Setting priorities in science : hearings before the Subcommittee on Science of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, second session, April 7, 28, 1992.

  • United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Subcommittee on Science.
Date:
1992
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Setting priorities in science : hearings before the Subcommittee on Science of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, second session, April 7, 28, 1992. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    86/272 (page 82)
    about that for a moment? The typical college graduate today says, “Um, I’ve got about $15,000 in outstanding obligations because I worked and borrowed my way through school; I'd like to go on to graduate school, but that costs, 20, 25 thousand dollars a year, and I want to get married and start my family and do all these other things.” There’s not much hope that we’re going to get the best and the brightest to go on to graduate school and to continue their studies, so that they will be ideal candidates for your respective Federal agencies unless we provide them the wherewithal to do it. What are we doing in that area? Let’s hear from both of you, Dr. Massey and Dr. Healy. Dr. Massey. Well, we support a number of NSF fellowships, of course, which are— Mr. BoEHLERT. It’s a trend line. Dr. Massey. It’s growing. The fellowships are growing. But most of our support for graduate students are not on our fellowships; they’re on our research grants, which is something that’s often overlooked. We support about 40,000 undergraduate and graduates on a combination of research fellowships and research assistant fel- lowships. So each time our research budget grows, a large fraction of that research budget is, in fact, supporting graduate students. ae it doesn’t show up as a separate line for the support of stu- ents. In fact, one might say that one of the co-missions of the support of research by the Foundation is to support the next generation of researchers, because that’s the way it’s carried out. Mr. BoEHLERT. Dr. Healy. Dr. HEAty. Mr. Boehlert, I think that the threat to the intellec- tual capital base of this country in the sciences is one of the largest threats we face as a country. If you look at NIH, I can give you data that the intellectual capital base which underpins everything that we do—we are no better than the quality of those scientists— is actually contracting. A small amount. But in three of the past four years, the number of principal investigators that we support is contracting. It is not expanding. Secondly, even more worrisome to us is it is aging. Now, it’s not that I have—I support the National Institute of Aging. I believe in aging as a focus for research. But the fact that our brain trust is aging 1s very worrisome, because it means the young people are not being attracted to science. When they come in, they compete very well, but they are not coming in. If it weren’t for the women that are moving into the field of sci- ence, we would see a dramatic contraction in our scientific talent base. In fact, men are decreasing in terms of choosing careers in’ science and medicine, as women are increasing. Women are com- pensating for a deterioration in the status of men in the sciences. They are covering over a serious problem. In fact, I think we should worry about the men and wonder where are those smart, young men going, and they’re not going into the sciences any more. I think it’s a statement of value, and that is my most important point, that the reason why all of those smart, young men aren’t going into the sciences is because it’s not valued the way it used to e.