Biomedical Research WorkforceBiomedical Research Workforce Working Group INTERIM REPORT

Shirley Tilghman, PhDPresidentPrinceton University

Sally Rockey, PhDDeputy Director for Extramural ResearchNIH

Charge1. Develop a model for a sustainable and diverse U.S. biomedical research 

workforce that can inform decisions about training of the optimal number of people for the appropriate types of positions that will d i d t h lthadvance science and promote health. Developing the model will include an analysis of the current composition and size of the workforce to understand the consequences of current funding policies on the research framework. g pThe model should include:• An assessment of present and future needs in the academic research arena, but also 

• Current and future needs in industry, science policy, education, communication, and other pathways. 

The model will also require an assessment of current and future availability of trainees from the domestic and internationalavailability of trainees from the domestic and international communities. 

http://acd.od.nih.gov/bwf.asphttp://acd.od.nih.gov/bwf.asp

2

Charge cont.Charge cont.

2. Based on this analysis and input from the y pextramural community, using appropriate expertise from NIH and external sources, and p ,recognizing that there are limits to NIH’s ability to control many aspects of the training y y p gpipeline, the committee will make recommendations for actions that NIH should take to support a future sustainable biomedical infrastructure. 

3

Roster• Shirley Tilghman, PhD, President, Princeton University, co‐Chairy g , , , y,• Sally Rockey, PhD, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH, co‐Chair• Sandra Degen, PhD, Interim Chair, Dept of Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry & Microbiology, 

Associate Chair for Academic Affairs, Dept of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, University of Cincinnati

• Laura Forese, MD, COO, Chief Medical Officer, and Senior Vice President, NY‐Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center

• Donna Ginther, Ph.D., Professor, Professor of Economics and Director, Center for Economic and Business Analysis, University of Kansas

• Arthur Gutierrez‐Hartmann, M.D., Professor, Department of Medicine and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics; and Director, Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Colorado Denver

• Freeman Hrabowski, PhD, President, University of Maryland, Baltimore CountyJ J k PhD P f f P h l d Di t I tit t f S i l R h• James Jackson, PhD, Professor of Psychology and Director, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan

• Leemor Joshua‐Tor, PhD, Professor and Dean, Watson School of Biological Sciences, HHMI Investigator, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

• Richard Lifton MD PhD HHMI Investigator Yale School of Medicine• Richard Lifton, MD, PhD, HHMI Investigator, Yale School of Medicine• Garry Neil, MD, Corporate Vice President, Corporate Office of Science and Technology, 

Johnson & Johnson• Naomi Rosenberg, PhD, Dean, Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, Tufts 

University School of MedicineUniversity School of Medicine • Bruce A. Weinberg, PhD, Ohio State University • Keith Yamamoto, PhD, Executive Vice Dean, School of Medicine, University of California San 

Francisco 4

Modeling sub‐Committeeg• Bruce Weinberg, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Ohio State University, co‐

chair• Donna Ginther, Ph.D., Professor of Economics & Director, Center for 

Economic and Business Analysis, University of Kansas , co‐chair• David Blau, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Ohio State University • Stephen Eubank, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Virginia Bioinformatics 

Institute & deputy director, Network Dynamics and Simulation Science Laboratory, Virginia Tech     

• Richard B. Freeman, Ph.D. Herbert Ascherman Chair of Economics,Richard B. Freeman, Ph.D. Herbert Ascherman Chair of Economics, Harvard University & director of the National Bureau of Economic Research/Sloan Science Engineering Workforce Project  

• Peter K. Sorger, Ph.D. Professor of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical SchoolSchool 

• Paula Stephan, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, Georgia State University • Michael Teitelbaum, Ph.D. Senior Advisor, The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation 

5

NIH Activities• NIH Training/Workforce Committee

– Trans‐NIH group of staff experts in training and workforce issues– Led by Rod Ulane and Richard Baird, co‐chairs of the NIH Training 

Advisory Committee– Developing scenarios for possible NIH policy changes for supporting:

• Graduate students• Postdoctoral Fellows• Early career scientistsy• Clinician‐scientists

• SupportOER and other NIH staff– OER and other NIH staff

– Discovery Logic – data analyses– Ripple Effects – RFI analyses

6

Activities• May 10, 2011 – first working group callMay 10, 2011  first working group call• May 23, 2011 – first modeling sub‐committee call• June 21, 2011 – one day working group meeting on NIH campus

– Working group meetingg g p g– Presentations from stakeholders

• August 5, 2011 – one day meeting of modeling sub‐committee in Cambridge, MA

f f l f k f d l– Definition of a conceptual framework for a model– Developed a list of analyses to provide data to the working group (analyses 

ongoing)• Request for Information http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice‐files/NOT‐q p //g g /g /g / /

OD‐11‐106.html ‐ published August 17, 2011 (closed October 7, 2011)• September 14, 2011 – working group call to refine major issues• October 12, 2011 – working group call on staff scientists• October 25, 2011 – one day meeting on NIH campus

– Initial presentation of data– Discussion of unintended consequences of NIH policies

Fi t tli f t– First outline of report• October‐November, 2011 – NIH staff group deliberations

7

ApproachApproach• A two‐tiered approach that includes descriptive analyses and a conceptual framework (model):analyses and a conceptual framework (model):– Perform a number of descriptive analyses of key aspects of the workforce

– Develop a conceptual framework to organize the analyses– Develop a conceptual framework to organize the analyses (see next slides), could be developed into a full dynamic model

• Populate conceptual framework with information on• Populate conceptual framework with information on each career stage and transition

• Augment with descriptive analyses that drill into key i tpoints

• Link to data on each career stage and transition to build a comprehensive resource upon which p precommendations will be based.

8

Conceptual Framework: PhD Biomedical Research Workforce

College College GraduatesGraduates

Graduate Graduate Education & Education &

TrainingTraining

Postdoctoral Postdoctoral TrainingTraining

International International DoctoratesDoctorates

Science Science RelatedRelated

NNGovernment Government

R hR h

Academic Academic Research orResearch or NonNon--Science Science

R l t dR l t dOut of Labor Out of Labor

FFIndustrial Industrial R hR hNonNon--

Research Research ResearchResearch Research or Research or

TeachingTeaching RelatedRelated ForceForceResearchResearch

9

Conceptual Framework:MD & MD/PhD Biomedical Research Workforce

College College GraduatesGraduates

Medical/Graduate Medical/Graduate SchoolSchool

Postdoctoral Postdoctoral Research Research TrainingTraining

Internship Internship --ResidencyResidency

International International DoctoratesDoctorates

Science Science RelatedRelated

NonNonGovernment Government

ResearchResearch

Academic Academic Research/ Research/

Teaching orTeaching orNonNon--

Research Research Out of Labor Out of Labor ForceForce

Industrial Industrial ResearchResearch

NonNon--Research Research NonNon--

Research Research ResearchResearch Teaching or Teaching or

Patient CarePatient Care Patient CarePatient Care ForceForceResearchResearch

10

NonNon--clinicalclinical

Issues and Analyses: Graduate Students• Issues:

– The balance between supply, including the number of domestic and foreign trained PhD students, and demand, i.e. post‐training career 

i iopportunities.– Characteristics of PhD training in biomedical research, including issues 

such as• The length of the PhD training period.The length of the PhD training period.• Recommendations for changes to the PhD curriculum.• Training for multiple career paths (including bench and non‐bench science).

The ratio of PhD students on training grants to those supported by– The ratio of PhD students on training grants to those supported by research grants.

• Analyses:– PhD training, analyzing doctoral‐level degrees conferred by US g, y g g y

institutions.  • Includes information on numbers of students, time to degree, and degrees awarded

• Broken out by citizenship/visa status race and ethnicity and genderBroken out by citizenship/visa status, race and ethnicity, and gender– NIH support for students

11

Issues and Analyses: Postdoctoral Fellows• Issues:

– The balance between supply, including the number of domestic and foreign trained postdoctoral fellows, and demand, i.e. post‐training g p , , p gcareer opportunities.

– The ratio of postdoctoral fellows on training grants to those supported by research grants.Length of Post doctoral training– Length of Post‐doctoral training.

– Number and fate of foreign postdoctoral fellows and how that affects the size of the workforce and career prospects of trainees.

• Analyses:Analyses:– PhD students planning to do a postdoctoral work– Numbers of postdoctoral fellows by citizenship/visa status and by 

source of support– Numbers of US PhDs and MDs in postdoctoral positions at various 

times after their degree– NIH support for postdoctoral fellows– Information about foreign postdoctoral fellows derived from visa data– Information about foreign postdoctoral fellows derived from visa data

12

Issues and Analyses: Career Paths• Issues

– Possibilities for professional/staff scientist positions and the level of training required for such positions (e.g. PhD or MSc degrees).

– Issues related to the attractiveness of biomedical research careers (e.g. salary, working conditions, availability of research funding)The effect of changes in NIH policies on investigators grantee institutions and the– The effect of changes in NIH policies on investigators, grantee institutions and the broader research enterprise.

– Diversity of the workforce– The multiple career paths taken by the biomedically‐trained workforce and the decision 

points leading to those careers.p g• Analyses 

– NIH support for new investigators– Employment trends of biomedical workforce, mainly in academic and medical school 

settings, with some information about industry and government• Age, tenure status, race/ethnicity, and gender of US‐trained faculty• US‐trained and foreign PhDs by major field• Salary data• Trends in workforce entrants by citizenship/visa status• Stay rates for US‐trained biomedical PhDsStay rates for US trained biomedical PhDs• Staff scientists by organization type, gender, and nativity • US‐trained PhDs in fields closely, somewhat, or unrelated to their degree

– Additional analysis of recent industry trends– Aging of the workforce – retirement ratesg g– Unintended consequences of current NIH policies– Salary sources (the “soft money” question)

13

RFI Responses: Basic Statistics• 219 unique comments received• 170 (80%) on behalf of self and 44 (20%) on behalf of an organization• In addition to the 8 issues in the RFI, 4 additional issues raised in the 

i l d i i i i dcomments: mentoring, early education interventions, industry partnership, and diversity

Distribution of Primary Issues

19%17%

12%11%

9%

15%

20%

25%

60

80

100

120istribution of Primary Issues

9%7% 6% 6% 5% 4%

2% 1%

0%

5%

10%

0

20

40

14http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice‐files/NOT‐OD‐11‐106.html

RFI Responses: Self vs OrganizationCommenters were asked to indicate the most important issue(s) for the working group to address.  Following are the issues indicated by individual and organizational commenters in order of priority

Self Organization

Supply and Demand PhD Characteristics

PhD Characteristics Clinician Characteristics

Biomedical Research Career Appeal Post doc Training CharacteristicsBiomedical Research Career Appeal Post‐doc Training Characteristics

Post‐doc Training Characteristics Supply and Demand

Clinician Characteristics Biomedical Research Career Appeal

Effects of NIH Policies Staff Scientist Career Track

Diversity Diversity

Mentoring Effects of NIH Policiesg

Staff Scientist Career Track Training to Research Grant Ratio

Industry Partnership Early Educational Interventions

l d l

15

Early Educational Interventions Mentoring

Training to Research Grant Ratio Industry Partnership

RFI Responses: Selected Recommendations• Encourage career development programs that integrate multiple 

career pathways.• Revise training grant review policies so that non‐academic career 

choices for former trainees are not considered training failureschoices for former trainees are not considered training failures.• Provide mechanisms to support protected time for clinician research.• Provide grant mechanisms and change the funding policy to increase 

project budgets to support the costs associated with permanent staffproject budgets to support the costs associated with permanent staff (i.e. staff scientists).

• Review and modify family friendly policies, such as family leave for trainees, and funding restrictions/preferences based on career pacing. 

• Encourage more structured mentoring experiences and develop career/mentorship plans and guidelines.

• Increase training mandates and trainee monitoring on research grants.  • Promote partnership programs for post‐doctoral fellows to provide 

them with a better understanding of how science is carried out in industry, which would help prepare them for career paths outside of academia.

16

PRELIMINARY DATAPRELIMINARY DATA

17

Employment for College Graduates with a B h l ’ i Bi l Fi ld ( 1 989 383)Bachelor’s in a Biology Field (n=1,989,383)One‐third of biology college graduates are employed in health‐related occupations

Postsecondary Teachers

Scientists Biological and Medical 7.8%

2.7%

related occupations.

S l d M k ti

Health‐related occupations 

Manager

Precollege Teacher 5.0%

8.4%

33.0%

5 6%

Other non SE

Other SE

Technicians SE

Sales and Marketing

5.7%

2.1%

5.6%

13.1%

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000

Unknown

Other non SE

Total Weighted Count

16.5%

3 %

Source:  NSF SESTAT, 2003 National Survey of College Graduates18

Employment for Doctorates in Biology Field ( )(n=231,350) 

Based on a survey of all college graduates residing in the US, one‐third of biology doctorates are employed in research occupations.

Postsecondary Teachers

Scientists Biological and Medical 38.7%

biology doctorates are employed in research occupations.

13.9%

S l d k i

Health‐related occupations 

Managers

Pre‐College Teachers 0.7%

8.7%

11.4%

Other non SE

Other SE

Technicians SE

Sales and marketing 1.8%

1.2%

3.8%

5 7%

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000

Unknown

Other non SE

Total Weighted Count

5.7%

14.1%

g

Source:  NSF SESTAT, 2003 National Survey of College Graduates19

Pharmaceutical Industry R&D lEmployment 

Employment in the US Pharmaceutical sector has risen  over two‐fold since 2002.  However R&D Employees include more than PhDs.

100

120

ceutical 

p y

60

80

es in

 R&D Pha

rmac

thou

sand

s

40

60

ber o

f FTE

 employee

sector, in 

0

20

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Num

b

Source:  NSF Industrial Research and Development Information System

20 Note: NSF data until 2008.  Analysis of more recent data is ongoing.

In the Following Slides:  Analysis of U.S. Trained PhDs

F• From  hthe 19931993  2008– 2008 SSurvey  fof DDoctorate R i iRecipients• These data are for U.S. Trained PhDs only• Biomedical Fields exclude:  Clinical, Psychology and Social Science Fields

21

Relationship Between Science and h ld dEngineering PhD Field and Occupation

Across S&E PhD fields, 50‐80% of graduates are employed in occupations that , g p y pclosely match their PhD field.

90

100

60

70

80

of PhD

s

20

30

40

50

Percen

t o

0

10

20

1997 2008 1997 2008 1997 2008 1997 2008 1997 2008

l l/ f h d h l h l d

22Source:  NSF Survey of Doctoral Recipients

Biological/Life Sciences

Engineering Math and Computer Science

Physical Sciences Psychology and Social Science

Relationship Between Life Sciences PhD Field and Occupation

Within Life Sciences, Biological Sciences fields have the highest number of PhDs working in a related occupation

70

80

Field

PhDs working in a related occupation.

50

60

Occup

ation in PhD

 F

Agricultural/food sciences ‐Occupation in Ph.D. field

Biological Sciences ‐ Occupation i Ph D fi ld

20

30

40

t of the

 PhD

s with

 O in Ph.D. field

Chemistry, except biochemistry ‐ Occupation in Ph.D. field

Environmental life sciences ‐Occupation in Ph.D. field

0

10

1997 2008 1997 2008

Percen

t

23

1‐10 years since Ph.D 11 or more years since Ph.D

Source:  NSF Survey of Doctoral Recipients

U.S. Trained Biomedical PhDs in Research i b iOccupations, by Years Since Degree

Over 70% of biomedical PhDs begin working in research occupations out of 

90

graduate school; by 11 YSD 60% still work in a research occupation.

70

80

cal PhD

s

Primary or secondary job is research ‐1 5 i Ph D

50

60

ercent of B

iomed

ic 1‐5 years since Ph.D

Primary or secondary job is research ‐6‐10 years since Ph.D

Primary or secondary job is research ‐

30

40

Pe 11‐20 years since Ph.D

Primary or secondary job is research ‐More than 20 years since Ph.D

24

301993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2008

Year of Survey

U.S. Trained PhDs in Academic Employment, by Tenure Track StatusEmployment, by Tenure Track Status 

Biomedical

1820

Chemistry35%70

68

10121416

25%

30%

50

60

PhDs

in Tho

usan

ds

0246

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2008

s, in

 Tho

usan

ds

Other Life Sciences

15%

20%

30

40

cent of B

iomed

ical 

Biom

edical PhD

s, i

Num

ber o

f PhD

s

12

14

16

18

20Other Life Sciences

5%

10%

10

20 Per

Num

ber o

f 

0

2

4

6

8

100%0

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2008Year of Survey

In non‐tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed

In tenured or tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed

Source:  NSF Survey of Doctoral Recipients

01993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2008

Other life sciences

25

In tenured or tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed

% In non‐tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed

% In tenured or tenure track position BioLife: Basic Biomed