ANDP Survey - Conclusions

9. Conclusions

Neuroscience is a very attractive discipline. Increased recognition and appreciation of Neuroscience certainly has been promoted by such recent developments as the "decade of the brain", the award of Nobel prizes to several neuroscientists, and conspicuous progress in the diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and spinal injury. These and other developments have attracted a steady increase in the number of graduate students being trained in the neural sciences, and an even greater rate of increase in the number of undergraduate students who major in Neuroscience. Increased recognition and appreciation of the discipline also is reflected in the likelihood that students trained in the neural sciences will receive their degrees in Neuroscience rather than in some other discipline, as was true 15 years
ago.

The finding that graduate training in the neural sciences is not confined to departments of neuroscience is in keeping with a similar trend in other biomedical sciences (e.g., Cell Biology, Pharmacology), but is in striking contrast to graduate training in the physical sciences (e.g., Chemistry, Physics). In explanation, not all schools with neuroscientists as faculty members have departments of neuroscience. Even in schools with such departments, neuroscientists may be found in many other departments, both clinical (e.g., Neurology, Psychiatry) and preclinical (e.g., Biology, Pharmacology). Neuroscientists in these other departments understandably want to interact with their colleagues elsewhere on campus, both in research programs and in graduate training programs. The resultant integration of neuroscientists across departments and across schools likely enhances the quality of those programs while making the community more collegial, more visible and attractive to students and faculty, and more influential on campus.

The integration of faculty in Schools of Medicine and Schools of Arts & Sciences into a university-wide graduate training program likely promotes their increased contribution to undergraduate education. Nonetheless, half of the undergraduate programs in Neuroscience surveyed are at institutions not affiliated with graduate training programs in Neuroscience. It is a challenge to such programs to provide opportunities for research training in Neuroscience to their undergraduate student majors.

The finding that students in the neural sciences continue to have very good credentials upon entering graduate programs suggests that the increasing size of graduate programs does not reflect a lowering of admissions standards. The remarkable heterogeneity in background of students entering graduate programs in the neural sciences suggests that prior expertise in Neuroscience is generally not a significant variable in the admission process. That heterogeneity also presents a challenge to the design
of a suitable graduate curriculum of courses.

The finding that the portion of predoctoral trainees who are not U.S. citizens has remained stable during the past 15 years indicates that their presence is not responsible for the net increase in the size of graduate programs in the neural sciences. In contrast, the number of non-U.S. citizens who come to the U.S. as postdoctoral trainees has increased steadily during the past 15 years, and they now outnumber domestic postdoctoral trainees. Thus, their increased presence does appear to be responsible for the stable number of postdoctoral trainees per program.

The financial support of advanced graduate students and postdoctoral trainees has become increasingly dependent on faculty research grants. This trend is especially pronounced among trainees who are not U.S. citizens, since they are not eligible for federal fellowships or support on federal training grants. Whether the Nationa Institutes of Health will continue to allow research grants to support so many trainees is a controversial matter now under discussion.^3,4 If NIH decides to change their policy and limit the use of research funds to support trainees, then the funds derived from fellowships and training grants likely will have to increase for the size of training and research programs in the neural sciences to remain stable.

The finding that the relatively low number of women in tenure-stream faculty positions has not changed appreciably in the past 10 years may be contrasted with their good representation as predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees, and as undergraduate Neuroscience majors. Their increasing number in nontenure-stream faculty positions provides part of the answer to the question of where the women trainees in the neural sciences find employment.

Because little more than half the graduate and undergraduate programs in the neural sciences can hire their own faculty, it seems likely that such programs have difficulty in maintaining a stable curriculum of courses and research specialties. For example, when a contributing faculty member leaves, the program has to hope (rather than determines) that someone else will be hired to maintain a core course or a collaborative research program. Indeed, when a neuroscientist leaves a department in another discipline, there is no assurance that a neuroscientist will be hired as a replacement, much less a neuroscientist with interests and expertise that best suit the training program.

The finding that undergraduate education in Neuroscience usually is not provided in a single departmental setting (unlike scientific disciplines such as Chemistry, Physics, and Biology) suggests that often the departmental community of neuroscientists on campus is relatively small, and that neuroscientists find colleagues in their discipline in other departments. One disadvantage in this arrangement is that neuroscientists may have little clout in influencing administrative decisions that affect their
educational program.

The finding that tenure-stream faculty positions in undergraduate programs in the neural sciences increased less rapidly than undergraduate students with Neuroscience majors suggests that existing faculty are doing more teaching (i.e., larger classes, more classes). In addition, the finding that nontenure-stream faculty positions increased more rapidly than tenure-stream faculty positions indicates another likely way in which the new instructional responsibilities are being discharged.

The finding that most tenure-stream faculty positions in undergraduate Neuroscience programs are at the associate or full professor levels suggests that Neuroscience is not being taught primarily by faculty who received graduate and postdoctoral training in recent years.

The finding that faculty positions in the neural sciences are being filled more slowly than the rate at which Ph.D. degrees in Neuroscience are being awarded has had two striking effects on postdoctoral trainees. First, an increasing number of them are choosing professional careers in industry rather than academia. That development provides a challenge to graduate programs to prepare predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees appropriately for such nonacademic positions. Second, an increasing percentage of postdoctoral trainees, when they leave one postdoctoral position, are moving to another. One could argue that long-term postdoctoral training in an academic setting is beneficial because it allows the trainees the time and facilities with which to do research, and improve their credentials, without the intrusion of traditional faculty responsibilities such as teaching and committee work. One could also argue that increased competition for faculty positions among postdoctoral trainees is beneficial because it improves their performance and their contribution to the field. However, this survey did not solicit information about whether postdoctoral trainees are content while they remain in such positions. With time, whatever the benefits of their positions, many of these well-trained young people no doubt become increasingly disappointed that they have less security, less respect, and less income than they had anticipated. On the other hand, it seems inappropriate to deal with this complex problem by limiting graduate training, as has been suggested,⁵ and thereby prevent students from ever competing for the jobs they want⁶, because there always have been numerous opportunities available for employment besides faculty positions, and postdoctoral trainees usually find employment in science ultimately. More generally, it also seems unwise to reduce education in science at a time when life has become increasingly more complex and science-based, and unfair to place
limits on opportunities when some groups have not yet had a chance to take advantage of them.

(3) Addressing the nation's changing needs for biomedical and behavioral scientists. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000. [http://grants.nih.gov/training/outcomes.htm.]
(4) NIH statement in response to addressing the nation's changing needs for biomedical and behavioral scientists. [http://grants.nih.gov/training/nas_report/NIHResponse.htm]
(5) Editorial. Stockpiling PhDs for the new millenium. Nature neuroscience 2: 1039, 1999.
(6) Mize, R.R., Talamo, B.R., Schoenfeld, R.I., Huffman, L.K., and Fellows, R.E. Neuroscience training at the turn of the century: a summary report of the third annual ANDP survey. Nature neuroscience 3:
433-435, 2000.

February 22, 2007