Early Careers for Biomedical Scientists: Doubling (and Troubling) Outcomes

Paula Stephanpstephan@gsu.edu

Georgia State UniversityFebruary 26, 2007

Overview

• Throughout 1990s concern expressed regarding workforce outcomes for early career biomedical scientists

• In late 1990s, NIH budget began an expansion that resulted in a doubling of the budget over a 5-year period

• Here we examine the effects of this doubling on careers of young life scientists

Overview continued

• Begin by discussing why the young are of special interest

• Continue by summarizing the early career situation for biomedical scientists in the 1990s.

• Update the situation, for 2003 and 2005.• Examine NIH funding patterns during and after

the doubling• Conclude with a summary and discussion of

what the future may hold

Acknowledgements/Caveats• Portion of presentation uses data from Survey of

Doctorate Recipients. Use of data does not imply NSF endorsement of research methods or conclusions.

• SDR data are for PhDs who received their doctoral training in U.S.; includes MD/PhDs; fails to count those who received PhD training outside the U.S.

• Views expressed are not those of NIH• Acknowledge support from the Science and

Engineering Workforce Project funded by Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Why Focus on the Young?• Relationship of age to productivity• Cohort effects: initial labor market conditions

when one gets a PhD have impact throughout career

• Young have been drawn to study biomedical sciences because of a love of science…highly motivated

• Efficiency concerns—is this a rational policy?• Signals created by poor prospects affect future

flows into PhD programs

Situation in 1990s• In 1996 NRC established a committee to study

trends in the early careers of life scientists.• Rationale for study was that production of PhDs

had been growing but job market outcomes had not. Manifested by such indicators as– Increase in time to degree– Increase in number holding postdoc position and

length of postdoc position– Decrease in probability of holding a tenure track

position– Decline in NIH support for young investigators

NRC Committee

• Chaired by Shirley Tilghman, Currently President of Princeton

Number o f Ph.D.s Conferred in the B iomedica l Sc iences1963-1996

0

1200

2400

3600

4800

6000

7200

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

Y ears

To

tal P

h.D

.s

Number of P h.D .'sSource: NRC Report

Median Time to Degree and Age at Degree(US Life-Science Ph.D.s in the Biom edical Sciences)

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Year

Tim

e to

Deg

ree

28.5

29

29.5

30

30.5

31

31.5

32

Med

ian

Ag

e at

Tim

e o

f Deg

ree

Time to Degree Median Age at Time of Degree

Source: NRC Report

Percent of US Life-Science Ph.D.s in the Biom edical Sciences Planning Post Doctoral Train ing Upon

G raduation

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1 9 6 3 1 9 6 4 1 9 6 5 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 7 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 8 1 9 7 9 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 8 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6

Year

Per

cen

t

Postdoctoral A ppointments

Source: NRC Report

Fraction of Biom edical L ife Science Doctorates in Postdoctoral Appointm ents in Academ e, Industry, and

G overnm ent (1973-1995)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1-2 Y ears S inc e P h.D. 3-4 Y ears S inc e P h.D. 5-6 Y ears S ince P h.D.

In terview D ate

Per

cen

t

1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1995 Source: NRC Report

Percent of Biom edical Life Science Ph.D.s in Selected Sectors (5-6 Years Since Degree)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tenure-TrackFaculty Position at

PhD Ins titutions

Tenure-TrackFaculty Position atOther Institutions

Industry Federal Labs andOther Government

Other

Employment Sector

Per

cen

t

1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1995Source: NRC Report

Number of Biomedical Life Science Ph.D.s in Selected Sectors (5-6 Years Since Degree)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Tenure-TrackFaculty Pos ition at

PhD Ins titutions

Tenure-TrackFaculty Pos ition atOther Ins titutions

Indus try Federal Labs andOther Government

Other

Employment Sector

Nu

mb

er

1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1995

Source: NRC Report

Percent of B iom edical L ife Science Ph.D .s in Part-time, Temporary Positions or Unemployed

(5-6 Years Since Receipt of Ph.D .)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1995

Survey Year

Per

cen

t

Postdocs Employed Part-time Unemployed and Seeking Other Academic Positions

Data: NRC Report

Percent of Life-Science Ph.D.s in Selected Sectors (5-6 Years Since Degree) 1973 and 1995 by Ranking of

Institution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tenure-TrackFaculty

Position at PhDInstitutions

Tenure-TrackFaculty

Position atOther

Institutions

Industry Federal Labsand Other

Government

Other

Interview Date

Per

cent

Quality Institutions (1973) Quality Institutions(1995) Series5 Other Institutions (1973) Other Institutions (1995)

Data: NRC Report

NIH Support For those 35 and Younger

• 1993 about 380 awards• 1994 about 410 awards• 1995 about 350 awards• 1996 about 340 awards• 1997 about 330 awards• 1998 about 330 awards• Average age at first independent award in 1980:

37; average age in 1990 39.5. Continued to rise during 1990s.

Summary of Recommendations of NRC Committee

• Restraint of the Rate of Growth of the Number of Graduate Students in the Life Sciences

• Dissemination of Accurate Information on the Career Prospects of Young Life Scientists

• Improvement of the Educational Experience of Graduate Students

• Enhancement of Opportunities for Independence of Postdoctoral Fellows

• Alternative Paths to Careers in the Life Sciences

Post Report Situation

• NIH budget doubled• Number of PhDs residing in U.S. who

trained in U.S. aged 35 or younger increased; postdocs trained outside the U.S. also increased.

• Hiring patterns of U.S. trained changed somewhat, with a lag

• See this by looking at NSF data and at AAMC Faculty Roster Data

NIH Budget BUDGET AUTHORITY FY 1977 – FY 2007(Current vs. Constant 1977 Dollars Using BRDPI as the Inflation Factor)(Dollars in Billions)

$30

$25

$20

$15

$10

$5

$0 19771978

1979

1980

19811982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

19881989

1990

1991

1992

19931994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

20032004

2005

2006

2007

Current Dollars Constant Dollars

OER: NIH Budget over time

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Num

ber

Age 35 or Younger

Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. Age 35 or Younger

Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the

research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Num

ber

Age 35 or Younger In Tenure-track Jobs

Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. Age 35 or Younger

Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the

research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Conclude• Number of tenure track positions occupied by

those trained in the U.S. 35 and younger held constant at best until 2001; then grew somewhat towards end of NIH doubling.

• Probability that a young person trained in biomedical life sciences in U.S. holds a tenure track position is about the same in 2003 as it was in 1993 and improved between 2001 and 2003: 10.3 % to 10.4% (or from 6.9% in 2001).

• Next slides show that – postdoc situation also improved; – non-tenure track positions grew during the period

010203040506070

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Perc

enta

ge

0-2 Years 3-4 Years 5-6 Years 7-8 Years Over 8 Years

Proportion of Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. in Postdoc PositionsBy Time Since Degree

Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Num

ber

Unemployed & Outof the Labor ForcePT Employed

Other FTEmployedPostdoc

Not Tenure-track

Labor Force Status of Biomedical PhDs Trained in U.S. Age35 or Younger in Other than Tenure-Track Positions

Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Labor Market Outcomes in the Biomedical Sciences Across Age

Groups

• Tenure track by age• Full-time employment by sector• Tenure-track status in academe• Labor force status

Tenure Track Biomedical Faculty by Age

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

G 55

51-55

46-50

41-45

35-40

LE 35

Tenure track status is for those trained in U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Labor Force Status: Biomedical PhDs

020000400006000080000

100000120000140000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Unemployed/Out ofLabor ForcePart Time

Full time not university

Post doc

Total Academe

Labor force Status for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Full Time Positions by Sector: Biomedical Sciences

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Full time not universityPost docTotal Academe

Slide shows positions for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not implyNSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Summary

• Growth in non-academic sector jobs has outpaced growth in academic sector jobs during the period for those trained in the United States.

• Growth in those unemployed or out of the labor force

• Decline in percent in post doc positions from 13.3% to 9.7%

Tenure Track Status: Biomedical Sciences

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

total-non-tenure trackTotal tenure-track

Slide shows tenure tract status for those trained in the United States. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Summary

• Growth in academic positions for those trained in the United States during past 10 years of about 33%

• Growth is noticeable during NIH-doubling period

• Growth has been heavily concentrated in the non-tenure track positions– Non-tenure track has grown by over 70%– Tenure-track has grown by 20%

Medical Colleges vs. Non-medical Colleges

• Next slides show that– Growth has been in medical colleges– Especially among non-tenure track positions

Academic Positions by Sector

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

total medicaltotal non-medical

Slide shows positions held by those trained in the United States. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSFdata does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Medical Faulcy Positions by Tenure Track, Biomedical Sciences

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Non Tenture TrackTenure Track

Slide is for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Summary

• See growth in hiring of individuals trained in the U.S. among medical colleges during the decade relative to non-medical colleges

• Change in mix of tenure and tenure track– 33% of medical faculty were in non-tenure track

positions in 1993;– 45% were in non-tenure track positions in 2003.

• Considerable growth in hiring at medical colleges during the NIH doubling period

Non Tenure Track Positions, Biomedical Sciences, Medical Schools

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Other Not TTFull Not TTAssociate Not TTAssistant Not TT

Slide is for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Non Tenure Track Positions, Biomedical Sciences, Medical Schools

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Assistant Not TTAssociate Not TTFull Not TTOther Not TT

Slide is for those trained in the U.S. Source: Survey of Doctorate Recipients, NSF. The use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Other Data Indicators

• AAMC Faculty Roster Data• Bricks and Mortar

First Assistant Professorship: Medical Schools

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

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

Year

Num

ber MD-PhD

PhDMD

AAMC Data

Average Age at Time of First Assistant Professorship at US Medical SchoolsAAMC Faculty Roster Data as of March 31, 2006

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

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

MD

PhDMD/PhD

AAMC Data

Faculty Medical Schools: Basic Sciences

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

physiologymicrobiologyBiochemistry

AAMC Data

S&E Research Space: Academic Institutions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 1999 2001 2003

Year

Net

Ass

igna

ble

Sq. F

t. (m

illio

ns)

Agricultural sciences Biological sciences Computer sciences Earth and Ocean Engineering Mathematics Medical sciences Physical sciences

New Construction

• NSF reports greatest number of institutions began construction in fields of biological and medical sciences in FY2002 or FY2003.

• 56% of newly constructed space to be used for these 2 fields

Appears to be good news for early career biomedical scientists

• Age of first assistantship fell for first time in 2003• Jobs on an increase (or were). But SDR data is already

out of date• The pickup was relatively modest for the young. Even in

the best of times fewer than one-in seven of young biomedical PhDs have an academic appointment (tenure-track or non-tenure track).

• Hiring was concentrated in non-tenure track positions.• The pickup that occurred was fueled in part by new

buildings coming on line which in turn were fueled by NIH budget growth. Lagged the doubling.

• But…

Jobs come with high expectations

• Faculty expected to generate grants• Not new, but more and more frequently this is a

condition of employment. Three years to cover salary.• Many tenure-track positions paid out of soft-money• Not one grant or two grants but three became

expectation at many research institutions• Not surprising that

– Number of NIH applications on increase– Many established investigators increased their number of

grants and size of their labs.

NIH Situation• Budgets have been flat, growing at less than inflation.

From $27.2 billion in 2003 to $28.7 in 2006.• Costs of grants are rising• Results in more grant applications chasing constant to

declining pool of resources• Translates into lower success rates• Most applications come from individuals who already

have grants.• New investigator pool is on decline after peeking in

2003.

NIH Primer• R01 is basic grant for independent research; in earlier

years R29 existed as the “first” independent award for new investigators. Duration of three to five years.

• Type 1 is a new application• Type 2 is a continuing application• Type 1’s can be from “new” investigators who have

never been funded or from established investigators• Review process: triage—group that is not scored;

possible to submit up to two amendments; can resubmit even if not scored.

• Important to distinguish between applicants and applications

Number of NIH Competing R01 Equivalent* Applications, Awards and Percent Funded

(Success Rate)

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Fiscal Year

Num

ber

of A

pplic

atio

(in

Thou

sand

s)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Per

cent

Fun

de

Reviewed Awarded Success Rate

R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37

NIH, OER: “Investment…”

Number of NIH Competing R01 Equivalent* Applicants Reviewed, Awarded, and Percent Funded (Success Rate)

-

5

10

15

20

25

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Fiscal Year

Num

ber

of A

pplic

a(in

Tho

usan

ds)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Per

cent

Fun

de

Reviewed Awarded Percent Funded

R01 Equivalent* Includes R01, R23, R29 and R37

NIH, OER: “Investment…”

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Review Year

Original New Applications Original Competing Continuations Amendments to New Applications Amendments to Competing Continuations

NIH COMPETING R01 EQUIVALENT APPLICATIONS BY YEAR OF REVIEW

NIH Competing R01 Applications by Year of Review

NIH, OER for AIRI

Number of New and Established Investigators Receiving Competing and R01 and R01 Equivalent Grants to 1962 to 2004

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Fiscal Year

Num

ber o

f Gra

nts

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Perc

ent G

rant

s to

New

Inve

stig

ator

s

Established InvestigatorsNew InvestigatorsPercent New Investigators

NIH, OER for AIRI

NIH New (Type 1) Competing R01 Equivalent Applications Success rates for first time and previously funded investigators

23.7%

18.4%

21.3%20.3%

21.7%

25.4%

26.9%

28.3% 28.7%28.1%

27.0% 26.9%

20.6%

15.9%17.0%

18.1%19.1%

21.1%

22.5%21.5%

22.2% 21.9%21.2%

20.6%22.5%

16.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal Year

Succ

ess

Rat

e

Previously Funded Investigators First Time Investigators

R01 Equivalent = R01, R29, and R37 activities.

NIH, OER for GREAT

Number of Different NIH Competing Research Project Grants Awarded to New Investigators, FY 1962 - 2005

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Fiscal Year

Num

ber o

f Aw

ards

to N

ew In

vest

igat

ors

R01 R23 R29 R03 R21 Other NIH, OER for GREAT

New Investigator Situation

– Virtually no increase in funding of “new” investigators in traditional R01

– Growth for new investigators has been in the R03 and R21 which are small in terms of funding and length of award.

• R03—small research project-- $50,000 per year for two years;

• R21 investigator-initiated exploratory development research—up to two years, not to exceed $275,000).

NIH Support Of First Time Investigators

NIH Competing R01/R29 awards to individuals without prior research grant support

1353 1284 1407 1439 1511 1532 1543 1559 1643 1492 1492

69 8076 98 73 88 65 66

9073 69

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1995

Pre

-dou

blin

g

1996

1997

1998

Per

iod

ofD

oubl

ing

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Pos

t Dou

blin

g

2005

Fiscal Year

Num

ber o

f Aw

ards

Other AIRI

NIH, OER for AIRI

37.3

42.9

35.2

43.2

51.7

40.9

30

35

40

45

50

55

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

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

Age

rage

age

Average Age of New investigators Average Age of All investigators

AVERAGE AGE OF COMPETING R01 EQUIVALENT AWARDEESAverage Age of Competing R01 Equivalent Awards

NIH, OER for AIRI

DISTRIBUTION OF INVESTIGATOR AGES

NIH Competing R01 Equivalent Awardee

6.4% 6.4% 6.2% 4.8% 4.0% 3.8% 4.5% 3.5% 3.8%

18.4% 17.1% 16.5% 15.6% 14.1% 13.8% 13.0% 13.1% 12.9%

24.9% 23.9% 24.6% 23.1%22.4%

21.4% 21.7% 20.9% 20.0% 20.1% 19.6%

20.8% 20.3% 20.3% 20.5%21.4%

22.1% 21.7% 21.7% 21.1% 21.1% 22.2%

14.6% 15.2% 14.6% 15.7% 16.4% 16.6% 16.3% 16.0% 17.4% 18.1% 18.2%

14.5% 15.8% 17.0% 17.9% 19.6% 21.7% 22.7% 23.9% 24.9% 27.5% 27.6%

3.4%6.2%

12.0%19.0%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Fiscal Year

35 and Younger 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50 51 - 55 Over 55

NIH, OER for AIRI

Summarize NIH DataDuring Doubling

• Tremendous increase in number of new R01 applications

• Majority come from established investigators• Number of established investigators receiving

R01s has increased dramatically• Increase in percent of investigators who have

more than one grant• Creates significant change in age-distribution of

NIH awardees

Kangaroo Solution?

• Pathway to Independence Award Program: K99/R00

• 150 to 200 postdoctoral candidates for each of next 5 years.

• Mentored support while post doc followed by 3 years of R01-level funding, contingent upon securing a tenure-track position with appropriate institutional support and resources.

• A program with unintended consequences?

Program came out of the NRC Committee Report: Bridges to Independence

Summary• During doubling

– New grants to established investigators have increased dramatically.– Virtually no increase in funding of “new” investigators in traditional R01– Growth for new investigators has been in the R03 and R21 which are

small in terms of funding and length of award. – NIH increasingly is supporting established, older investigators.– Small number of Kangaroo awards means that implementation will have

little effect on age distribution.– Success rates for R01s are declining; – Success rates are especially low for new investigators.– Increased proportion of applications are being triaged and thus do not

receive comments. – Speed up review process as a solution?– Bridge money is being sought from universities.

What does future hold?• Assuming NIH situation stays as is• Universities will have to find alternative ways to

pay for buildings. NIH pick up less of tab; some relief as early-funded R01s lapse

• NIH is beginning to put brakes on tuition increases which universities relied on

• Recent faculty hires will have an especially difficult time getting funding and staying funded.

• Bridge money is constrained. Labs will downsize. Staff will be laid off.

• Young and untenured will bear disproportionate share of adjustment costs.

Future continued . . .

• Jobs, especially tenure-track jobs, are unlikely to increase

• Young researchers will increasingly need to look for alternative places to do research

• Unclear whether jobs in industry will expand sufficiently to absorb these young researchers

Lessons/Questions

• Fallacy of composition• Even in the best of times, the young don’t benefit

that much from increases in funding• Soft landing?• Do additional grants for productive scientists

significantly contribute to scientific knowledge?• Time to rethink the way in which research labs

are staffed in the United States?