New developments in biotechnology : U.S. investment in biotechnology.

  • United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Date:
1988
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: New developments in biotechnology : U.S. investment in biotechnology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    27/308 (page 19)
    Option 5.1: Take no action. Training and education for biotechnology in the United States is strong, successful, and well sup- ported. For the most part, personnel needs for the industry are being met. While shortages have been difficult to predict in advance, they have been short lasting when they have occurred. By and large, the current system is working well, though additional support in specific areas could pay off significantly. If Congress takes no action, the United States can expect to continue to enjoy high quality personnel in the biological sciences, but certain needs may not be met and the fit between personnel needs and availability may not be optimal. Option 5.2: Require Federal agencies to direct more funds for training. While NIH, USDA, NSF, and other Federal agen- cies provide substantial research funds, which contribute indirectly to training, training grants and fellowships are less well funded and have de- clined in recent years. In molecular biology, com- petitive training grants have effectively en- couraged university departments to establish coherent training programs and enable money from faculty research grants to be used for re- search rather than salaries. Training grants in par- ticular areas of possible need, such as bioprocess engineering, plant molecular biology, microbial ecology, and protein crystallography, could be given special consideration. Option 5.3: Increase funds for the National Sci- ence Foundation or other Federal agencies to provide equipment for biotechnology education and training programs. Equipment and instrumentation for biotechnol- ogy training and research is expensive. Almost every program contacted by OTA reported un- met needs for equipment and facilities. Direct Fed- eral support for R&D equipment and physical plant has been declining, leaving many universi- ties with outmoded equipment. Direct support for instrumentation in biotechnology could provide many programs with much needed equipment, enabling them to train students on state-of-the- art equipment used by industry. Such funds may also encourage researchers from related areas, such as chemistry and engineering, to collaborate in biotechnology research. Option 5.4: Establish programs to foster the in- terdisciplinary education needed for most ap- plications of biotechnology. Peer-reviewed, individual investigator initiated grants provide the bulk of funding for basic re- search but may be biased against the interdiscipli- nary nature of many research projects in biotech- nology. Interdisciplinary programs could foster the interaction among various fields needed to im- prove research and training for biotechnology and promote technology transfer across fields and in- dustrial sectors. Congress could encourage agen- cies to more actively support programs that fos- ter multidisciplinary training in areas related to biotechnology. Option 5.5: Request the National Academy of Sci- ences to assess comprehensively future person- nel needs in biotechnology. Given the long time needed to prepare individ- uals for careers in biotechnology, it is important at both the national and the individual level to be able to anticipate personnel needs several years into the future. The Committee on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel of the Institute of Medicine has twice systemat- ically investigated personnel needs in biotechnol- ogy by surveying U.S. biotechnology companies. These surveys provide important information on recruitment difficulties faced by biotechnology companies, assist policymakers in setting appro- priate funding levels, and enable students to make more informed career choices. Though the Com- mittee was able to make these studies in 1983 and 1985, funds were not available for a similar study in 1987. The National Academy of Sciences could update and expand this work by seeking additional information from the U.S. Department of Agri- culture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health on medical, agri- cultural, environmental, and other personnel needs in biotechnology and the role of predoc- toral versus postdoctoral support as it affects the pool of available biotechnology personnel. Such personnel forecasts, however, depend on assumptions about gross national product, dem- ographic trends, government policy decisions, technological innovation, foreign activities in the field, and other factors that cannot be known with certainty. Given the uncertainty of many of the