(The FASEB Journal. 1998;12:139-148.)
© 1998 FASEB
Education and Employment Patterns of U.S. Ph.D.'s in the Biomedical Sciences
Howard H. Garrison1,a and
Susan A. Gerbia
a Office of Public Affairs, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA; and Division of Biology and Medicine, Brown University, Providence,Rhode Island 02912, USA
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
During most of the 1970s and 1980s, the number of biomedical Ph.D.'s conferred in the United States was fairly constant. From 1987 to 1995, however, there was an increase of almost 50% in the number of biomedical Ph.D.'s awarded by U.S. institutions; nearly 70% of this increase can be accounted for by the increase in the number of noncitizens receiving a Ph.D. in the U.S. Although unemployment among U.S. citizens with biomedical Ph.D.'s is now extremely low—less than 2.0%—there have been some important changes in the job market for biomedical Ph.D.'s. The total number of biomedical scientists has grown, whereas the number of faculty positions has remained stable, causing a deline in faculty positions as a percentage of total employment for biomedical scientists. Jobs in industry have increased, and in the future might surpass academic jobs as the most prevalent form of employment for U.S. biomedical scientists.—Garrison, H. H., Gerbi, S. A. Education and employment patterns of U.S. Ph.D.'s in the biomedical sciences. FASEB J. 12, 139–148 (1998)
Key Words: predoctoral • postdoctoral • academia • unemployment • immigration • industry
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
THERE HAS BEEN INCREASING CONCERN in recent years about employment and career opportunities available to young biomedical scientists. Some of this concern may have been sparked by growing unemployment rates in other fields of science (1); some may have been generated by shifts in the pattern of research funding for young investigators and more subtle shifts in career contingencies (2). The problem has been examined in reports (3), studies (4), and conferences at the national level (5), and by local studies and symposia (6). By using survey data collected by the National Research Council (NRC),2 we examine trends in production and employment of Ph.D.'s in the biomedical sciences.
|
PRODUCTION OF BIOMEDICAL Ph.D.'s
|
|---|
The number of biomedical3 Ph.D.'s awarded in the U.S. remained fairly constant during most of the 1970s and 1980s. From 1972 through 1978, the number of new biomedical Ph.D.'s was approximately 3500 (
Table 1
and Fig. 1).
An increase in 1980 led to a new equilibrium: the number of new Ph.D.'s ranged between 3800 and 3900 during the early and middle 1980s. In 1988, however, the number rose to 4369, and continued to rise to 5878 in 1995, increasing by 47.9% the number of biomedical Ph.D. recipients from 1987 to 1995. This growth, however, was not uniform across all institutions. Between 1970 and 1994, the number of new life science Ph.D.'s remained fairly constant (2254 and 2665, respectively) at the top 27 schools (ranked by 1970 Ph.D. standards); the percentage of the total Ph.D. degrees bestowed by these 27 schools, however, dropped from 50.5% to 36.1% (8). Schools that historically turned out fewer Ph.D. graduates had increased their percentage of life science Ph.D.'s during that 24-year period.
View larger version (59K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Number of biomedical science Ph.D.'s awarded by U.S. institutions to U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, by year (also see Table 1). Source: National Research Council, "Survey of Earned Doctorates."
|
|
Massey and Goldman (9) claim there is a link between the need for teaching and/or research assistants and the growth in the number of Ph.D. recipients. Clearly, there is a symbiotic relationship among teaching, research, and graduate education. The activities of graduate assistants provide important benefits for faculty members and their institutions, and offer graduate students unique and valuable experience. Many schools hire graduate teaching assistants to help in undergraduate courses that often have a laboratory component. But this cannot be a universal factor driving the number of students admitted into biomedical Ph.D. programs, since this particular workforce need is usually absent in medical school settings, where about half of the biomedical Ph.D.'s are trained (10).
Another influence on the number of graduate students is today's need for research assistants—an important part of the workforce that carries out research supervised by faculty mentors. This apprenticeship, in turn, serves to train students in how to perform research, and is therefore a mutually beneficial arrangement. The stipends and tuition for research assistants are paid either from federal sources (training grants, individual fellowships, or wages from research grants) or by the school (including state funds at publicly supported schools). Financial arrangements reflect the synergism of the relationship: the research grant pays the student's salary and tuition while the research project benefits from the student's contributions.
The workforce needs of an institution are translated into their modes of support for graduate students. In 1994, an estimated 37.0% of the biomedical graduate students who trained in medical schools received institutional support; 29.5% were research assistants paid from research grants; and 17.2% had traineeships from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (10).
Data from National Science Foundation (NSF) surveys of graduate student enrollment and support indicate that the increase in the number of biomedical Ph.D.'s correlates with growth in number of research assistantships, suggesting that certain workforce needs are associated with an increased production of Ph.D.'s. The number of biomedical science Ph.D.'s rose by 53.8% between 1980 and 1995 (
Table 1), during which there were sizable declines in the number of NIH traineeship and fellowship positions and small declines in the number of biological science graduate students with teaching assistantships and ‘self support’ ( Table 2).
However, the number of biology graduate students with research assistantships (from NIH, nonfederal sources, and all other sources) increased dramatically—doubling between 1980 and 1995. Although the field specifications differ between Table 1(‘biomedical’ Ph.D.) and Table 2(‘biological science graduate student’), the increase in Ph.D. production at the same time that the number of research assistantships was expanding points to the possibility of a direct connection between the two trends.
|
STUDENTS FROM OTHER NATIONS
|
|---|
The small increase in the number of U.S. citizens obtaining biomedical Ph.D.'s apparently has not been sufficient to meet the workforce needs of schools. At the same time, an increased number of citizens of other nations have obtained Ph.D.'s in the U.S.
From the early 1970s to the middle 1980s, Ph.D. production was stable, with approximately 3400 to 3900 degrees awarded each year. Only 500 to 550 of these new Ph.D.'s were earned by people who identified themselves as non-U.S. citizens ( Table 1and Fig. 1). In the middle 1980s, however, the number of degrees awarded to non-U.S. citizens began to increase steadily. In 1985, the 587 Ph.D. degrees awarded to non-U.S. citizens represented 16.1% of the 3637 degrees awarded to individuals reporting citizenship.4 In 1995, 2031 degrees were earned by non-U.S. citizens, comprising 35.2% of the 5777 degrees awarded to individuals reporting citizenship ( Table 1). The growth in the number of Ph.D.'s awarded to non-U.S. citizens—from 587 in 1985 to 2031 in 1995—represents an increase of 246%. The 1444 additional Ph.D.'s awarded to non-U.S. citizens account for 67.5% of the total growth in U.S. citizen plus non-U.S. citizen Ph.D. conferment from 1985 to 1995. Some of the sharp increase in the number of degrees earned by students from other nations reflects, in part, unique political events (especially in China and the Soviet Union) that are unlikely to recur, and it is unclear how long the rise in the percentage of degrees earned by noncitizens will continue.
Have noncitizens displaced U.S. citizens from graduate schools in the biomedical sciences? There was a slight increase of 421 U.S. citizens obtaining a biomedical Ph.D. from 1990 to 1995, which is the same period when the numbers of biomedical Ph.D.'s. awards to noncitizens doubled ( Table 1). One interpretation of these trends is that the need for biomedical predoctoral students cannot be met by qualified U.S. citizens, and noncitizens are recruited to fill the void. This trend continues at the postdoctoral level, where the need for postdoctorals outstrips the supply of Ph.D.'s from U.S. institutions, so noncitizens trained in other countries are recruited (11). It may be that a greater number of qualified U.S. undergraduates do not choose to pursue predoctoral biomedical training because they hear how difficult it is to obtain academic jobs and research grants; these considerations may be of less concern to noncitizens when weighed against other factors shaping their choices. As stated earlier, the data suggest that workforce needs for research assistants may be driving Ph.D. production.
|
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS FOR BIOMEDICAL PH.D.'s
|
|---|
How have the growth in the number of persons earning Ph.D.'s and immigration affected job prospects for U.S. Ph.D.'s? Some perspective on this question can be gained from the "Survey of Doctorate Recipients" (SDR), a longitudinal study of employment outcomes for a statistically selected sample of Ph.D. recipients conducted by the NRC under contract to the NSF. The SDR responses are tabulated and weighed to depict employment of the entire population of Ph.D. recipients.
The statistical data tabulations from the SDR presented below are limited to U.S. citizens. The number of non-U.S. citizens in the SDR biomedical science sample is small, and estimates for U.S. citizens are virtually the same as those for the entire biomedical Ph.D. sample.5 The SDR sample is representative of the entire population of U.S. citizen Ph.D.'s, but not representative of noncitizen Ph.D.'s, as it includes only those noncitizens with Ph.D.'s from U.S. schools who indicated, when they completed their doctoral dissertation, that they had plans to remain in the U.S. However, not all have firm plans, and it is unclear—often even to the noncitizens themselves—whether they will remain in the U.S. Moreover, noncitizens who obtained their Ph.D. in other countries (a sizable part of the postdoctoral pool) are not captured in the SDR sample.
These and other limitations (chiefly the lag time between data collection and reporting) notwithstanding, the survey data demonstrate that unemployment and ‘out-of-field’ employment remain low. In other ways, however, the employment conditions of biomedical scientists have undergone substantial change. Somewhat longer periods of postdoctoral appointments, the emergence of postdoctoral positions in industry, no growth in the number of academic positions, and expansion of career positions in industry pose new challenges and opportunities for young scientists and their mentors.
Unemployment
The percentage of U.S. citizen biomedical science Ph.D.'s who are unemployed is extremely small: 1.0% in 1973 and 1.8% in 1995 ( Table 3).
Unemployment wavered between 0.9% and 1.9% during the intervening years, with no discernable pattern.
Underemployment
Underemployment is only one of several labor market outcomes, and the term ‘underemployment’ has been coined to refer to those individuals who do not find jobs appropriate to their education or experience. In an effort to measure certain aspects of underemployment, NSF has begun reporting an ‘involuntarily out-of-field rate’ (RIOF), which is interpreted as the ratio of those who are working part-time but seeking full-time jobs (EPTS), or who are working outside of their degree field when a science and engineering position would be preferred (ENSP), to total employment (ET): RIOF = (EPTS + ENSP)/ET. Thus, in 1995, 3.3% of the biological and health scientists were employed ‘involuntarily out-of-field.’ This represents a slight decrease from the 1993 value of 3.5% (12). Unlike most statistical data contained in this report, these rates refer to all fields of biology and include both U.S. citizens and noncitizens. In addition, individuals working full-time in their degree field in positions that are not meeting their career goals—for example, senior postdoctorals who have not yet acquired permanent employment—are not indexed by this measure.
Postdoctoral positions
Postdoctoral research allows individuals to expand their expertise; indeed, some delve into areas outside their predoctoral field. The duration of the postdoctoral experience varies with the amount of advanced training desired and other circumstances unique to the individual. Postdoctorals also represent a pool of applicants for permanent jobs. As these jobs become harder to secure, students remain longer in postdoctoral positions. In the past two decades, the percentage of U.S. Ph.D.'s working as postdoctorals has increased ( Table 4).
In the early 1970s, postdoctoral positions were held by a minority of the new Ph.D.'s: in 1973, a fourth of the new biomedical Ph.D. population went on to postdoctoral positions, almost always in academia. The pattern changed in the late 1970s and early 1980s: by the beginning of the 1980s, about half of the recent graduates found themselves in postdoctoral positions. Measuring the exact degree of growth is complicated by changes in survey questions and other differences in survey methodology. For example, during the 1970s, the definition of ‘postdoctoral’ used in the SDR was altered, and some of the change during this period may reflect differences in the respondents' interpretations of the questions asked. Moreover, enhancements in survey methodology between 1989 and 1991 increased the response rate in the survey sample, which resulted in more accurate data but changed the timing of reporting for many respondents, and may also have affected the comparability of survey statistics to those of earlier years.
Despite the methodological caveats, a pattern of somewhat longer postdoctoral study is evident. In 1981, 23.6% of employed U.S. biomedical Ph.D.'s were postdoctoral associates 3–4 years after receiving their degree. In 1995, 32.1% of this group were postdoctoral associates. Increases in the percentage of scientists employed as postdoctoral associates are found at every level of experience. Whereas some of the percentages and increases are small—for example, the percentage of biomedical scientists in postdoctoral positions 9–10 years post-Ph.D. rose from 0.9% in 1981 to 3.1% in 1995—the general pattern clearly indicates lengthening periods of postdoctoral study.
The expansion of the postdoctoral pool is even greater than that shown in Table 4, as these data do not include the influx of doctorates from other nations (11). The latter are not accounted for in the tabulations derived from the SDR, nor is it known whether the length of time they spend as postdoctorals is the same as that for U.S. citizens with biomedical Ph.D.'s. As we know little about their career paths, it is a subject ripe for further analysis.
In addition to the trend toward more and longer postdoctorals, there is the growth in the number of ‘nonacademic’ postdoctorals (e.g., positions in industry). In the early 1980s, only a small fraction of U.S. biomedical Ph.D.'s held nonacademic postdoctoral positions. For those 1–2 years beyond their Ph.D. in 1981, the percentage was 7.9%; for those who were 3–4 years post-Ph.D., the comparable percentage was 4.4%. But by 1995, the percentage in nonacademic postdoctoral positions doubled for both groups, and similar trends were recorded for more experienced individuals ( Table 4).
Academic positions
According to estimates from the SDR, the number of U.S. biomedical Ph.D.'s employed in academic positions in 1981 was 35,917. This number rose by more than 4000 in 4 years and remained about the same for the next decade ( Table 5).
This stability in employment notwithstanding, there were substantial changes both in the types of positions held and in the fraction they occupied of total number of Ph.D.'s employed.
In 1981, 24,442 U.S. biomedical science Ph.D.'s were in tenured or tenure-track academic positions, a number comparable to the 24,082 in these positions in 1995. However, the number of tenure-track faculty 9–10 years post-Ph.D. has more than doubled since 1981. Because biomedical Ph.D.'s are remaining longer as postdoctoral associates, perhaps not as many are tenured 10 years post-Ph.D. Nonetheless, the total number of tenure-track plus tenured positions has been relatively constant.
An important change in academic employment is the 64.4% increase in ‘other academic’ personnel, from 7,047 in 1981 to 11,586 in 1995. This may include nontenure-track teaching or research faculty positions and/or senior postdoctorals who are given other titles.
The stability in total academic positions occurred over a period when the total number of U.S. biomedical Ph.D.'s was increasing, resulting in a drop in the percentage of employed U.S. biomedical Ph.D.'s in academic (and tenured academic) positions ( Table 6).
The fraction of U.S. biomedical Ph.D.'s with academic positions declined steadily from the late 1970s (when it was just under two-thirds) to the early 1990s (when it leveled off at just over half). So academia is still a major employer of U.S. biomedical Ph.D.'s, representing about half of their employment but providing jobs for a decreasing fraction of the employed Ph.D.'s.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 6. Percentage of employed biomedical Ph.D.'s in academic, industry, government, and other positions, 1973–1995a
(U.S. citizens only)
|
|
Positions in industry
The percentage of biomedical Ph.D.'s employed in industry (including the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries) has doubled in 14 years, with 31.9% of biomedical scientists in 1995 employed in this sector 9–10 years after receiving their Ph.D. compared to 15.6% employed in this sector in 1981 ( Table 6). A major spurt in industrial employment occurred between 1981 and 1989. In absolute numbers, 852 biomedical scientists 9–10 years post-Ph.D. were employed in industry in 1981, and this grew to 1906 in 1995 (13). Thus, the importance of industry as a major employer of biomedical scientists, in both relative and absolute terms, has increased ( Fig. 2).
View larger version (147K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of employed biomedical scientists, by sector (U.S. citizens): 1973–1995. Source: National Research Council, "Survey of Doctorate Recipients."
|
|
Positions in government
The percentage of biomedical scientists employed in government has not changed substantially since 1973, and has remained around 10% ( Table 6). These jobs include research in government laboratories, science policy positions, and science administration responsibilities.
Other positions
Employment in jobs other than those noted above has remained a small part of the total, i.e., less than 10%. For employed biomedical scientists 9–10 years after receiving their Ph.D., this category represented 6.4% of all biomedical Ph.D. holders employed in 1973 and 7.0% in 1995 ( Table 6). This has significant implications for proposals to prepare students for careers outside academia, industry, or government.
|
CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
|
|---|
In the last decade, there has been a substantial increase both in the number of biomedical science graduate students working as research assistants and the number of biomedical science Ph.D.'s awarded by U.S. institutions. Most of the growth in the number of Ph.D.'s has been the result of a rapid increase in the number of degrees awarded to non-U.S. citizens. Unemployment and measured underemployment for U.S. citizens, however, have been extremely low. Nonetheless, there have been some important changes in employment opportunities for U.S. Ph.D.'s in the biomedical sciences, including growth of jobs in industry while academic positions have remained stable.
Students and faculty should be made aware of the spectrum of jobs open to individuals with biomedical Ph.D.'s, and job expectations of predoctoral students and postdoctoral associates should be informed by the current trends in employment. Faculty mentors should encourage students to consider a wide range of employment goals, encouraging them to consider their individual interests and abilities. Our nation thrives on the creativity of its citizens, and challenging job opportunities exist in academia, industry, and other settings. Biomedical scientists should be encouraged to explore new areas and create new niches of employment where they can use their training in biomedical research. These recommendations are congruent with those of COSEPUP in its earlier report (3).
The data presented in this report reveal trends in biomedical Ph.D. numbers and job opportunities, but also raise questions for future discussions. For example, what changed and what forces were at play in 1982–1983 that led to the beginning of the continued rise in biomedical Ph.D. degrees conferred from 1988 onward? Financial resources are not infinite; when will the level of resources constrain increases in biomedical Ph.D. production? The data suggest that the workforce demand for research assistants is driving up the number of students accepted into biomedical Ph.D. programs. We believe that the selection of an applicant to graduate school should be based on past performance and potential for success rather than on institutional needs for research or teaching assistants. Alternate ways to fill workforce needs should be considered, and this will require more creative solutions.
Only 5% of biomedical Ph.D.'s are unemployed or underemployed, but there is a trend toward longer postdoctoral appointments. Does this trend reflect the abilities of the biomedical students entering the postdoctoral pool, making additional training necessary? Has the greater number of Ph.D.'s led to a decline in quality? Do longer periods of postdoctoral study reflect the limited employment options? Is the increased length of postdoctoral appointments due to an insufficient number of jobs that meet the expectations of individuals in this pool? Although there has not been appreciable change in the number of tenured and tenure-track jobs in academia, ‘other’ jobs in academia have increased, the nature of which deserves further analysis. Are these positions filled by senior postdoctorals with another title? What is the effect on academia of the lack of mandatory retirement? Are schools replacing tenured faculty who retire or leave with nontenure-track ‘other’ personnel to gain the flexibility of yearly contracts? The absolute number of tenured and tenure-track jobs has held constant, but there has been an increase in jobs in the industrial sector. Although the rise of the latter has leveled off, will it grow again?
We strongly reaffirm the conclusions and recommendations reached in collaboration with our colleagues in the recent FASEB report on graduate education (14). Historical trend data can be a useful guide, but many changes can occur during the 10-year period from the onset of predoctoral study to the completion of a postdoctoral. Therefore, applicants to Ph.D. programs should realize that the job market may look quite different when they are ready to enter it than it does when they begin graduate study. Research in the biomedical sciences is exciting. There is tremendous potential, but no one can predict the impact of biomedical research advances on the job market. Since future employment demand for biomedical Ph.D.'s cannot be determined precisely, it is inappropriate to limit the number of Ph.D.'s granted on the basis of guesses about the future job market. Adjustments should be made at the local level in the programs themselves; quality in predoctoral education should not be sacrificed for quantity.
|
FOOTNOTES
|
|---|
1 Howard Garrison can be reached at the Office of Public Affairs, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 9650 Rockville, Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA. E-mail: hgarrison{at}opa.faseb.org 
2 Abbreviations: NRC, National Research Council; NIH, National Institutes of Health; NSF, National Science Foundation; SDR, Survey of Doctorate Recipients.
3 In this report, statistical tabulations from the NSF and NRC data sources on doctoral scientists were generated for the ‘biomedical sciences.’ This classification consists of biology disciplines frequently involved in medical research. It is often used in NRC studies, including the congressionally mandated NRC studies of NIH training programs. The biomedical science fields also correspond closely with the disciplines represented by the FASEB Societies: anatomy, biochemistry, biophysics, cell biology, developmental biology, immunology, molecular biology, nutritional science, pathology, pharmacology, and physiology. In 1995, individuals with Ph.D. degrees in these fields comprised 50% of the biomedical scientists in the two NRC survey samples used in this report: the Survey of Doctorate Recipients and the Survey of Earned Doctorates. Doctorate degree holders in bioengineering, genetics, microbiology, neuroscience, and toxicology comprised another 20% of the biomedical scientists. For a full listing of fields in the biomedical sciences category, see ref 7.
4 This number may be an underestimate, as each year a small fraction of survey respondents decline to report citizenship status.
5 Tabulations for the latter group are available from the authors upon request.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- National Science Board (1996) Science & Engineering Indicators 1996, NSB-96–21, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
- Committee on Funding of Young Investigators in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences. (1994) The Funding of Young Investigators in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
- National Research Council, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) (1995) Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
- National Research Council, Committee on Trends in Early Research Careers (1997) Committee Report. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. In press.
- These include the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Graduate Research, Education, and Training (GREAT) Conferences and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Graduate Education Consensus Conference.
- Hayes, S. L. (1996). At the Edge of a New Frontier: A Profile of the Stanford University Biomedical Ph.D. Class of 1996 and Recommendations for the Future. Report of the BioMedical Association of Stanford Students. BioMASS, Stanford, Calif.
- Committee on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel. (1994) Meeting the Nation's Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
- Goldman, C. A. (1996) Personal communication based on analyses of NSF CASPAR database. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.
- Massey, W. F., and Goldman, C. (1995) The Production and Utilization of Science and Engineering Doctorates in the United States, Stanford, Palo Alto.
- Ammons, S. W. (1996) Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Ph.D. Students in U.S. Medical Schools, 1994–1995. Paper presented at October, 1995 GREAT Conference, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. AAMC, Washington, D.C.; and Ammons, S. W., and Kelly, D. E. (1997) Profile of the graduate school population in U.S. medical schools. Academic Med. 72, 820–830
- Perkins, J. (1996) Are U.S. universities producing too many Ph.D.'s in the biomedical sciences: Facts and artifacts. Pharmacologist 38, 124–128
- National Science Foundation (1996) Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 1993 (NSF-96–302). National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.; and National Science Foundation (1997) Data Brief: Unemployment Among Doctoral Scientists, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
- National Research Council (1996) "Special Tabulations." Survey of Doctorate Recipients, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
- Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (1997) Graduate Education Consensus Conference Report. FASEB, Bethesda, Md.
http://www.faseb.org.opa
.
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
