrumentation Lab Director Mammography Physics

171

Manager Med. Health Physics Medical Health Physics Medical Physics, Radiation Safety. Safety Medicine MICROPET Modeling Molecular imaging Monitoring Field Multi modality imaging Nanotechnology Nuclear Cardiology Oversight Owner Patient Services PET radiopharmaceutical mfg PET/SPECT human research Pharmacy Physics Support Physiology Principal Investigator Human Research Studies

Production Question A. Testing QA Compliances QC of research on radiochemicals Quality Assurance Quality control Radiation physics Radiation. Oncology., RSO Radiation Oncology Physics Radiation Safety Radiation safety licensing Radiation Therapy Radiochemistry Radiopharma Radiopharmaceutical Compounding Radiopharmaceutical Dispensing Radiopharmacy, Management of Compounding

Radiotherapy Research Research Protocols RPN Safety Service Small animal scanning SPECT

172

Target R&D Teach, Research Teaching Teaching NMT students Technical supervising Therapy Treatment planning for cancer patients Unit Dose USAF Policy Writing

Technical Support Administrative Support Consulting (3) Consulting (2) QA (3) None (2) Medical Physics (2) Patient Care (2) Radiation Oncology (2) ACR Accreditation Analysis All of the Above Animal Studies Clinical Applications development Clinical Physics Clinical Consultant to architects/builders Computer Networking Educate. Residents Dose Calculation and Dosimetry Educating Fellows Drug safety/quality Educating Graduate students Facility design Teaching in chemistry/radiochemistry Fixing bugs Equipment Purchase, Faculty Recruitment Health Physics Grant Support Hospital Owner ICANL and ACR Accreditation Radiologist Image Processing Radiopharmacy/Sales Image Registration Fusion Regulatory compliance Inspection Resident Training Internal Dosimetry RSO Kinetic Modeling Section Head Networking Teaching None Vice Chair (Research) Nuclear Cardiology Owner Patient Care Problem Solving Product support Purchase specification/acceptance testing QA/QC Quality Assurance Quality Control of Equipment Radiation Therapy Radiation treatment

173

Sales/Management Shipping Radiopharmaceuticals SPECT Teaching Therapy

Question E.2. Please describe salaries for professionals in nuclear medicine science. Please mark all that apply:

Do not know/ No Idea/ No Knowledge/ Unknown (8) No Opinion (3) No comment / Can't comment (2) Not applicable (2) As it applies to Pharmacy - retail salary much higher than nuclear Better money in retail Current shortage and pending licensure in NY State will (probably) increase salaries. Don't know what their salaries are Familiar with medical physics with small percent of time covering nuclear medicine Federal salaries are not competitive. From sales of 0-18 water Graduate Student, I couldn't say I am U.S. Army- I have no current frame of reference. I do not know. Plus as a medical physicist, I work with many other imaging modalities besides nuclear medicine I have no idea how we compare. I only know about consulting fees. I would be part time if NM were my sole source of income I'm 80% Limited knowledge, can't answer. Low teaching salaries for NM scientists discourage new professionals from entering teaching of NM science More NIH training grants. Most of my salary is from diagnostic medical physics, not nuclear medicine Most of my work is in radiation oncology My time spent in nuclear medicine is only 10-15% of my total institutional effort NM Medical therapists are not paid as well as therapy physicists NM only part of work. Salary is total for all areas. NM professionals simply outnumbered by other, e.g. radiologists. NM salary support is lower than other medical physics, not 100% NM employed Not competitive considering work schedule / limited locations (generally required to live within 30 min) Not sure. Not sure. It's a small part of my work. Nuclear pharmacy often underpaid compared to retail pharmacy. In near future this will pull RPhs away from nuclear. Physicist and CNMT Positions do not generate revenue. Positions limited since it is a cost with no revenue. Risk does not equal reward RVU values do not reflect the effort that goes in to interpretation of nuclear medicine studies particularly in the …., Do the math. I spend lots of overtime for free. Salaries competitive w/ R & D Industry Salaries for Rad Oncology physicians are competitive Salaries in NMS are better then most physics positions. Salaries in nuclear medicine are not competitive with salaries in radiation therapy.

174

Salaries may be competitive but hours are too long for pay. Difficult to retain employees. Salary not high but there are other benefits. Salaries vary widely from place to place. Software development Some hospitals provide less than market salary.

Question F.1. Are you currently recruiting or have you recently recruited new scientists to nuclear medicine? F.1a. If yes, please describe your preference. Please mark all that apply:

New graduates (7) Pharmacy Students (7) Pharmacists (3) Pharm D (3) Pharm D Students (3) Whoever I can get (2) BS scientist Cardiologists Clinical NMTs College grads Completed postdoc Depends on job opening/description Engineering Graduate Students I recruit experienced and new pharmacists I train! Intern MS Entry Level MS New Grad Desirable MS Students Master's Graduates N/A New pharmacy graduates New Pharm D's for residency programs New PhD Graduates Nuclear pharmacist NYS Licensed Other Pharmacists Pharmacists and Pharmacy Students Pharmacy Interns Radiochemist Technologist Recent grads Recent MS Recruit BS chemists Recruit college grads Residents Take what you can get Technical Undergrad research projects Undergrad students Undergraduates We develop our own

175

Question F.2. What could/should be done to improve workforce recruiting? Please mark all that apply:

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3 "Normalized" hours Ability to obtain hospital privileges Humane treatment from corporation

Advance NM Science Better recognition for NM board certification like ABR, ABSNM

Publish example radiation safety reports and typical charges/fees

Basic undergrad, grad courses in radioisotope use and detention College visits to spur interest

Better (more) graduate programs Combine video camera with Nuc. Detector

Better connection between new graduates and potential employers

More nuclear medicine science internships

Better employment opportunities. Offer classes in all pharmacy schools

Better federal funding of research Quality of life benefits

Better PR for nuclear technology Restoration of DOE program

Better recognition for NM physicists Staff hourly pay salary

Colleges must offer more Radio-pharm progs Student Loans

Connect more with medical physics programs Work with AAPM

Continuing education opportunities

Diversify nuclear medicine training

Expand federal research dollars Formal education programs, graduate level

Funding for Graduate Students in NM Physics

Graduating pharmacy student I don't know Ice cream social? Improve academic training of people interested in nuclear medicine science

Improve job satisfaction is important

Improve salaries for academic researchers

Improve salary in certain hospitals Improved funding for NM grants

176

Improved working conditions Incentives for rural areas Increase pay at academic sites Increase need for jobs Increase opportunities

Increase University involvement in nuclear pharmacy

Increase visibility in pharm schools Increased employer presence at NM Schools

Increased job opportunities Increased nuclear pharmacy PR Increased research funding Increased status Increased support for PhD students (not for MD students)

Intro at high school level Intro earlier in science curricula Jobs Jobs, very few jobs for scientists Make ABNM more competitive

Molecular imaging training geared toward NM in universities

More academic programs More auxiliary staffing More BS Nuclear Medicine Progs More clearly define the role More clinical investment More company More employment opportunities More federal research funding More grant support More info in pharmacy school More Internship for students More job openings More nuclear classes for pharmacy students

More recognition from the American Chemical Society

More research facilities More schools offering nuclear pharm

More secure terms of employment

More support in pharmacy schools More training for radiochemists New useful applications

177

NIH funding NM department separate from radiology

Office near Nuc. Med.

Promotion of NM in pharm schools

Radiopharmacy as elective

Recruit at high school level Recruiting at undergrad and grad levels

Reduce workload Regulatory requirement for boards Require physics support for accreditation

Required courses in pharmacy school in NM

Respect for basic sciences from radiologists

Scholarships Stable DOE and NIH funding Staffing to allow for time off Support by large corporate employers

Teach physics in high school more Training in CT/MRI Workshops with college undergrad as target audience

Question G.3. Please indicate current issues that impact nuclear medicine scientists. Please mark all that apply. Other -- Please describe:

Funding (4) Short staffing / Staff shortage (3) Research funding (2) USP 797 (2) 1) More need to work with Radiology; 2) Isolation of SNM; 3) Lack of appreciation of MD's ABR License Accrediting Bodies After three years Availability Board of Pharmacy Ruling USP <7977 Clear NM requirements Clinics attempting to be radiopharmacy Confusing studies Continuing Education CT Cuts in federal funding Define role Difficult to get into research Difficulties for the small number of NM scientists to compete for funding against the large number of diagnostic and MR scientists. Do not work in the field Failure of medical physicists to treat their position as a practice.

178

Family obligations Fear of Radioactivity Federal funding Federal research funding - DOE recently cut this Few openings For nuclear medicine physicians - the very strong bias toward having radiologists to read nuclear medicine studies and PET Grant funding is limited Health Canada regulations High costs of running PET/SPECT Hours are difficult (early am) In my case: Age Inconsistent regulations within agreement states. Increase exposure Insufficient R & D funding Integration of PET and CT Job availability. I am an MD and PhD, but not a radiologist Job market Job situations (openings) Lack of domestic suppliers of the radioisotopes Lack of federal funding Lack of formal training programs Lack of government research support Lack of government support for small businesses in NM R & D Lack of grant funding Lack of grant funds available Lack of industry interest Lack of integration into the patient care process Lack of jobs at PhD level Lack of new products Lack of qualified staff Lack of research funding Licensure programs Limited funding opportunities Limited NIH/DOE funding Low NIH funding levels Low status in radiology hierarchy Manpower issues (shortages) Market shrinkage MD Attitude Need better tax breaks for R & D activities by government NIH Budget - difficulty in obtaining funding NIH funding NIH/DOE funding (lack) Non-direct billing for services Not current on issues that impact nuclear medicine Nuclear medicine being absorbed by radiology and cardiology Once you become specialized (BCNP), Employers have no reason to promote and / or increase your salary. Very discouraging Poor federal funding mechanisms. Lack of internal funding. Lack of support for research in a clinical department. Poor Public Perception and Understanding Poor quality of physicians, tech, and scientists entering the field Poor vision from SNM Public mistrust Public opinion

179

Public Relations, Politics Radiologists and cardiologists competing Radiopharmaceutical Availability Reduced federal funding for research Regulation of PET by FDA Research dollars Salaries Shift work Terrible quality of life treatment The lengthy process of IND applications They all are applicable Turf wars with cardiology, etc. USP Sterile Products Vendor restrictions

Question G.4. What are the key factors needed to sustain your nuclear medicine career in the future? Please mark all that apply. Other -- Please describe:

N/A / Not Applicable / Do not work in the field (4) Employment opportunities (2) Jobs (2) Retired (2) $ For professional training Ability to continue to learn and be challenged Accreditation needed for reimbursement Additional proven clinical *needs* for clinical nuclear medicine scans, especially PET imaging with other tracers besides FDG. Adequate salary Advance NM Science, Physician Scientists must see their patients (I.e. be clinical) Availability of new imaging agents Availability Availability of Nuclear Medicine Positions Better appreciation of employers of the workers. There are few of us. You can't impose regular standards in an unusual field especially if you don't know what it takes to do the job. Better patient outcome Better realization by clinicians of the advantages of functional images. Board of Pharmacy rules that understand nuclear Career Choice Careers available for advanced degrees in nuclear medicine departments CE Change of area of expertise- radiation therapy Clinical Nuc RX positions CME Competitive pay, easier hours Competitive Salary Continuation of radiation oncology treatments Continued demand for unit dose radio-pharmaceuticals vs in house PET generators Continued employment by hospital. Continued Innovation Continued need for the radiopharmaceuticals (i.e. not replaced by echo, CT or other diagnostic tests). Continued Referrals Continued support for R & D in molecular imaging Continued use of NM as an imaging modality. Continued use of radiation Continuing education opportunity

180

Continuing utilization of Nuclear Med Currently totally disabled Customer sponsorship (I'm a consultant) Decent staffing levels to allow for time off. Demand for specialty training Development of new radiopharmaceuticals Diversify training Education to other medical professionals to the potential of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. Elixir of Youth Enlightened companies that see value in novel tracer development. Expand the involvement of scientists in other fields in clinical practice, especially medical physicists Expanded clinical applications Federal/state regulations requiring physics involvement Funding and independence Get rid of quasi-Nuc Med Practitioners like cardiology and radiology Grants Greater incentive to stay and quality of life. High level of clinical utility High salary Higher reimbursement for nuclear medicine by Medicare, Medicaid Higher Salary; Very difficult to live in the Baltimore/Washington Corridor I am not in nuclear medicine I am retired I am semi-retired I am totally disabled and will never work again I don't have a career in NM. Increase Salary Increasing medical utilization in next decade Just trying to keep up with changing technology. Lack of career development Left field in 2004 to practice radiation oncology physics Lower prices decrease quality and reimbursement M.S. level medical nuclear physicist employment opportunities Maintaining federal regulations. Maintaining radiology resident program Manpower shortage More government funding for small R & D businessmen in NM More involved in patient care, develop more definitive diagnosis procedures. More opportunities, better quality of life More PR campaign More referral! My situation is not typical Need a cyclotron, radiopharmacy, and radiochemistry group. Also image processing infrastructure. Need a good reason to come out of retirement Need for teachers New clinically applicable developments New products New radiopharmaceuticals are approved NIH funding Not involved in health care anymore Not Sure NRC/FDA/State Regulations Opportunity for clinical training/mentoring for research scientists.

181

Part-time available or career break Payers requiring accreditation Personal initiative Position availability Positions available for nuclear physicians trained in Internal Medicine Private companies willing to take risks Promote NM Quality job Academic Needs, Market Recognition by employers Recognition of need for changes and for promotion of nuclear medicine Recruitment of staff Reduced number of facilities Referrals for work Relaxation of recertification of credentials Restart program in using Radionuclides for medical use in patients. Retirement Salaries Science!! Self-motivation Semi-retired SNM and ACR to promote appropriate programs Stay alive Stop Cardinal monopoly Support of nuclear medicine imaging display by PACs vendors Tightening of federal regulations Train more physicists Training in computer applications is needed Training in CT Updated training such as CT in order to be able to issue PET/CT report with reimbursement Viable modality Will retire at end of year Work in different field. Work in non-nuclear medicine Workload

Question G.5. Please indicate how the introduction of molecular imaging science will affect the work of nuclear medicine scientists. Please mark all that apply. Other -- Please describe:

Don't know for sure (6) N/A (2) A more powerful tool 50% Hype All apply Application to IMRT Aren't they the same? Beneficial to patients Career Advancement Clinical HP Service delivery Employment opportunity is uncertain for NM physician Increase salaries Increases intermedicine turf battles Isn't all nuclear imaging, molecular? It is a new challenge to established scientists It is not It will better fit my background of biomedical and nuclear scientist It will fuse the two technologies together.

182

It will help keep NM viable It will help patients It will increase PET and decrease nukes It will increase the number of scientists competing for funding It will make nuclear medicine competitive May further push field to radiologists Mayo, Rochester MI is a Buzz Word More job opportunities needed. More work Multi-Disciplinary Approach required Need to get smarter New direction and focus for NM diagnostic/therapeutic isotopes e.g. Zevalin No effect No idea Not Sure Open new areas for researches. Other fields will adapt (i.e. rad, diag, card) and take it over Play more important role in definitive diagnosis Provide a better service for patients Requires additional expensive equipment Will increase treatment accuracy/success

Question G.8. Please identify the institution or city in the U.S. that is the existing prototype for nuclear medicine science emulation elsewhere.

Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri (82) University of California, Los Angeles (61) MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston, Texas (31) Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (30) Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NYC, New York (28) Boston, Massachusetts (25) Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (19) Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (15) Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (14) Los Angeles, California (13) New York, New York (13) National Institute for Health (10) University of California-San Francisco (9) Chicago, Illinois (8) University of Washington, Seattle, WA (8) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (5) University of New Mexico (5) Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (4) Purdue University (4) Albuquerque, New Mexico (3) Baltimore (3) Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland OH (3) Detroit, MI (3) Harvard / Harvard (JPNM) (3) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (3) Philadelphia (3) University of Missouri, Columbia (3) University of Pennsylvania (3) Ann Arbor Michigan, University of Michigan (2) Atlanta, Georgia (2)

183

Cedars Sinai Nuclear Medicine Department, Los Angeles, California (2) Detroit (University of Michigan) (2) GE/ GE. Healthcare (2) Indianapolis (so far), Indiana (2) Madison, Wisconsin (2) New Haven, Connecticut (2) Ohio State University Medical Center (2) San Antonio, Texas (2) University of Michigan (2) Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (2) UAB Alabama California Berkeley, California City of Hope, California LA JOLLA, California San Diego, California U.S.C. Los Angeles, California University of California Martin Mcm Med Center Stuart, Florida Tampa Bay, Florida Georgia Tech/Emory in Atlanta, Georgia Chicago, Illinois St. Francis, Topeka, Kansas Boston/Cambridge, Massachusetts Boston-Dana Farber, Massachusetts Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan Royal Oak, Michigan William Beaumont Hospital, Michigan MU, Columbia, Missouri UMD, New Jersey New Mexico UNM or University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, New Mexico VA Hosp in New Mexico Hospital for Special Surgery, NYC, New York New York Presbyterian/Weil Cornell University of Buffalo, New York Columbia Presbyterian, New York Columbia University Medical Center, New York North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina Fort Bragg Nuclear Med, North Carolina University of North Carolina Cleveland, Ohio Columbus, Ohio Ohio State University University of Cincinnati, Ohio Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Wisconsin, University of Pennsylvania Univ. Pennsylvania - HUP Knoxville, Tennessee Nashville, Tennessee St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee Dallas, Texas Houston Health Science Center, Texas University of Utah

184

Medical College of Virginia Reston, Virginia UM CC Molecular Imaging Branch, NIMH PETNET Princess Margarete -Canada Society of Nuclear Medicine Different Comments: Do not know / I don't know / Unknown (21) ? (11) I have no idea / No idea (5) None comes to mind / None noted / None / Not sure (4) No Comment / No Response (2) ? Wish I knew. Education or research or clinical use or what? Impossible to answer N/A Not one institution Odd question The whole system is broken

Question H.1. Please indicate your future work plans for the next 5 years. Please mark all that apply:

I am retired (7) Career break to have family Complete PhD work/graduate Considering it Continue research Current position is conflict resolution not NM science Currently retired 2 months, may seek part time NM position Do more Nuclear medicine Fellowship in next year, include refresher, then clinical employment Graduate with PhD, then seek career in nuclear medicine research Grow w/responsibilities I am not sure I am out already I might seek a position in an unrelated field I plan to retire in the next 3 years. I plan to take a clinical position while doing research on my own time I plan to teach I will likely reduce the amount of NM Research my lab does. I will never work again I would like to return to Nuclear Med and Research Improve Like to teach full-time Locum tenens in medical physics May decrease work hours to raise children Not known at this time Part time Part-time in current position Part-time research Plan Engineering Development Plan to seek continued employment in radiation therapy physics Possible grad school

185

Remain in current position but no funding, no job Remain in retirement Retire Retire in eight years School Start 3rd career as a consultant -may resume PhD work Start software company Study nuclear medicine residency Totally Disabled Undecided Unknown When I can retire, I will Will have part time job in a private practice

Question I.1. Please indicate and describe the certification(s) you currently hold. Please mark all that apply: ASHP

Comprehensive (6) ACR Full

ABMP

Diagnostic (3) Nuclear Medicine (3) Radiation Oncology (3) ABMP ABMP- MHP ABMP- NMP ABMP-THER Diagnostic Physics Dx, MRI, Health Lapsed MHP MRI Radiation Physics Radiation Therapy ROP Therapeutic Physics

ABR

Diagnostic (6) Therapy (6) ABR-Radiologic Physics (4) Nuclear Medicine (4) Therapeutic Radiologic Physics (4) ABR-Therapy (3) Diagnostic Radiologic Physics (3) Medical Nuclear Physics (3) Rad. Physics (3) Therapeutic Physics (3) ABR- Dx, Rx (2) ABR-DRP (2) Diagnostic Physics (2) DRP (2)

186

Radiology Physics (2) ABR - Diagnostic, Therapeutic ABR- Diag Rad. Physics ABR- Med Nuclear Physics ABR Medical Nuclear Physics ABR- MNP ABR- MNP, RP ABR NM and Diag ABR_RT ABR-Diag ABR-Diag Rad Pays ABR-Diagnostic Radiological Physics, NM Physics ABR-DR ABR-Dx Rad Physics ABR-in Radiological Physics ABR-NCIC Med/RAD ABR-Nuclear and DX Rad ABR-Physics ABR-Rad ABR-Rad Oncology ABR-Rad Ther Phys Diag. Physics Diag. Rad. Diag. Rad. Physics Diagnostic and Therapeutic Diagnostic Radiology Diagnostic Therapy DMP DRP, MNP DRP, RTP DX, NMP DX:NM NM Physics, Dx NM, Dx NM, Radiology Nuclear and Diagnostic Radiation Physics R.O. R.R. Rad Therapy Radiation Oncology Radiation Physics Radiation Therapy Radiation Therapy Physics Radiologic Physics Radiological Physics Radiology and NM RP Therapy Diagnostics Times 3 TP DP TR TRP

ABSNM

Physics and Instrumentation (3)

187

ABSNM - P and I (2) NM Physics and Instrumentation (2) Diploma Instrumentation

BCNP

Nuclear Rx 2004

BPS

Nuclear Pharmacy P.E.

Other

ABNM (40) None (13) CNMT (4) CCPM (3) NMTCB, ARRT (3) State Licenses (3) AAPM (2) ABIM, ABNM (2) CNMT, ARRT (N) (2) NMTCB (2) NMTCB, ARRT (R) (N) (2) NRRPT (2) 1) Professional Engineer; 2) Member of State Bar; 3) Patent Attorney AART, CMD ABCC ABEM ABHP Comp ABHP-CHP ABHP-HP ABIM ABNM, ABP ABNM, CBNC ABNM, Radiology Board ABNM, SNM ABPN ABR ACHE ACMP ACR ACS American Assoc of Physics Teachers ANP ARRT (NM) ASNC, CBNC, EXP-ABNM ASTRO BS ARRT BSCNMT CBNC CCRA CDM Certified Radiation Equipment Safety Officer (CRESO)

188

CMD CNMT, ARRT (N), CMLSO FACNP FRCPC ICCPM, Canadian College of Medical Physics IPEM, U.K. Licensed by NY State LMP M.S. Pharmaceutics Nevada State License New York State None of the above None- Scientist Nuclear Engineering NY State License OCTRF Peer Review A P.E, Environmental Engineering PD, ANP Penn State PhD Radiation Protection Expert Registered RT (N) RPh State NM Physicist State Registration TRP

Question I.3. To what professional associations do you belong? Please mark all that apply:

Other 1 Other 2 Other 3

American College of Radiology (ACR) (69)

American College of Radiology (ACR) (14)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (4)

American College of Medical Physics (ACMP) (37)

American College of Medical Physics (ACMP) (6)

American College of Medical Physics (ACMP) (2)

American Society for Therapeutic Radiation and Oncology (ASTRO) (34)

American Society for Therapeutic Radiation and Oncology (ASTRO) (6)

American Society for Therapeutic Radiation and Oncology (ASTRO) (2)

American Physical Society (APS) (16)

American Physical Society (APS) (4)

The Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SCAR) (2)

American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) (15)

American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) (4) AAShD

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) (14)

American College of Nuclear Physicians (ACNP) (3)

AHA, PMA MSNJ, Philadelphia County, Burlington County

American Public Health Association (APHA) (10)

The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE) (3) American College of Radiology (ACR)

American College of Nuclear Physicians (ACNP) (9)

American Heart Association AHA) (2) American Heart Association AHA)

The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE) (9) American Nuclear Society (2) American Physical Society (APS)

American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) (8)

American Physical Society (2) American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS)

189

European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) (7)

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (2)

American Society of Mechanical Engineering

International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) (7)

European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) (2) American Society of Neurochemistry

American Medical Association (AMA) (5) SFN (2) AMSUS, PRIM and R, ARENA

American Nuclear Society (ANS) (5) AAS ASA

American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) (5) ACRP-Clinical Research ASNDT

ABS (4) Am. Public Health Assn. DIA-Clinical Research

American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) (4)

American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS)

Diag., NM, working on Therapeutic

American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) (4)

American Association of Immunologists (AAI)

European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)

American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM) (4) American Chemical Society SCBFM

Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) (4)

American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) Sigma XI

Radiation Research Society(4) American Nuclear Society (ANS) Society For Risk Analysis

American Chemical Society (ACS) (3)

American Pharmacist Association (APA)

American College of Cardiology (ACC) (3) ANA

Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties (BPS) (3) AR Pharmacy Association

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) (3) ASME

Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) (3) ASNS

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) (3) ASRMR

The Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SCAR) (3) ASRT

American Board of Radiology (ABR) (2) ASTRO

American Heart Association (AHA) (2) BCNP

American Pharmacist Association (APA) (2)

Canadian Association of Physicists

Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) (2) I.N.M.M.

Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists(2)

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

190

COMP (2) International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)

Sigma XI (2) International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

Society For Neuroscience (2) ISMRM

AAAS-Medicine, Physics Japan Society of Applied Physics

AAMD LIA

AAN Radiation Research Society (RRS)

AAPT, American Association of Physics Teachers RRS

ABMP RSNA

Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (ACMP) SNMI

ACM Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM)

ACMP, SROA The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM)

AIChE The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)

AIHA The Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR)

ALR The Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SCAR)

American Academy of Environmental Engineers

American Academy of Health Physics (AAHP)

American Association Clinical Chemistry

American Association for Advancement of Science

American Board In Medical Physics (ABMP)

American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP)

American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP)

American College of Medical Physics (ACMP)

American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT)

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)

191

American Institute of Chemists

American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM)

American Society Health Care Pharmacists

American Society Hematology (ASH)

American Society of Consultant Pharmacists

American Society of Health System Pharmacists

American Statistical Association

American Thyroid Association

AMPI

AMS

ANS

APLA

AS Cell Biology

ASCD

ASN

ASNR

Association of Academic Radiologists

AUR

California Pharmacy Association

CAMPS

Canadian Society for Chemistry

CIA

CIMIT

CT Pharmacists Association

192

Drug Information Association

Educational

Electro Chemical Society

EXI

FPA (Florida)

GDCH

Georgia Pharmacy Association

Human Bio (?) in Mapping

Indian Society of Nuclear Medicine

International Isotope Society

International Society

IPEM, United Kingdom

IS3NA International Association of Radiopharmacology

ISMAG

Many

Missouri Pharmacy Association

National Association of Scholars

New Mexico Pharmaceutical Association (NMPHA)

None

NY Roentgen Ray IEEE Nuclear and Plasma

NYAS

Optical Society of America

RAMPS

RSA

193

RSNA

SAS

SCBFM

Society for Risk Assessment

Society of Pediatric Radiology

SPHA

Texas Physicist in Medicine

TN Pharmacy Association

WFNMB

Wilderness Medicine

Question I.4. If you belong to a professional association, please cite your reasons. Please mark all that apply. Other -- Please describe:

All the above (2) ACMP ACR Professional and Bur… Benefits Benefits e.g., insurance Benefits etc., insurance CME Continuing Ed Credential Cross-fertilization of ideas Employment Networking For CV Governmental lobbying Group insurance Help educate the public and students Increased status as professional Job eligibility Job listing Keep track on market development Leadership opportunities Looks good on resume Membership Director Necessary Networking Physician Connections Pilot USAF Political Support Possible job opportunities Preceptor Requirement

194

Presentation for Company Products Professional Insurance Professional issues Professional Responsibility Professional/Salary Service Opportunities Special opportunities for professional growth Standards Status / Validation Summer schools Support Support profession Support science Supporting the profession To stay current Update myself Vendors annual meeting

Question I.5. Please indicate how your professional identity as a nuclear medicine scientist is encouraged. Please mark all that apply. Other -- Please describe:

N/A (3) Is not encouraged (2) It is not (2) None (2) Retired (2) Business Operation By myself Client needs Clinical and Technical services provided Clinical responsibilities Clinical work Consultation to clients Directing CE courses Email lists Employment Support Helping patients Hospital consulting I am currently retired I am not an NM scientist Meetings No longer in NM field No one cares remotely Not at all Not considered to be a nuclear medicine scientist Not currently in nuclear medicine Not in nuclear medicine Not primarily a nuclear medicine scientist Personal qualification Professional Meetings Prowess in Clinic Publication of books Teaching Teaching college Teaching fellow Through consulting

195

Thru a nice paycheck. Word of mouth

Question I.6. Please indicate your most important way of maintaining professional currency:

UNM C.E. (5) CE and Work (2) Cont. Ed/Journal review (2) Peer connections / Peer Contacts (2) Active Career Books Communication with colleagues Correspondence courses Courses in the field Discussions with colleagues Drug Development In-service Workshops Networking with more full time NM physicists On-line courses Personal Interaction Primarily-Newsletters Research Short courses What! Work communications Work with manufacture representatives

Question J. Please share any concerns you may have about nuclear medicine science. “1) Board Certification Requirement; 2) Require minimum number of patients per institution for certification. (Made it tough).” “1) Link to clinic more.” “1) more nuclear medicine scientists with solid scientific background (physics). ; 2) Quality nuclear medicine techs is way below the job needs. Needs better NM tech schools.” “1) There appears to be a limited amount of clinical research being conducted; 2) Regarding F.2: overemphasis on recruiting at the expense of retention would be a mistake. Low retention is a cause. Recruitment is a solution. Both are important.” “1) USA needs its own source of 99 Mo/Tc-99m generators; 2) Serious shortage of CNMTs in our area; 3) PET/CT creates problems for dual certification of technologists and MDs.” “1. I left the field after 22 years of service due to total frustration with the academic and clinical personnel in nuclear medicine. I was an Associate Professor in a nuclear medicine department at a northeastern university. The physicians were poor quality and the NMT students and residents were worse. 2. I now practice physics in a radiation oncology setting and it is interesting to see that most other physicians don't rely on nuclear studies, even PET. Reasons: Most NM reports are vague. Most images don't align with other CT/MRI data. NM clinics usually don't image under the same geometry and accuracy/precision needed for applications in treatment planning, guided surgery, etc. 3. NM physicians are a limited specialty. Radiologists, radiation oncologists, cardiologists, and even endocrinologists can perform NM procedures; however, the opposite is not so.” “1. Modern nuclear scientist are less involved in research. 2 Scientists think that they are paid for QA and instrument checks.” “A decrease in % funding NIH grants will impact all medical research.” “Ability to obtain a job on what you know and not necessarily who you know.”

196

“Academic opportunities are limited or pay is so poor that many that would like a more research focused job remain outside nuclear medicine or at corporate sites.” “Acceptance of PET hinges on reimbursement, not scientific validity.” “Administration limits horizons and impact.” “Apathy in nuclear medicine (unless / except when reimbursement is high.” “As a commercial supplier, my concern is the effective translation of research into viable clinical products. Early culling of non-competitive products should focus resources on most promising candidates.” “As a nuclear pharmacist if the heart studies with Tc-99m are replaced with CT scans I am not sure what will sustain our business.” “As a pharmacist, there is no approved pharmacy credit (CE) for SNM articles or activities - so why bother?.” “As time passes, there are fewer acceptive tests and QA tests that can be done in nuclear imaging equipment-most are hard coded by manufacturer.” “Association like SNM needs to promote NM and support appropriate regulation rather than diluting them.” “Baby boomer retirement will lead to manpower shortages.” “Cardiologists doing cardiac studies in their offices.” “Change the name by dropping the word "Nuclear" will be good for the field.” “Cheap and readily available commercial PET and SPECT probes are not a focus of radiopharmaceutical companies.” “Clinical nuclear medicine practice is becoming increasingly limited because of the competitive position with radiologists who practice NM. This is a significant discouraging factor to come to the profession.” “Competition /monopoly closing independents leaving 1 giant (Cardinal Health) ; exclusive contract between pharmacies limiting the drugs available to patients.” “Competition from other modalities.” “Competition with radiologists and cardiologists for control of imaging services.” “Concerned other modalities will impact nuclear medicine procedures.” “Continue and Improvement of direct reimbursement for all medical physics work better recognition that reimbursement be direct at physics equipment and personnel.” “Continued federal grant support.” “Continued reimbursement and equitable opportunities for nuclear medicine professionals.” “Control of administration of radioactivity is not well done. Many techs are not well trained and make major errors.” “Control/replacement by radiologists.” “Cost! It is too expensive to do well-designed studies. NIH reviewers do not understand this nor the methodology required to analyze data- PET/SPECT researchers at small centers suffer without funding.” “Cost reduction is primary concern. Regional referral system should be done to avoid duplication of resources and technical personnel.” “CT and MR Imaging becoming more specific than Radiopharmaceutical Ligands.” “Cuts in DOE funding for nuclear medicine. Cuts in the NIH budget.” “Dearth of CAMPAP medical Physics Graduate Programs; Look at online continuing education graduate coursework opportunities.” “Decrease in PhD and MD graduates. Decrease in PhD Instructors and mentors. Decrease in research training programs.” “Decreased Reimbursements.” “Decreasing availability of research radionuclides. *Poor coordination between groups involved in development and testing of new therapies. *Too much focus on $. Too little on ideas.” “Decreasing profitability and reimbursement.”

197

“Difficulty in recruiting staff.” “Difficulty to get a research grant.” “Diminishing NIH funding.” “Doesn't seem to be a field of interest to most radiologists (even with a NM fellowship) in the community setting. We need MD 'champion' to advance.” “Don't believe it is necessary to require nuclear medicine technologists to have college degree.” “Educational background becoming too restrictive. We need to focus more on ability and less on credentials.” “Emphasis on certification versus competency. Rise of "pharmacy,” decline of science.” “Except the largest centers, it is near impossible to be a NM-only physicist. Most, like me, have other duties as well.” “FDA regulation of PET radiopharmaceuticals may adversely affect services of supply of F-18 FDG.” “Few are hiring scientists in academic circles.” “Field is being integrated into radiology especially PET/CT.” “Funding.” “Funding.” “Funding for isotope production.” “Funding is not easy to get, almost impossible.” “Funding so poor was not able to pursue full time work in this field only. Most work in research was NM science associated.” “Funding; student interest.” “Future focus should include monoclonal antibodies and their use in N. Medicine.” “Generic products will drive down prices and reimbursement to where pharmacies have difficulties providing quality products and complying with USP 797.” “Given nuclear medicine is a imaging specialty not a certificate program, it must diversify itself to be marketable.” “Good future for Nuclear Medicine.” “Hard to simplify as with this survey because the areas are diverse. Do need RSO training that also covers equipment testing in medical physics/health physics programs.” “High cost.” “How will business be affected when Cardiolite goes generic? How good is the pipe line for new radiopharmaceuticals?” “I am a clinical nuclear med physician and much of this survey doesn't apply to me.” “I am a medical physicist certified in radiation therapy; however, (like many physicists) administration has assigned me the role of RSO which includes nuclear medicine oversight. I would prefer to have a nuclear medicine physicist perform these duties.” “I am concerned that 64 slice CT and advanced MR. will decrease NM studies.” “I am concerned the profession may stagnate due to a lack of isotopes for both routine and non-routine use.” “I am not sure that I should be counted as a nuclear medicine scientist. I am a physician practicing nuclear medicine.” “I am part-time (80%). Most of my activities relate to PACS and Medical informatics. The physician running nuclear medicine has basically excluded me from the sector.” “I am responding because I was a general medical physicist until 1977. I then specialized in radiation oncology physics.” “I believe Nuc Med Science was best flourishing when dedicated Nuclear Medicine Physicians existed. In the New World of Nuc Med it is part of Radiology.”

198

“I believe that nuclear medicine was hijacked 30 years ago by radiology and turned into an imaging science. We have seen the same trend today in PET.” “I do not know whether incorporating me will distort this study. I am retired recently. I now have a job doing dose reconstruction for Veterans for atomic tests. I have not worked in nuclear medicine per se except teaching since writing regulatory guidelines in the 1975 to 76 era. It is an interesting and rewarding profession. When employed in hospital, I merely ensured proper safety precautions in nuclear medicine. I've taught graduate students the need for checking all procedures and using radiation instruments.” “I moved into industry to develop new N.M. products in 1990, but the field shrank, most companies withdrew and I currently work on biotech areas not related to nuclear med. anymore.” “I retired after working for 40 years yet in my area there are only a handful of nuclear medicine scientists and to my knowledge none are certified. The number of labs increased but the number of scientists did not!” “I think nuclear medicine is going to have a bigger role in therapy rather than diagnostics soon enough and we all need to prepare for this.” “I was forced out of a nuclear medicine science position in 1991 by closure of a VA hospital. I have been doing radiation safety since due to lack of nuclear medicine science position in the VA.” “I worked as a radiation physicist, helped setting up nuclear medicine facilities, then as a radiologist both in general radiology and nuclear medicine, I find it frustrating at times to see anatomical studies CT, MR took more importance than NM studies.” “I would like to have more SNM involvement, but nothing is geared in anyway towards pharmacists- i.e.: CE credits, articles, etc.” “If reimbursement continues to decrease it will make it difficult to maintain quality NM departments.” “I, like many of my peers, do not work solely in NM. I have medical physics responsibilities in all diagnostic imaging modalities as well as radiation safety.” “I'm a consultant and my field of work includes nuclear medicine but I'm not a specialist in the field.” “I'm really concerned about how the U.S. government keeps cutting reimbursement for imaging studies. I believe this is a huge detriment to all imaging.” “Important to educate patients and provide documentation for them to carry concerning radiopharmaceuticals. This may reduce delays if stopped by radiation monitors.” “In my field of nuclear pharmacy, burnout is the biggest concern. Quality of life issues are a concern as well, with on call and very early morning hours the norm.” “In the medical field, it is the MD that determines which modality will be used. Unfortunately, the number of MD's w/ specialty in nuclear medicine continues to shrink.” “Incoming students from Physics or Engineering without proper training and finding ways to get licensed in the State.” “Increased regulations cause workers to doubt their safety and we have to work harder to reduce reluctance to working in the field.” “Insecure employment.” “It concerns me that the FDA is applying retail medicine rules to radiopharmaceuticals when they are essentially in separate categories.” “It has been many years since I was involved in nuclear medicine as a physicist and even longer since I was a nuclear medicine technologist. I now work in radiation therapy.” “It has the best potential for future development in basic molecular bioscience less in clinical research where non-radioactive procedures are increasingly preferred.” “It is being fragmented by other specialties and other competing interests, i.e., oncology, cardiology.” “It is continuing to grow in cancer detection and useful for targeting radiation therapy.” “It is difficult to get people to wear badges and lab coats when you are not their supervisor.” “It is more and more about making money not treating pts. Ask any pharmacist working for the Big 3. Cardinal, GE, Tyco.”

199

“It not being a first-line study for patients who need it. Waiting too long in their therapy to find out information needed to advise for better outcomes.” “It seems to me we are not producing enough new PhDs in the field.” “It takes far too long for a useful radiopharmaceutical to become an approved agent. This process needs to be made more efficient.” “It will be more diffuse and lose identify as NM Splinters.” “It will survive.” “It's great.” “Lack of / shortage of medical physicist.” “Lack of appreciation by MD's and administration.” “Lack of appreciation of what this science can do and can't do!” “Lack of awareness in general of the nuclear sciences.” “Lack of awareness pervading phobia; concerning "nuclear" issues.” “Lack of domestic supply of isotopes. Lack of research for new radiopharmaceuticals.” “Lack of funding can be of issue. Lack of understanding of the value of intellectual property role towards commercialization. Overly strict FDA regulation limits new product introduction.” “Lack of funding for research.” “Lack of graduate programs (M.S., PhD) for nuclear medicine scientists.” “Lack of interest groups.” *Lack of interest from U.S. students in scientific careers.” “Lack of journal in NM Science.” “Lack of NM physicians and too many diagnostic radiologists are running NM departments without "love" for NM.” “Lack of positions available outside of clinical nuclear medicine departments for those with higher level degrees and research interests.” “Lack of products with widespread clinical utility.” “Lack of qualified NM Techs and use of non- registered NMT's.” “Lack of qualified professional/Licensed Scientists / Technologists.” “Lack of R & D due to lack of funding and reimbursement.” “Lack of standards.” “Lack of well trained and ethical professionals.” “Lags in development of new radiopharmaceuticals.” “Levels of federal funding have been cut and there are too many set-aside programs.” “Limited NIH/DOE funding for radiopharmaceutical research. Too many societies/ meetings diluting the field.” “Limited resources.” “Majority of the basic science scientist are trained in other fields. It is difficult to attract them because of radiation exposure and job stability.” “Many procedures performed by radiologists, cardiologists, etc. without complete training in NM.” “MD's don't appreciate the technical work of the Techs and PhDs.” “Medical institutions force nuclear medicine departments to "-----" suppliers thus reducing available funds for research and promotion.” “Medicare regulators fail to understand utility of NM.” “Medicine is dictated by $$$ - reimbursement low!!!” “Mobile services and calibration standards.” “Modality supplanted by a different technology; too much dependence on nuclear cardiology.”

200

“’Molecular Imaging’ implies the ability to resolve structure at "molecular" distances/lengths. This is totally misleading. Net result is disappointment on the part of the public that thinks this is something new. Although a "catchy" phrase, it is erroneous, promising more than it can deliver. Resolution in nuclear medicine will remain 1 to 2 cm.” “More accessible.” “More attention should be paid to radiation exposure with reference to personal health. I am totally disabled with question to radiation exposure as a contributing cause.” “More biological corrections are needed in imaging science.” “More qualified people need to be made aware of career choices in nuclear medicine and related fields. Concerns over safety working with radioactive material need to b e addressed when recruiting.” “Movement towards PET and less demand for nuclear pharmacists; e.g. => Cardigen (?) Generators.” “My main position is as a radiation oncology physicist.” “My role is only peripheral to nuclear medicine. I believe it is and will continue to be an important diagnostic tool but I have not actively participated in NM for over 15 years.” “Need For (1) Better entry level candidates / postgraduates, (2) Better job opportunities for Nuc Med trainees, (3) improved fed, funding.” “Need more education of the public.” “Need more hands on continuing education courses. There is a lack of understanding in the field by professionals who read but do not do.” “Need to improve the proficiency of computed tomography in professionals.” “Need to invest more funding for tracer development.” “Needs to become more integrated w/therapy-radiopharmacy for example.” “New radiopharmaceuticals are the driving force in nuclear medicine. We need more radiochemists and less FDA obstruction to be able to move the field forward.” “Nice Survey!” “NIH is misdirecting their funding and the Radiology study section is biased and political.” “NM instrumentation is a rather mature field. Funding seems to be shifting to other fields/modalities. Hard to keep level of funding requested by institution.” “NM is of Great importance to the delineation of tumor's infiltration and to the determination of the tumor volume-Treatment of the Tumor has implications in outcomes.” “NM is undergoing resurrection, driven by CMS reimbursement, PET, and new awareness of scientific merits of molecular-based imaging. But NM professionals out-muscled by radiologists and oncologists. Unless reimbursement system is changed (not likely) politics will determine tempo of NM practice.” “No government support.” “No major breakthroughs that highly impact patient care.” “No new drugs will hurt entire industry, increasing cost pressures.” “No positions for non radiologists.” “None.” “Not competitive salary compared to therapy.” “Not enough relevant commercial products. Can't compete with other radiology modalities- CAT, MRI, PET.” “Not enough support for development of new nuclides (Since the DOE is no longer interested). Not enough support at NIH.” “Not enough technical reviews and training updates available.” “Not respecting the products and pricing then to maintain our high level of reimbursement .” “NRC and FDA regulations will kill this field.” “NRC regulation needs to be relaxed.” “Nuclear Medicine in the U.S. is totally overwhelmed by Radiology for a number of reasons.”

201

“Nuclear Medicine is quickly being replaced by alternative imaging technologies such as multi-slice CT and MRI and not enough new innovative techniques for NM are being discovered.” “Nuclear Medicine must develop a program to educate/market to other medical professionals, third party payers and patients on the cost/benefits of NM procedures and its complimentary aspects to other medical practices.” “Nuclear Medicine needs to maintain its identity in biomarker development and applications and not become absorbed into radiology.” “Nuclear medicine science is a small part of my professional endeavors. I am less involved now than I used to be due to closing of facilities.” “Nuclear medicine science is here to stay. Nuclear medicine as a clinical specialty is dead.” “Odd hours make it difficult to maintain quality family life.” “Our reactors should be re-activated/built to generate (and not import) the isotopes we need!!!!!” “Over utilization, Usage by non-qualified sub specialist physicians, cost.” “PET looks down on SPECT. Radiology looks down on NM. New pathways into clinic must be found - trying to replace, for example, mammography, is hopeless and unscientific.” “Phobia of the word ’Nuclear’.” “Physicians are generally disinterested and do not understand how to get quality images. Most just want an image and don't care how it is gotten.” “Physicians get paid too highly - an endemic problem to radiology, while other on a relative basis ‘struggle’ with salaries and benefits.” “Poor funding of isotope supply for new isotopes.” “Poor physician reimbursement for NM clinical procedures.” “Poor reimbursement.” “Poor reimbursement and a shortage of nuclear medicine physicians impacts research, especially clinical trials of new radiopharmaceuticals- the MDs are being pushed to spend all their time on clinical scan reading (not research).” “Poorly funded, poorly integrated with community nuclear medicine. Little inclusion of community, hospitals in research opportunities. No incentive for community hospital based research. High likelihood of further erosion due to turf wars.” “Pricing of PET radiopharmaceuticals can adversely affect future reimbursement.” “Proportion(s) of funding set aside for junior/new faculty researchers and administration of peer review with single pool of applicants.” “Public perception that a nuclear medicine physicist equals a nuclear physicist. Not enough continuing education in medical physics dedicated to emerging technology in nuclear medicine.” “Publicity by Nuclear Medicine Society.” “Radiation Oncology Physics pays so much more, I do more of that.” “Radiation oncology is overlapping with nuclear medicine so collaboration is important. Areas of overlap include radiation safety, client therapy, PET/CT for RT planning.” “Radiology is pre-empting the "new" field of molecular imaging - a buzz word that dilutes the achievements of nuclear medicine and particularly PET.” “Radiopharmaceutical Development.” “Radiopharmaceuticals becoming a commodity.” “Recruitment and training in basic science.” “Recruitment of nuclear pharmacists.” “Reduction of federal funding for nuclear medicine R & D.” “Reduction of federal/state funding for research.” “Regretting the clinical NM physicist does not have the same prestige in traditional NM as in past years.” “Regulations discourage openness. At times the government attempts to practice medicine.”

202

“Reimbursement cuts on isotopes and procedures causing clinicians to use other modalities.” “Reimbursement for procedures. Other modalities replacing current.” “Reimbursement reductions will limit future demand.” “Reimbursement will go down.” “Reimbursement!” “Reimbursements strongly affect which tests are performed.” “Research and Development.” “Restriction in federal grant.” “Rising costs may limit patient accessibility. “Safety.” “Safety and waste storage.” “Second place status in radiology. Not respected by many radiologists.” “Seems to be the way of RIA. Also PET is way too expensive.” “Shortage of Academic Training Programs, Especially MS level/ Postdoc in Nuclear Pharmacy.” “Shortage of new graduates in all areas of nuclear science.” “Should have insisted on more substantial role in MRI/NMR.” “Slowness of new radiopharmaceutical development.” “Small companies growing or being absorbed by big corporations. The small companies are good work environments, big ones oppressive, BAD.” “Strong cuts in reimbursements for studies could adversely affect the field.” “The ability to quickly implement new radio-pharmaceuticals into clinical use, is causing the USA to fall behind the rest of the world.” “The advanced degree is not in "Nuc Med Science,” therefore chemists, pharmacists, physicists receive like degrees, and usually remain in that category.” “The attitude of the NRC and its clones is so hostile it is very unpleasant (and rarely satisfying) to do the associated health physics.” “The clinical studies are getting too expensive "Zevlin, Bexxar".” “The fractionalization of clinical nuclear medicine practice (radiology-cardiology-endo) will destroy eventually the profession.” “The general public fears the word ‘nuclear.’ Many will want to avoid any radiation treatment and diagnosis if a physician mentions an alternative.” “The giants in the field are not being replaced. Other modalities (MRI, etc.) attract the brightest and best.” “The great lack of radiochemists despite the growing field of nuclear medicine.” “The lack of nuclear medicine technology training instruments.” “The large corporate employees have stifled interest and participation in R & D at all levels particularly GE.” “The myocardial SPECT studies for heart imaging could be semi-replaced by Coronary CTA.” “The need for physics professionals is interpreted to be based strictly on regulatory requirements vs. image/dose optimization requirements.” “The opportunity for nuclear medicine researchers should be increased.” “The physicians being trained, especially 1 year radiologists, do not have the rigorous basic science training the used to and clinical research is getting poorer so the field may disappear.” “The poor availability of new radioisotopes for medical research.” “The profession is not clearly defined. Graduate education is therefore not focused to train new scientists as they should be.” “The public attitude to anything that involves radiation is historically negative.”

203

“The public has a bad opinion of the effects of anything "nuclear" the media and select fear mongers paint a bad image of our craft.” “The public needs to be more informed about radiation in general. The attitudes patients exhibit over radiation being too dangerous is unjustified in some or most cases.” “The quality of technologist needs to be increased through development of early education.” “The Society Of Nuclear Medicine is lacking national figures, PR, and lobbying.” “The U.S. Government doesn't seem to realize the importance of continuous funding for R & D in NMS.” “There are an insufficient number of nuclear physicians willing to embrace the patient care required in therapeutic nuclear medicine.” “There are not enough jobs available for graduates.” “There is a shortage of medical physicists entering the nuclear medicine physics field at this time.” “There is a shortage of professionals for PET ACR testing.” “There is an overall concern among professionals that Nuclear Medicine is fading. This may be due to less funding for research and development, radiation fear in public due to lack of information and lots of control by government agencies like FDA, NRC and EPA. Stalwarts in Nuclear Medicine wanted to become chairman of Society of Nuclear Medicine one day and their interest ceased after that achievement.” “There is more of a concern for profits tan quality. The shift has gone from physicians and scientists making major decisions to administrators making decisions based on profits.” “There is not enough information provided to students considering Nuc Med as a career.” “There seems to be a lack of understanding in the general community (both clinical and research) about potential contribution of Nuc. Med.” “Things look bleak. I believe that we will all need to become PET-Knowledge-able, yet there won't be that many professional needed.” “Too many competitive societies, AMI and SMI and SNM need to merge.” “Too many NRC/FDA rules.” “Too many politics by a few that leave little room for others.” “Too many poorly qualified practitioners are doing too much clinical work without an appreciation of what they're doing and how to maintain quality.” “Training of nuclear medicine physicists and other professionals like technologists.” “Very few new compounds are approved. Very limited interest of big pharma.” “Very fragmented amidst numerous organizations.” “Virtually no control over R.P. manufacturer price increases.” “We are getting pushed around too much by other imaging modalities. We must improve to stay in business.” “We do not promote our field as nuclear pharmacy enough. New graduating students do not know anything about us.” “We drastically need new radiopharmaceuticals approved in our field.” “We must maintain scientific integrity.” “We need a supplier in the U.S. to produce Molybdenum-99 and therapeutic isotopes such as Holmium-166, Lutetium -177 and Actinium-225.” “We need to remove obstacles that delay movement of technology from Research lab to Clinical use.” “Weak collaboration between AAPM and SNM.” “While salaries have improved for NM, new medical physicists have more opportunities and higher salaries in radiation therapy, and will more likely be drawn to RT.” “Will be eaten by radiology.” “With mixed modalities-e.g., PT/CT who regulates and which apply to technologist training.”

204

“Worried that as pharmacists' salaries continue to increase that nuclear pharmacists' salaries are not increasing accordingly.”

Question Jb. Please share any suggestions you may have about how to improve the field of nuclear medicine. “1. Have stronger voice in developing appropriate regulations. 2. Promote proper quality and high standards.” “1. Improve professional identity and status by establishing direct billing codes for medical physics services. 2. National TV exposure on Discovery and Education channels. 3. Rename to "Molecular Imaging" to eliminate "nuclear" stigma. It worked for NMR.” “1. Improving training. 2. Enhance diversification both in morphological imaging and in clinical practice. Research training will help. “ “1) Laws to help small independent's joining together (i.e., UPPI, increased voice, buying power) 2) Molecular imaging - targeted radiotherapy” “Don't let the monetary flow throughout the whole process diminish.” “Educate public about nuclear medicine.” “Efforts must be made to maintain its individual identity. This will stake strong politically savvy leaders.” “Need more nuclear medicine physicians. “Set up a domestic source of Mo-99. “Try to influence FDA to develop appropriate drug approval process for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals.” “Educate the public about safety/benefits.” “Optical imaging is likely to increase in importance. SMI is growing rapidly and quite dynamic.” “Reduce restrictions on new production reactors and accelerators. Fund new drug research. Fund technologist education programs.” “Improve the academic requirements for physicians to something like ASNC.” “Increasing the support for research” “Involve more clinical practitioners in research opportunities. NM does not adequately utilize the resources of the people who work in NM.” “Lack of reliable supply of radionuclides will restrict the practice of NM. Example - no current domestic supply of Mo99 for Tc99m generator production.” “More Pay” “More visibility at national and international meetings. More undergraduate scholarships to introduce radiochemistry.” “Restrict clinics that take advantage of Medicaid reimbursement “Facilitate insertion disclosures. Better communication between professional association, companies and regulatory agencies.” “Raise the price of radiopharmaceuticals.” “Educate government regulators.” “Encourage participation by chemists” “Improve training programs for all types of nuclear medicine scientists.” “Further training will not help. Better integration of CT and molecular imaging is needed.” “Let students (starting in high school) know about careers in nuclear medicine.” “School with accreditation.” “More emphasis on basic research.” “Increase federal funding” “Integration of nuclear medicine with other types of imaging (e.g. MRI, optical) is key.

205

Realistic pricing of radiopharmaceuticals that honestly incorporates all costs so that future pricing will reflect its TRUE expense to commercial entities.” “It's hopeless!” “Contact schools of pharmacy about the importance of including nuclear pharmacy in its curriculum (at least an intro).” “Share professionals with diagnostic and therapeutic radiology.” “Increase fellowships for new professionals.” “Build a dedicated facility for radioisotope production and radiochemistry education.” “Educate the crowd.” “Public education.” “For physicians interested in clinical practice - clearly inform them that it is very difficult to find full time work as a nuclear physician. The supply far exceeds the demand. Radiology residency training with nuclear medicine fellowship is a much better career move.” “New students in related fields of study need to be informed about nuclear medicine and possible career choices in technology, clinical positions and research.” “Cutting edge cancer therapy. Is this the future for nuclear pharmacy?” “Have only certified (ABNM) NM physician to offer clinical NM practice.” “There should be a movement to refocus on quality health care. Board certified nuclear medicine physicians should be more prominent than radiologists.” “Need to encourage NIH to give more training grants.” “For each new drug entering the market, the pharma or academic should have a related imaging proof demonstrating drug efficacy.” “Easier transitions to higher level degree opportunities in nuclear medicine science related fields for those interested/motivated in doing more than clinical nuclear medicine and being able to apply knowledge of nuclear medicine for advancement of the field.“ “More training centers, better salaries.” “This is the first survey that I know of trying to look into ‘problems’ in the field.” “Maintain Medicare/private insurance reimbursement” “Stronger unified voice/"presence” “Radionuclide therapy - SNM needs to set up certain requirements to encourage medical physicists to join the duties on treatment planning and dosimetry.” “Rarely is a nuclear medicine procedure an emergency. After hours procedures should be restricted to improve quality of life for staff and to save money.” “1) Orphan agents like 131 I-MIBG and 18 FCH need to be more widely available; 2) Resident education should emphasize correlation with radiological imaging; 3)Better public relations.” “Force specialties to work together and use best modalities for diagnosis and therapy. Nuclear medicine will naturally rise to a position of respectability; otherwise non-nuclear medicine specialists will take over nuclear medicine imaging. I believe NM is more science based than other imaging.” “Promote nuclear pharmacy in pharmacy schools throughout U.S.” “It is interesting that you do not inquire about licensure of medical physicists.” “Diversify the areas of research, broaden areas of diagnostic focus, diseases, organ systems” “We need to attract young workers.” “Public education.” “Put a message out there that radioactivity is good.” “Back to a functional science.” “Increase public awareness of NM benefits.” “Work more closely with other professional groups and lobbying organizations.”

206

“Distance itself from radiology and the cult of pretty pictures.” “Increase training of radiochemists. Work to decrease regulatory barriers.“ “Education from the doctor to patient.” “Ensure that nuclear medicine physicians remain distinct from diagnostic radiologists.” “More funding for new scientists. Get rid of the ‘old boys club.’ Too much jealousy, egos blocking grants.” “Require and enforce RA program audits. Should be blind.” “More interdisciplinary workshops. Better coordination between councils.” “The SNM should make their CE programs available for credit to pharmacists.” “Establish research programs that identify usefulness of quantitative NM results.” “SNM needs an equivalent to ACRIN. Need to fight profusion of things like American Society of Nuclear Cardiology that split the field. Better and earlier integration of science into practice. Decrease loss of pharmaceuticals due to failure in manufacturing best practices.” “Nuclear medicine should evolve into molecular imaging by incorporating other modalities that are useful for imaging function and metabolism.” “More public education on NM impact on health care. Improve communication with radiology science. Better integration with other disciplines and specialties (oncology, neurology, cardiology).” “Urge government to give large tax breaks for greater work in R& D so companies will push research, which will spread $ to academic sites.” “Reduce greed in the world.” “Concerned about shortages of radionuclides, especially moly 99.” “Re-establish role in teaching institution(s). Require catalog numbers for graduate clinical programs.” “Licensure by states of physicists. Mandatory accreditation programs requiring and reviewing scientific credentials.” “I found this survey to be strongly biased towards academic research. Many physicists are not involved in research and do only clinical work. Check you’re a priori assumptions please!” “More information to the public media should be provided by our professional organizations.” “More contact in educating the public to avoid fears of relatively low level radiation. See my books.” “1. Scientists should delegate routine QA. 2. Should be involved in more imaging research.” “PR about the field of nuclear medicine to the general public with commercials, etc. will "raise" interest of young people as well.” “Require a minimum of 12 degree expiration for all kits being brought to the market. Require all kits to be multi-dose. “ “Less regulations. Less regulatory alarmism. More PR on benefits. Increase availability of materials.” “I have known outside of regulators who know very little about medical necessities.” “As a nuclear pharmacist I would like to have more options when earning CEs. Few organizations have ACPE accreditation. And when they do, I can only earn one or two credits. I need 70 credits in 7 years. I really don't want to do seventy lessons.“ “Congress and the Senate need to be better educated on the benefits of nuclear medicine imaging and stop cutting costs.” “Make it more independent. Prevent use by people with partial training.” “Need to establish a core curriculum for training young scientists in imaging sciences.” “Provide certification in CT and stress testing.” “1. Nuclear medicine should become a subspecialty of diagnostic imaging. This would still allow a physician to practice NM/molecular imaging but also use the other diagnostic imaging tools (CT, MRI, ultrasound, etc.). 2. This also holds true for NMTs. They must learn CT/MRI to be competitive with X-ray techs. Remember you really don't need NMTs to collect image data or inject patients. 3. NM as a field must interact more with the other specialties.”

207

“Advertising and incorporating more technological affiliations with nuclear medicine (i.e., Imaging modalities)… (PET was a good start)” “Better training in radiology for nuclear medicine physicians. More interactive for new technologists esp. PET/CT.” “By developing more Radiotracers” “Closer links and SNM and AAPM, esp. as this relates to imaging for radiotherapy and radioimmunology.” “Create process to allow career breaks and/or part-time employment.” “Cross training with medicine.” “Do more education on molecular medicine for all radiology residents.” “Education: Nuclear Medicine Helps.” “Encourage companies to support research.” “Encourage health care organizations to hire full time nuclear medicine scientists.” “Encourage nuclear med physicians to promote nuclear med scientists.” “Encourage the re-development of Nuclear Medicine Departments with dedicated Nuc Med physicians and scientists.” “Establish direct billing for medical physics services with Board certified Physicists as the provider.” “Focus on drug development using imaging technology.” “Form special interest groups.” “Get GW Bush out of office and better governmental support for research.” “Have more access to patients’ profiles in order to prevent and advise in drug interactions and interventions.” “Hire higher qualified personnel” “I am not competent to answer” “I think that nuclear pharmacists should be better utilized for their clinical knowledge.” “Improve activity within the professional association.” “Improve CME/workshop availability.” “Increase education on PET related issues.” “Increase interest from physicians. Work on more collaborative between nuclear medicine and radiation oncology.” “Increase reimbursement for NM procedures including PET and education colleagues (MD's) regarding use and importance in oncology.” “Increase spending on equipment research (improve devices).” “Increase training of physicians to work in radiation therapy and NM.”“ “Increased federal grant support.” “Information about the field should be shared at the Jr. High and High School level to increase interest.” “Keep the FDA out!” “Let SM1, AM1, SNM and RSNA combine focus towards common goals.” “Many duplicative efforts should be avoided as it is costly and does not present a common front.” “May want to consider less rigorous requirements for nuclear med schools. Something like X-ray schools which are a dime a dozen.” “More collaboration” “More corporate involvement” “More emphasis should be focused on therapeutic aspects of Nuclear Medicine. Peptides should be investigated for this purpose. More commercial institutions should be attracted for funding on R & D. Working closely with FDA, NRC, and EPA will help us a lot.”“ “More money for research”

208

“More pharmaceutical development. Comparisons of agents.” “More PR” “More research dollars to molecular imaging to identify DX and TX tracers.” “More research grant and opportunity” “More research grant money” “More visibility on campus and we really need to promote ourselves to those RPH that may have graduated 5-15 yrs ago and need a change.” “Need for more qualified candidates and support network when employees leave. Three consecutive six month recruiting periods followed by one year training with current staff carrying the load without compensation is inhumane.” “Need to attract more full time NM MDs.” “New AAPM (Task group) on NM acceptance and periodic evaluation.” “New DOE funding for isotope production.” “Now the PET/CT has brought more encouragement. We should educate this technique and make it more available and with better insurance reimbursement.” “Promote more radiotherapy treatment protocols and research.” “Provide funding for research training programs.” “Publish at Radiology and AJR” “Put more resources into developing new radiotracers.”“ “Reduce the negative impact of the regulators.” “Restrict practice to those trained specifically.” “Revisit the National Biomedical Tracer Facility (NBTF) plan. It could provide a supply for interesting radionuclides and provide training for radio chemists, hot cell operations, nuclear pharmacists and physicists.”“ “Specialized training courses” “Stabilize funding and reimbursement. Better investment in basic research opportunities. Focus on high cost PET centers a high risk.”“ “Stop sending these surveys to radiotherapy physicists, like myself” “Streamlining IND's through the FDA will help facilities progress in nuclear Medicine Research. (specifically for new tracers)” “Stronger Professional Representation” “The correct term is nuclear pharmacy not radiopharmacy!” “Tie facility accreditation more closely to study reimbursement.” “Union for Nuclear RPh's” “With unit dose, not much left to check pharmacy.” “1) Accreditation of nuclear medicine facilities; 2) Better educational programs for nuclear medicine residents. ; 3) Less "Low Quality" schools of nuclear medicine technology.” “1) Address the old times to keep them interested . Their knowledge is invaluable; 2) Address reimbursement issues more quickly.” “1) Better coordination with ACR in areas like QA; 2) improve relationship with radiology; 3) encourage more understanding of instrumentation and QA.” “1) Enhance the education; 2) Encourage young scientists to join.” “1) Focus on education; 2) More research Dollars; 3) Publicize the field; 4) more promotional material to allay fears about radiation overexposure.” “1) Incorporating NM in the early educational curriculum of future medical practitioners and technologists; 2) Increase incentives for small business / scientists to enter NM field.” “1) Increase graduate-level coursework available to working professionals; 2) Increase mentoring”

209

“1) More research into therapeutic uses of Radionuclides.” “1) Require Board Certification for all Physics activities in Nuclear Medicine.” “Better public relation and education of public.” “Convince clinicians that clinical depts need to support their PhDs . PhDs are usually marginalized and MDs are often lauded without reason.” “Create graduate program in ‘NM Science.’” “Efforts should be made to combine a Geiger counter and survey meter and a laser and a distance (1-6 meter) determinator for measuring packages and patients. Readings would be one at a time in a cycle order.” “Focus on Biomarker Development and Applications. For example, in PET lets get beyond FDG!” “Focused training updates for scientists” “Help from FDA” “Higher salaries- We are forced to work like dogs. Overtime is mandatory. Family life suffers. It's a sad scene.” “I am not optimistic, now that radiology has dominated politically + has taken over PET. RAIT has not achieved potential hoped for + those are no longer markets to justify new imaging products.” “Ideally - make it independent of Radiology. Legally and Professionally - but no realistic chance in the foreseeable future.” “Improve Salaries and Educational Activities/ Opportunities (Esp. at the technologist level)” “Improve the status of nuclear medicine- strengthen perceptions that it is a strong self sustaining entity rather than simply "procedures" that can be performed in non radiology divisions/dept.” “Increase number of fellowships” “Increase the recruitment of high school students by increasing their awareness of the employment opportunities in nuclear medicine.” “Innovate!”“ “Integration of Nuclear Medicine with other Imaging Modalities” “It is vital to educate the public and other medical professions about the importance and unique contribution of nuclear medicine!” “Keep up the good work.” “Lobby, Congress Positive News, Stories” “Make newer compounds available to the 'community' hospitals. Not just the academic centers.” “Make the MDs do the Tech and PhD work a few times (i.e., let MD make PIB for a change and then we'll see how they feel).” “Medical physicists need to be involved in the development of nuclear medicine science.” “More emphasis on salaries, less emphasis on marketing, sales, and non-scientific uses of monies.” “More exposure to undergraduate students” “More federal grant opportunity” “More government funded research” “More PR with hospital/Radiology administrators concerning medical nuclear physics (i.e., utility of).” “More public education” “More safety monitoring” “More Science and less politics” “Move Government Lobbying” “N/A Above” “Need R & D to produce new drugs.” “None”

210

“Nuclear medicine community should make a major effort to publicize nuclear medicine to the referring physicians and the public. It starts at the institutional level and then at the national level.” “Nuclear Medicine needs to be offered as a bachelor's degree in more areas. Technologists’ positions require more training and responsibility. More Universities need to implement these BS programs.” “Nuclear Medicine Physicians must be certified in Radiology. A pathway for this needs to be developed” “Nuclear Medicine Physicians' support and active promotion of scientists need” “Open more radiopharmacies” “Practitioners need to be promoting NM more aggressively.” “Public promotion of Nuclear Imaging” “Regulations” “Reviews of Grants applications should give more appropriate critique of the research contribution. Critiques don’t mean kill projects.” “Should establish collaborations with other governments like India to expedite research outcome!” “Stop creating ‘hot’ areas for future research, radiolabel antibodies were a failure ; "Molecular image" will also waste research dollars” “Strategy to win turf battles” “Streamline regulations. Improve basic elementary and secondary school science education.” “The U.S. needs to develop a program to supply the industry isotopes. We are too reliant on 1 source!”“ “To introduce Nuclear Medicine in undergraduate medical studies” “Train more radiochemists” “Training of Basic Science. e.g., - Resolution is best at the collimator surface. (I frequently see taking imaging at a 1 foot above the patient…) This is terrible.” “Training workshop with less cost.” “Until PET, Nuclear Medicine was a shrinking field. New tagged isotopes with higher accuracy are the key to the future.” “We must develop and provide a greater advocacy to the general public - we do good despite what the Sierra Club says about us.” Question K.1. What is your primary area of sub-specialization in chemistry? Please mark the most appropriate/closest choice:

Diagnostic/Therapy Medical Physics This survey is a joke Medical Physics Not a Chemist Photochemistry Physics and Medical Physics Radiological Physics Radiopharmaceutical Development Regulatory Affairs

211

Question K.3. Please indicate your primary (please choose only one) and secondary (please mark all that apply) areas of research:

Other 1 Other2 All of the above Nuclear Cameras

Angiogenesis Radiation Safety

Biochemistry Radiopharmacy QA

Biomolecular Synthesis Small Animal Models

Biopharmaceutical development Vice President Activities

Diagnostic imaging

Education

Health Physics

Internal Contamination

In vivo studies

IRB Review

Lung, Heart and Blood

Medical Physics

Metal Oxides

None

Nuclear detectors

Optical Diagnostics

Organic Synthesis

PET Instrumentation

Pre-clinical

Psychiatry

QD, F

Radiopharmaceutical QC

Receptor-binding

Renal

Renal nuclear med

212

Question K.4. To which clinical areas does your work primarily apply? Please mark one primary area and one secondary area:

Primary Secondary Psychiatry (3) Clinical Nuclear Medicine Radiation Safety (3) Cu-64, 67 applications GI (2) Optics Autoimmune Diseases Radiation Safety Biology Statistics of Measurements Cancer Research Clinical Center Diagnostic Diagnostic imaging Diagnostic Radiation Diagnostic Radiology Dosimetry Drug Abuse Education General Hepatology I-123 applications Image Analysis Infection imaging Inflammation/Infection Lung and Cardiovascular Medical Physics Nephrology Neuroreceptor Quantitation Pulmonary Radiology Radiopharmacy Renal Renal Nuclear Medicine RN Metabolism Skeletal Urology

Question L.1. What is your area of sub-specialization in pharmacy? Please mark the most appropriate/closest choice:

Clinical (2) Clinical Pharmacology ADME phase I and II IND Clinical Research Dispensing Health Physics in Nuclear Pharmacy Imaging of Radiopharms Marketing Medical Physics Radiopharmacy, Both STD and PET. Regulatory Affairs

213

Research/Radiotherapy RSO Stray Radiation and Compliance

Question L.3. Please indicate your primary (please choose only one) and secondary (please mark all that apply) areas of research:

None (2) All of the above Business Development Development and validation of QC methodology Dosimetry and Calculations Education IGRT Imaging of RadPh Marketing Military Pharmacy No Research Psychiatry Quality Assurance Radiation Safety and Regulatory Regulatory Oversight Stray Radiation and Compliance Teaching

Question L.4. To which clinical areas does your work primarily apply? Please mark one primary area and one secondary area:

Other1 Other2 General Nuclear Medicine (3) PET (2) Radiation Safety (3) Also basic science research studies Psychiatry (2) GI Radiology (2) Monitoring drug kinetics Administrative Urology All of the above All other diagnostic studies All other organ systems All Radiopharmaceuticals Basic science research studies Bone Clean up Diagnostic Diagnostic Imaging. Drug Safety/Quality Neuro, oncology, cardiology, endocrinology, pediatrics

General nuclear medicine studies Inflammation/ Infection Metabolism No clinical work None Pharmacokinetics Tc-99m Supply

214

Question M.1. What is your area of sub-specialization in physics? Please mark the most appropriate/closest choice:

Other 1 Other 2 Radiation Oncology (45) Diagnostic Radiology (3) Medical Physics (30) Diagnostic Physics (2) Radiation Therapy (26) Diagnostic Imaging Radiation Therapy Physics (23) Diagnostic Radiology Physics Radiation Oncology Physics (16) Mammography Radiological Physics (10) Medical Physics Diagnostic Radiological Physics (6) Radiation Therapy Diagnostic Radiology (6) Therapy Physics Therapy Physics (6) Thermal Applied to Medical Therapy Diagnostic Imaging (5) Diagnostic Medical Physics (5) Therapy (5) Diagnostic Imaging Physics (3) Medical Imaging Physics (3) Radiologic Physics (3) Radiotherapy Physics (3) Therapeutic Physics (3) Biophysics (2) Diagnostic Physics (2) Diagnostic Radiologic Physics (2) General Medical Physics (2) Imaging (2) Medical Physicist (2) Oncology (2) Radiation Physics (2) Radiological (2) Therapeutic Radiological Physics (2) ABR diagnostic imaging Admin/ Educ Also Therapy Physics Biomedical Biomedical Physics Cardiology Condensed Matter Physics Currently Therapy Physics Diagnostic Diagnostic and Radiation Therapy Diagnostic Imaging (General) Diagnostic Imaging, Computed Radiation Diagnostic NMP Diagnostic Radiation Physics Diagnostic Radiology Physics Diagnostic/Informatics/PACS

215

Domestic/International Security Imaging Physics Imaging Physics Consultant Instrumentation Mathematics Medical Medical / Health Physics Medical Biophysics Medical Imaging Medical Physics - Therapeutic Medical Physics (Radiation. Therapy) Medical Physics Imaging Medical Physics Radiology/Nuclear Medicine Medical Physics/Radiation Therapy Medical Physics-Diagnostic. Therapy Medical Radiological Physics Molecular Biophysics MRI Physics Neuro Imaging Now: Medical Physics, Therapy Nuclear Nuclear Physics PET clinical imaging research Physics and Modeling Physics of Diagnostic Radiology Radiation Radiation Oncology and Gamma Knife Radiation Physicist Radiation Protection Radiation Theory Radiation. Oncology. Physics Radiolabeling with 124 I, 125 I, 131 I, 11 In, 64 Cu, 90 Y. Radiological Medical Physics Radiological Physics Radiology Radiopharmaceutical Development Radiopharmaceuticals Radiosurgery Regulatory Therapeutic Therapeutic Diagnostic Therapeutic Medical Physics Therapeutic Radiation Physics Therapeutic Radiologic Physics Therapeutic Radiological Therapy and Diagnostic Physics Therapy Medical Physics

216

Therapy Physicist-Now Therapy Physics/Imaging X-Ray CT (PET on the side)

Question M.3. Please indicate your primary (please choose only one) and secondary (please mark all that apply) areas of research:

Radiation Safety (21) Regulatory (11) Health Physics (3) Instrumentation (3) Mammography (3) Regulations (3) Consulting (2) Diagnostic Imaging (2) Diagnostic Radiology (2) Education (2) Medical Health Physics (2) Radiology (2) Safety (2) Teaching (2) Adjudication of radiation alarms Animal Imaging Biomarker Development Breast Imaging Calibration Chronic Disease Prevention Clinical Compliance Computer applications Cyclotron Operation Cyclotron operation and radiochemistry Design Diagnostic and Nuclear Medicine Physics Diagnostic Consulting Diagnostic Imaging Display Diagnostic/Nuclear Medicine Physics Dosimetry Education/Radiation Protection General nuclear medicine Imaging Physics Kinetic Modeling Neuroscience Metabolism None Non-medical Imaging Research Optical Diagnostics Other Areas of Medical Physics PACS PACS/Radiology Informatics PET Pharmaceutical Pharmacy Physics Consulting Preclinical Animal Imaging Preclinical Studies QA, QC

217

Radiation Protection Radiation Safety and Imaging Physics Radio Biology Radioisotope Prod Radiologic Physics Radionuclide Therapy Radionuclide tracers and therapies Radiotracer Development Evaluation Reading Scans Regulatory Compliance Regulatory Guidelines Research Research analysis RSO duties Small animal imaging Software Analysis

218

Question M.4. To which clinical areas does your work primarily apply? Please mark one primary area and one secondary area:

Other 1 Other 2 Radiology (31) Nuclear Medicine (8) Nuclear Medicine (10) Radiation Safety (6) Radiation Safety (10) Diagnostic Radiology (3) Diagnostic Radiology (7) Radiology (3) General Nuclear Medicine (5) Diagnostic Imaging (2) Diagnostic Imaging (4) Biomedical Research All Areas (3) Education Diagnostics (3) Hospital with Radiation Safety Regulatory (3) Imaging General Diagnostic (2) MRI General Diagnostic Radiology (2) Not applicable General Imaging (2) Nuclear Cardiology Medical Physics (2) Nuclear Medicine, radiology Preclinical imaging (2) Optics Radiology and Mammography (2) Other Medical Health Physics All Clinical Uses PET All Diagnostic Imaging Psychiatry All Diagnostic Isotopes QA in nuclear med All Imaging QA/Imaging All Nuclear Medicine Quality Control- Therapy All Radiology/Nuclear Medicine Radiographic Technology Animal Radiology/Nuclear Medicine Bone Densitometry Safety and Regulatory Brachy Therapy Small Animal Models Breast Disease Theory of carcinogenesis Broad Scope Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine CT/MR. - General Clinical Diagnostic Medical Physics Dosimetry Equipment Performance General Nukes General radiology/ NM Health Physics Hospital wide radiation safety Imaging Imaging physics Informatics Instrumentation Internal Dosimetry Isotope Manufacture Mammography Medical Imaging

219

Nephrology New Markers Not applicable Nuclear Medicine Department Nuclear Medicine in general Ophthalmology Pain Management PET Psychiatry Quality Assurance Radiation Dose Assessment Radiation Oncology Physics Radiation Physics Radiation Protection Radiology. Dosimetry Radionuclide Therapy Regulatory Compliance Research, Instrumentation Education Retired Science of Measurements Small Animal Surgery Teaching

Question N.1. Please indicate your primary (please choose only one) and secondary (please mark all that apply) areas of research: Other 1:

Automatic Analysis Clinical Display Technology Dosimetry Image Interpretation Psychophysical metrics of image quality Quality Assurance Requirements Radiation Safety Standards

Other 2:

Calibration

220

Question N.3. To which clinical areas does your work primarily apply? Please mark one primary area and one secondary area:

Other 1 Other 2 Radiology (3) Quality Control Psychiatry (2) Safety and Regulatory Regulatory (2) Vascular Biological Research Psychiatry Diagnostic Imaging Education Equipment Performance General Nuclear Medicine Medical Imaging, etc. Neuroscience Nuclear Medicine Ophthalmology Radiation Protection Safety Small Animal Imaging