Career Achievements of NIH Postdoctoral Trainees and Fellows (1986)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

te —_ ~~ oe Ne ey a ee og ay we ee * 33 rose from 3,515 in 1975 to 3,775 in 1983, an average annual rate of 0.9 percent (IOM, 1985). The postdoctoral population in these fields grew much faster, rising an average of 4.8 percent per year (from »369 in 1975 to 7,827 in 1983). This expansion of the postdoctoral pool has been shown to be the result of two factors: -- arise in the number of Ph.D. recipients taking postdoctoral appointments; and -- an increase in the average total length of time that the appointments are held (NRC, 1981). In this chapter, the frequency of NIH postdoctoral appointments is examined for five cohorts of Ph.0.s earning their doctorates between 1961 and 1981. The academic backgrounds and demographic characteris- tics of NIH postdoctoral trainees and fellows in the biomedical sciences are compared with those of Ph.D.s in the biomedical sciences without NIH postdoctoral appointments. A brief analysis of the duration and location of training for NIH postdoctoral appointees concludes this chapter. TYPES OF POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING According to one widely used definition, a postdoctoral appointment is a “temporary appointment in academia, industry, or government, the primary purpose of which is to provide for continued education or raining in research" (NRC, 1985). The original form of organized support for postdoctoral study was the fellowship awarded to distin- guished individuals on the basis of a national competition. In the ate 1950s, NIH began awarding training grants to universities which, in turn, awarded traineeships to applicants from their institutions. The traineeships and fellowships are, thus, distinguished by the scope of competition as well as the mechanism of funding. A third form of postdoctoral experience is the research associate- Ship. Postdoctoral research associates are individuals hired as employees on the research grants of other investigators. Because they are employees of individual scientists (and not awardees of institu- tions or national programs), far less is known about these individuals. There are no centralized records on these postdoctoral research = associates. However, there are indicators that this group is becoming an increasingly important segment of the postdoctoral population. Examining the intentions of new Ph.0.s planning to take postdoctoral positions, Zumeta (1983a) found that during the 1970s there was a considerable decrease in the proportion planning to take postdoctora! fellowships and traineeships and an increase in the proportion planning to take postdoctoral positions as employees on research project funds. Limited data from NIH provide further evidence of this trend. The number of academic doctorate holders employed in training status positions on NIH research grants rose from 3,198 in FY 1973 to 3,906 in FY 1976. In FY 1977, the last year for which data are available, the number of academic doctorates in training status positions was 3,737 (NIH 1977, 1979, and 1980).

rr ww ra 7 EP ge as emg: © yr Organs * pene, Ren Poenewsy Kees ry yqaray = Sarees ¥ rer eee eT reeee ° ea 34 Further complicating the discussion of postdoctoral training is the fact that scientists can (and do) move from one type of appointment to another. For example, a person could have a sequence of three postdoctoral positions and be a research associate, a trainee, and a fellow. In the current investigation, biomedical scientists are counted among the NIH-supported postdoctoral appointees if they ever had an NIH fellowship or traineeship. Many are likely to have had other postdoctoral positions in addition to those counted by NIH. Among the NIH appointees, the trainee/fellow distinction is based on the scientist's most recent NIH appointment. The distribution of biomedical Ph.D.s across study groups was presented in Chapter 1 (Table 1.6). Of the 11,869 scientists, just over 3,113 (26.2 percent) held NIH postdoctoral fellowship or traineeship appointments. An approximately equal-sized group (3,355) had plans for postdoctoral training, but had no record o NIH postdoctoral traineeship or fellowship. A small fraction of the Ph.D.s with postdoctoral plans (3.2 percent) held NSF postdoctoral fellowships (Table 3.1). This fraction, howeve , was much larger in the earlier study cohorts than among the more recent Ph.D.s. In 1961, 12.4 percent of the “postdoctoral plans" group held the prestigious and highly competitive NSF fellowships. this percentage decreased in the subsequent cohorts, dropping to 1 percent in the most recent cohorts. This shift away from prestigious, nationally competitive fellowship support suggests that the composition of the “postdoctoral plans" group may have changed over time and the recent cohorts may contain a less “elite” group of scientists. It is important to note that the shrinking percentage of NSF fellows was not due to a reduction in NSF awards, but was produced by a rising number of scientists with postdoctoral plans. Unfortunately, there is no way to identify the types of postdoctoral support received by the remainder of this group. However, there is strong evidence that suggests the majority were supported on federally-funded research rants. Survey data on the first source of postdoctoral support for 972 and 1978 Ph.D.s in the biomedical sciences reveal that 35 percent were supported on federal research grants (Table 3.2). This is the second largest source of postdoctoral] support, exceeded only by federal fellowships and traineeships which, in the biomedical sciences, are funded largely by NIH. When the federal fellowship and traineeship programs were excluded, federal research grants supported more postdoctoral positions in the biomedical sciences than all the remaining sources of support combined. Given the role that NIH plays in supporting biomedical research on campus--86.7 percent of all federal obligations for research and development in FY 1983 (NSF, 1985)--it is reasonable to conclude that most of these grant-supported postdoctoral research associates were indirectly funded by NIH. Therefore, NIH research grants probably supported a large number of the Ph.D.s with postdoctoral plans but no NIH fellowship or traineeship appointments. Pe ws e h 09 r e m e m oe ne .

35 TABLE 3.1 Percentage of Biomedical Ph.D.s(a) Awarded NSF Fellowships Biomedical Ph.D.s With NIH Post- Without NIH Post- doctoral Appts. doctoral Appts. Postdoc No Post- Total Fellows Trainees Plans doc Plans 1961 Ph.D. Recipients N 967 142 100 12) 604 Awarded NSF Fel. N 33 13 3 15 2 % 3.4 9.2 3.0 12.4 0.3 1966 Ph.D. Recipients N 1,610 226 219 263 902 Awarded NSF Fel. N 5) 7 10 29 5 % 3.2 3.1 4.6 11.0 0.6 1971 Ph.D. Recipients N 2,920 354 457 740 1,369 Awarded NSF Fel. N 56 10 6 34 6 % 1.9 2.8 1.3 4.6 0.4 1976 Ph.D. Recipients N 3,054 482 427 904 1,241 Awarded NSF Fel. N 30 14 5 9 2 % 1.0 2.9 1.2 1.0 0.2 1981 Ph.D. Recipients N 3,318 235 471 1,327 | 1,285 Awarded NSF Fel. N 29 8 20 1 % 0.9 3.4 1.5 0.) Total Ph.D.s, Above N 11,869 1,439 1,674 3,355 5,401 Awarded NSF Fel. N 199 52 24 107 16 % 1.7 3.6 1.4 3.2 0.3 (a)See definition of study population in Chapter 1. SOURCE: Trainee and Fellow File (NIH, 1983c); Survey of Earned Doctorates (NRC, 1920-1983); Cumulative Index of NSF Awardees (NRC, 1985a). Gh aw e re s w h e y e m o t e e

s é 36 P + A D te th e OB U t EB C e l t G 8 t we TABLE 3.2 Sources of Support for First Postdoctoral Appointments of 1972 and 1978 Biosciences Ph.D.s Source of Support for First Postdoctoral Appointment Total Federal Federal Other Univer- Other Fellowship or Research National sity or Ph.D. Year Traineeship Funds Fellowship State 1972 100.0 39.3 34.3 12.3 6.0 8.1 (Sample = 722) 1978 100.0 40.5 | 34.7 10.7 7.2 6.9 (Sample = 1,035) SOURCE: NRC, 1981. THE DISTRIBUTION OF POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING In this section, the academic background and demographic character- istics of biomedical scientists receiving their doctorates in 1961, 1966, 1971, 1976, and 1981] are examined. Biomedical scientists who received NIH postdoctoral traineeships and NIH postdoctoral fellow- ships are compared to two groups of biomedical scientists without NIH postdoctoral appointments: individuals with postdoctoral plans and individuals without postdoctoral plans. Six measures of academic background (doctoral program prestige, doctoral institution research support ranking, baccalaureate institution selectivity, months of NIH predoctoral support, elapsed time-to-Ph.D., and number of predoctoral publications) and three demographic attributes (sex, marital status, and number of dependents) are examined. Academic Background Ph.D. Institution Prestige The institutions from which members of the study population received their Ph.D. jegrees were assigned prestige scores adapted from the survey of reputational ratings of departments conducted by

37 Jones, et al. (1982).! The NIH postdoctoral fellows had the highest average score on the measure of Ph.D. institution prestige (Table 3.3). Their group average was 3.38, 0.22 above the average for all biomedical Ph.D.s. The NIH trainees and the group with postdoctoral plans and no NIH postdoctoral appointments had nearly identical scores, 3.22 and 3.21, respectively. The largest group of biomedical Ph.D.s, the group (3.06). postdoctoral plans, had the lowest average prestige score There have been some shifts across cohorts in the average prestige scores. The average score for all biomedical Ph.D.s was 3.33 in 1901. As the number of Ph.D.s grew over the next 10 years, the average prestige score fell to 321 in 1966 and 3.11 in 1971, suggesting that the increase in biomedical Ph.D. production was eatest at the less prestigious schools. ,This is similar to Zumeta's f1983a} finding for all scientific fields. While the average scores have dropped, the rank order of the study groups remained stable throughout most of the 1961-1981 period (Figure et). In every cohort except the first, the NIH fellows had the highest prestige score. The group without postdoctoral plans or NIH postdoctoral appointments had the lowest prestige score in each cohort. The average graduate school prestige scores of the NIH trainees and the postdoctoral plans group were lower than those of the NIH fellows, but higher than those of the group without postdoctoral plans. In most cohorts, the scores for these two intermediate groups were very similar. NIH Extramural Support Ranking In addition to their scholarly reputations, doctorate granting institutions can also be ranked according to their amount of funding from research sponsors. The former NIH postdoctoral fellows were the most likely to have received their doctorates from one gf the 25 universities receivirg the most NIH extramural support.” Over Van average score for each university was computed from the mean ratings of the scholarly quality of the faculty in biochemistry, cellular/jmolecular biology, microbiology and physiology programs. In calculating university averages, mean ratings within each university were weighted according to the number of 1976-1980 graduates from each department evaluated. “However, since the rankings refer to a school's standing at the time of the survey (1980), the scores are not sensitive to changes in the institutions’ reputation. Thus, to the extent that institutional reputations shifted over the period of study (1961-1981), these findings must be qualified. 3pata refers to support for all activities. See Appendix C for a listing of the top 25 recipients of NIH extramural) support.

38 TABLE 3.3 Average Prestige Score(a) of Doctoral Institution for Biomedical Ph.D.s(b) by Postdoctoral Status in Biomedical Ph.0.s Without NIH Post- doctoral Appts. With NIH Post- doctoral Appts. Postdoc No Post- Total(c) Fellows Trainees Plans doc Plans 1961 Ph.D. Recipients Average Prestige Score 3.33 3.51 3.35 3.55 3.25 Standard Deviation 79 ° ° 8) 78 Number of cases 931 137 98 119 577 1966 Ph.D. Recipients Average Prestige Score 3.21 3.48 3.31 3.29 3.10 Standard Deviation 82 77 .80 84 81 Number of cases 1,554 218 213 258 865. 1971 Ph.D. Recipients Average Prestige Score 3.11 3.27 3.20 — 3.17 3.00 Standard Deviation 82 86 78 _ 83 8) Number of cases 2,744 343 436 701 1,264 1976 Ph.D. Recipients | Average Prestige Score 3.13 3.36 3.26 ..' 3.15 2.97 Standard Deviation 84 79 of] e ° Number of cases 2,840 459 405 847 1,129 1981 Ph.D. Recipients Average Prestige Score 3.17 3.39 3.14 2.22 3.10 Standard Deviation 82 78 fT 80 85 Number of cases 3,030 219 426 1,209 1,176 Total Ph.D.s, Above Average Prestige Score 3.16 3.38 3.22 3.21 3.06 Standard Deviation 83 81 78 82 83 Number of cases 17,099 1,376 1,578 3,134 5,011 (a)Using results from the 1982 Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs, an average for each university was computed from the mean ratings of the scholarly quality of faculty in biochemistry, cellular/molecular biology, In calculating university averages, mean ratings were weighted according to the number of 1976-1980 graduates microbiology, and physiology programs. from each program evaluated. {bi See definition of study population in Chapter 1. c)Includes only biomedical Ph.D.s who received doctoral degrees from institutions included in the 1982 Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs (Jones et al., 1982). SOURCE: Trainee and Fellow File (NIH, 1983c); Survey of Earned Doctorates (NRC, 1920-1983); Jones et al. (1982).

on

39 = 4.0 ¢ 3 e 5 WY” a : “rene ¥ 3.0 bn ae orn 7 oa) =x a=m== Fel lows amas Trainees eeceee Postdoc Plans a5 4 ew~--- No Postdoc Plans = | o L _—_— 1 J _t 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 YEAR OF DOCTORATE FIGURE 3.1 Average prestige score(a) of doctoral institution for biomedical Ph.D.s, by postdoctoral status. See Table 3.3. two-fifths (43.4 percent) of the NIH fellows earned their degrees at one of the top 25 schools (Table 3.4). The former NIH trainees rank second with 37.4 percent earning degrees at the top 25 universities. In the postdoctoral plans group, 34.4 percent earned their Ph.D.s at one of the top 25 institutions. Least likely to graduate from one of the top 25 institutions were those Ph.D.s without postdoctoral plans. Only 31.5 percent came from the top 25 schools. During the 1960s, the percentage of biomedical Ph.D.s earning their doctorate at one of the 25 top institutions dropped from 41.4 percent in 196] to 35.7 percent in 1966 and 32.0 percent in 1971. The percentage rose slightly in the mid-seventies and again in 1981. Still, the percentage for 198] (35.0) was more than six points below the 1961 level. The decline in the percentage of graduates from the top 25 institutions was not the result of a decline in the number of graduates from the highest ranking schools. (The number of biomedical Ph.D.s from these institutions rose from 400 in 1961 to 1,162 in 1981.) The decline in the percentage graduating from the tcp 25 institutions was the result of an increase in the number of graduates from lower ranked universities, a finding consistent with that of Zumeta (1983a). Q w e w e =

40 TABLE 3.4 Percentage of Biomedical Ph.D.s(a) with Doctorates from the 25 Institutions Receiving the Most NIH Extramural Suppcrt/b) in FY 1984, by Postdoctoral Status Biomedical Ph.D.s With NIH Post- doctoral Appts. Without NIH Post- doctoral Appts. + w e e t ) ot to at e i t e n a n a n t e a i l l , Postdoc No Post- Total Fellows Trainees Plans doc Plans 1961 Ph.D. Recipients N 967 142 100 121 604 from Top 25 Instits. N 400 72 40 65 223 % 41.4 50.7 40.0 53.7 36.9 1966 Ph.D. Recipients N_ 1,610 226 219 263 902 from Top 25 Instits. N 575 100 96 93 236 % 35.7 44.2 43.8 35.4 31.7 1971 Ph.D. Recipients N 2,920 354 457 740 1,369 from Top 25 Instits. N 933 144 169 230 390 % 32.0 40.7 37.0 31.1 28.5 1976 Ph.D. Recipients N 3,054 482 427 904 1,241 from Top 25 Instits. N 1,036 208 167 306 355 % 33.9 43.2 39.1 33.8 28.6 1981 Ph.D. Recipients N 3,318 235 47) 1,327 1,285 from Top 25 Instits. N 1,162 101 154 46} 446 x 35.0 43.0 32.7 34.7 34.7 Total Ph.D.s, Above N 11,869 1,439 1,674 3,355 5,401 from Top 25 Instits. N 4,106 625 626 1,155 1,700 x 34.6 43.4 37.4 34.4 31.5 b)Rank is based on NIH total cost awards to all activities. {; See definition of study population in Chapter 1. for list of institutions. SOURCES : Division of Research Grants, Statistics and Analysis Branch. * Ge 7 Ai ere Er STE eee ee eo ee ; See Appendix C Trainee and Fellow File (NIH, 1983c); Survey of Earned Doctorates (NRC, 1920-1983); unpublished tables from the National Institutes of Health, Crs wa Fe Ro OE wee me o e 8 t e te e e e e e e e e t e O R E H e - _ — = = e e - —_ 2 e e e e ~ ~ m e e @ S F E + w e s a e e i e O t @ e e e o e o e

4] The decline in proportion of doctorates produced by the top 25 institutions is similar to the drop in average prestige score noted above. As was the case with prestige scores, the rank order of the the study groups (NIH fellows, NIH trainees, the postdoctoral plans group, and the group without postdoctoral plans) was the same in most of the study cohorts. Baccalaureate Institution Selectivity In addition to comparing the graduate school background of doctorate holders, the undergraduate institutions they attended were also compared. Astin created an index of undergraduate institutional selectivity (1965) from college entrance examination scores. Institutional averages were calculated for test takers’ first and second choice school. Hagstrom (1971) suggested that the index was a good indicator of undergraduate talent at an institution. A seven point scale derived from the original index was used in the present Study (Astin, 1971). The former NIH postdoctoral fellows had the highest average score on the undergraduate selectivity measure (Table 3.5). Next came the NIH trainees and the postdoctoral plans group, both averaging 4.9 on the Astin scale. Those biomedical Ph.0.s without postdoctoral plans had the lowest average score on the selectivity index (4.5). However, most of the differences between groups were very small and the degree of overlap among distributions was large. Unlike the measures of doctorate institution quality, the measures of undergraduate background did not decline during the 1961-198) per iod. There were some minor fluctuations, but no large-scale shifts n the average rating of the undergraduate institutions of biomedical Ph.D.s. The three measures of academic background discussed thus far (doctoral institution prestige, doctoral institution extramural Support ranking, and undergraduate institution selectivity), revealed that the scientists who received NIH postdoctoral fellowships had the most prestigious backgrounds; those without postdoctoral plans had the least prestigious background. In between these groups came the former NIH postdoctoral trainees and the group with postdoctoral plans and no NIH appointments. The scores of these two groups were very close in most cases. NIH Predoctoral Support Scientists with postdoctoral support from NIH had more support from NIH at the predoctoral level than those scientists without NIH postdoctoral appointments (Table 3.6). The NIH postdoctoral fellows had an average of nearly two years (23.8 months) of NIH predoctoral Support. The NIH postdoctoral trainees averaged a few months less (20.6 months). A large gap separates the NIH supported postdoctoral appointees from the other biomedical scientists. Biomedical . Tt a eee Pe ee ae en _ ~ | s e n c e N A A N h e 01 U R EN ee t o A en e el te t Le tt 1 Le n i d l e n e s s 2 a ad , ec k Wt ta n Gre et th ew s e h e l t e v e n t ar e 4 O N E C l a A E E R E RS di ct N el A E re di pe de n W h a t s ge dl . : t d a - - o - b a b ot t? et el ni ct hs ee di et ia ni de > tend

42 TABLE 3.5 Average Selectivity Score(a) of Baccalaureate Institution for Biomedical Ph.0.s(b) by Postdoctoral Status Biomedical Ph.D.s With NIH Post- Without NIH Post- doctoral Appts. doctoral Appts. Postdoc No Post- Total(c) Fellows Trainees Plans doc Plans 1961 Ph.D. Recipients Aver. Selectivity Score 4.8 5.1 5.2 §.2 4.6 Standard Deviation 1.5 7.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 Number of Cases 773 133 79 90 471 1966 Ph.D. Recipients Aver. Selectivity Score 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.5 Standard Deviation 1.6 i) 1.5 1.6 1.5 Number of Cases 1,271 211 184 177 699 1971 Ph.D. Recipients Aver. Selectivity Score 4.6 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.3 Standard Deviation 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 Number of Cases 2,378 323 387 54) 1,127 1976 Ph.D. Recipients Aver. Selectivity Score 4.7 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.4 Standard Deviation 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 Number of Cases 2,458 432 368 668 990 1981 Ph.O. Recipients Aver. Selectivity Score 4.9 5.4 4.9 5.0 4.7 Standard Deviation 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 Number of Cases 2,710 218 406 1,070 1,016 Total Ph.D.s, Above Aver. Selectivity Score 4.8 5.2 4.9 4.9 4.5 Standard Deviation 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Number of Cases 9,590 1,317 1,424 2,546 4,303 (a)This is a ranking of institutional selectivity on a seven point scale, where 1 is the least selective group of schools and 7 the most selective. {o}See definition of study population in Chapter 1. c)Includes only biomedical Ph.D.s who received baccalaureate degrees from institutions rated in Astin (1971). SOURCE: Trainee Fellow File (NIH, 1983c); Survey of Earned Doctorates (NRC, 1920-1983); Astin (1971).

43 TABLE 3.6 Average Number of Months of NIH Predoctoral Support for Biomedical Ph.D.s(a) by Postdoctoral Status Biomedical Ph.D.s With NIH Post- doctoral Appts. Without NIH Post- doctoral Appts. Postdoc No Post- Total(b) Fellow Trainees Plans doc Plan 1961 Ph.D. Recipients Average Months 5.1 11.4 8.4 6.1 2.9 Standard Deviation 11.0 14.1 12.8 12.4 8.6 Number of Cases 967 142 100 12] 604 1966 Ph.D. Recipients Average Months 15.1 27.7 23.7 14.9 9.9 Standard Deviation 19.5 20.7 21.4 18.9 16.6 Number of Cases 1,610 226 219 263 902 1971 Ph.D. Recipients Average Months 18.0 28.3 27.6 7.7 12.3 Standard Deviation 22.5 25.0 23.8 21.9 19.4 Number of Cases 2,920 354 457 740 1,369 1976 Ph.D. Recipients Average Months 15.0 24.2 22.1 15.2 2.9 Standard Deviation 22.3 24.7 23.9 22.2 18.7 Number of Cases 3,054 482 427 904 1,241 1981 Ph.O. Recipierts Average Months 11.4 19.7 13.8 12.1 8.3 Standard Deviation 18.3 20.4 19.1 18.8 17. Number of Cases 3,318 235 471 1,327 1,285 Total Ph.D.s, Above Average Months 13.9 23.8 20.6 14.1 9.1 Standard Deviation 20.6 23.2 22.6 20.4 7.7 Number of Cases 11,869 1,439 1,674 3,355 5,401 fa See definition of study population in Chapter 1. b Includes only biomedical Ph.D.s who received doctoral degrees from institutions included in the 1982 Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs (Jones et al., 1982). SOURCE: Trainee Fellow File (NIH, 1983c); Survey of Earned Doctorates (NRC, 1920-1983). ‘ qa ~—e eee ee tateasiceetatinann canna hacia hdile ancthdaemneasDidiasedeDh ae Se