14
MARSHALL
AND MAGOUN
as the U. S. IBRO survey and the continuing evaluation of the National Institute of Mental Health training programs in the behavioral sciences. Two of the four papers presented here are concerned primarily with the collection of data, and two are focussed on concepts that must be seriously considered when making projections. Collecting data on neuroscientists turned out to be a difficult proposition, and it required ingenuity and perseverance to develop a base from which correlations and predictions could be made. Neuroscientists are found, or perhaps a better word would be hide, in a wide variety of departments and organizations. They dislike completing and returning questionnaires, as their responserate shows. The paper by Lindsey R. Harmon on demography and characteristics of neuroscientists reflects the questionnaire response plus data from existing files. Another data collection provided the institutional base for education and research in neuroscience that will be described by Marshall, Rivera, and Magoun. The other two papers, by Thomas J. Kennedy, Jr., and by Shooter and Magoun, deal with some of the realities of funding and careers that have implications for the future of neuroscience. THE
INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH L. H. MARSHALL,
National Research Bethesda, Medicine,
BASE FOR EDUCATION IN NEUROSCIENCE
J. A. RIVERA,
AND H. W.
AND
MAGOUN
Washington, D.C. 20418, Society for Neuroscience, 20014, and Department of Psychiatry, School of University of California, Los Angeles, California90024 Council,
Maryland
Introduction. The size of the personnel pool of teachers and investigators in neuroscience is determined largely by the inflow of new degree holders. As is true for other branches of science, this annual increment is superimposed on the relatively more stable core of persons who are already working and teaching in the field, and whose ranks contract and expand over narrower ranges due to retirement or death, movement into and out of the scientific field, and economic pressures. Analysis of the institutional base from which the new degree holders emerge has revealed some consistent and not surprising correlations between productivity, size of faculty, and fiscal support. The first step in assessingthe institutional base was to identify the new degree holders and the granting institutions. Due to inadequate categorization of the fields of degrees awarded,l this identification had to be made
1 The Xerox University Microfilms publications categorize dissertations only by broad disciplines (e.g. biology, psychology) ; the NRC Doctorate Records File has not added neuroscience to its list of specialties.
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
STUDY
1.5
from the titles or abstracts of the doctoral dissertations, as described below. The productivity of institutions in numbers of doctorates awarded in neuroscience was found to correlate with the types of educational programs offered in this field. In addition to their doctorate productivity, institutions were rank ordered by numbers of faculty members teaching and/or conducting research in the basic neurologic and communicative sciences; as well as by federal obligations for research, development, and training in the life, medical, and psychological sciences. By combining these indices, an aggregate institutional standing relative to neuroscience was derived based on doctorate productivity, size of faculty, and dollar support for research and development and higher education. Doctorates in the Neurosciences During 1969-1973. During the S-year span, 1969-1973, 1807 awards of new research doctorates were counted in the neurosciences. This was 747 more than the 1060 neuroscience doctorates awarded during the preceding 9 years, 1960-1968 (3). Seventy per cent of these 1,807 degrees were identified from the four annual publications of Awzerican Doctoral Dissertations (l), for 1968-1969 through 1971-1972, which reported the name, dissertation title, field, and institution of new doctorates, assembled from the commencement programs of participating universities for each academic year concluding with the June commencement. The remaining 30% of the 1807 neuroscience doctorates were identified from dissertation titles included in the Doctorate Records File of the National Research Council, for the fiscal year July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973.” In each annual group, neuroscientists were identified by the subjects of their dissertation research. When titles were ambiguous, they were clarified by examination of summaries published in Dissertation Abstracts (2). For the most part, selections were concentrated in the core biological or basic medical sciences and physiological psychology, in all of which dissertation research involved relatively direct contact with the nervous system.3 Doctorate Production. During fiscal years 1969-1973, doctorates in the neurosciences were awarded by 160 institutions. In Tables 1 and 2, these institutions are arranged in groups of 25 in descending order of numbers of neuroscience doctorates awarded. The leading 25 institutions awarded 900 (SO%), the second 25 awarded 389 (21%), and the third group of 2 Since the period of an academic year, concluding with the June commencement, is essentially the same as a fiscal year, ending June 30, annual neuroscience doctorates included are considered equivalent to those of fiscal years 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973. 3 More ranging selections from the Doctorate Records File, undertaken and *ported by Dr. Lindsey R. Harmon in his accompanying paper, included additional doctorates whose dissertations reported more general or conceptual studies in fields of bioengineering, psychology, the communicative sciences and, in a few cases, e&ation.
16
MARSHALL
AND
MAGOUN
TABLE NEUROSCIENCE Institutions U. S. Total Leading
DOCTORATES Number 1,807 (100%)
75
FROM
1 160 U. S. UNIVERSITIES,
Institutions
Number
1969-1973 Institutions
Number
1,524 (84%)
1st 25
900 (50%)
U.C.. Los Angeles Illinois U.C.. Berkeley Michigan Stanford
2nd &;z;c&
25
389
3rd
(21%)
(Illinois)
North Carolina Vanderbilt Columbia
25
235 (13%)
20 20 19 18 18
Arizona
Emory Rockefeller Rutgers
::
17 17 17 17 16
St. Louis Wayne state
::
U.C..
::
Indiana Chicago Wisconsin Rochester U. Washington
Boston
p&at
Cal. Inst. Tech. CUNY Temple U.C., Davis Duke
16 16 16 1.5 1.5
Connecticut Florida State Georgetown Georgia Illinois Inst. Tech.
SUNY. Buffalo Pittsburgh Penn. state -rr,,,,,,
15 15 :“4 13
Louisiana State Syracuse Texas, Austin Texas. Galveston Cincinnati
:; 12 12 12
Colorado Marquette Princeton Texas, Dallas Vermont
U.
El?,“: Washington U.C., Irvine
10U.a Michigan State New York U. Pennsylvania Maryland
Minnesota Case-Western
Reserve
U. (W.L.)
Kansas
Yale
Virginia. l&.CCiRwerside
Harvard Mass. Inst. Tech. Northwestern Johns Hopkins
Southern Yeshiva
Calif.
11
San Francisco
%thoma Alabama,
10 10 9
Birmingham
9” 9 ; 9 9 9 ii
25 institutions awarded 235 (13%) of the total 1,807 doctorates in the neurosciences. The fourth, fifth, and sixth groups, made up of the remaining 85 institutions, respectively awarded 8, 5, and 3% of the doctorates in neuroscience. TABLE NUMBER
OF
NEUROSCIENCE GROUPS
Institutions
Total 160 1st 25 2nd 25 3rd 25 4th 25 5th 25 6th 35
OF
1969-1973 Number Percent 1807 900 389 23.5 146 91 46
100 50 21 13 8 5 3
2
DOCTOFCATES INSTITUTIONS,
AWARDED 1969-1973
ANNUALLY
BY
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
297 155 64 39 19 16 4
293 160 58 39 19 10 7
342 162 66 52 3.5 20 7
365 176 74 44 35 21 15
510 274 127 61 38 24 13
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
STUDY
17
Program Base. The standings of these institutions in the numbers of doctorates awarded were correlated with the distribution among them of interdisciplinary programs of doctoral study in the neurosciences, recently compiled and published by the Society for Neuroscience (6). In this compilation, institutions were grouped by the type of program offered. Group A consists of institutions with interdisciplinary programs leading to the Ph.D. in neuroscience. In Group B, the Ph.D. is awarded in a traditional departmental field, with an interdisciplinary program of specialization in neuroscience. Among the 25 institutions that awarded the largest number of Ph.D.‘s in neuroscience, 17 had interdisciplinary doctoral programs of Groups A or B. In the second 25 institutions, 12 had such programs ; in the third group, there were 10. The three least productive groups of institutions had 3, 3, and 2 such programs respectively (Fig. 1). Field Base. Most of the current programs of interdisciplinary study have been introduced so recently that the bulk of neuroscience-related doctorates identified during 1969-1973 were actually awarded in the traditional fields of specialization included in Table 3. The distribution of doctorates in these fields is by no means uniform, but ranges from a high of 28% of the total in psychology to only 6% in biochemistry. Doctorates and second-place physiology (21%) together acin psychology (28%) counted for 49% or almost half the total awards during the last five years. Together, the next three fields with almost equivalent proportions, biology (ll%), accounted for 36% (13%), anatomy (12%), and pharmacology or a little more than a third of the total doctorates. The two remaining fields, biophysics/engineering (8% ) and biochemistry (6%)) together accounted for the balance of 14%. Grouped in another way, the 28% of all doctorates awarded in psychology and the 12% in biology, together amounting to 40% of the total, were awarded in departmental programs on university campuses. By contrast, the remaining 60% of doctorates, in physiology (21%), anatomy (12%), pharmacology (11%)) biochemistry (6%)) and biophysics (5%)) were awarded principally in graduate programs based in Schools of Medicine (some of which were, and others were not, on university campuses), and a remaining 3% were awarded in Schools of Engineering or Education. More generally, therefore, during the last 5 years, programs on university campuses have accounted for 40% of all neuroscience doctorates, and programs in the Schools of Medicine, Engineering, and Education have accounted for the larger proportion of 60%. Neuroscience Faculty. The identity of 3666 faculty members who were teaching courses or supervising research of students in fields of the neurosciences was determined from institutional catalogues current in 1973 and 1974. In some cases, the identification was based on a statement of the
18
MARSHAL1
,
AND
MAGOUN
INSTITUTIONS
FIG. 1. Neuroscience doctorates, 1969-1973 (IV= 1807) and doctoral training programs, types A and B (N = SO), at groups of 25 institutions (N = 160). Percentages are of the total number of doctorates (above striped bars) and of A and B programs (above solid bars). Sources: American Doctoral Dissertations (1) and Society for Neuroscience (6).
individual’s research interest; in others, the courses taught were interpreted as indicating a competence in the field. Rosters of a wide variety of departments in which neuroscientists might be found were scrutinized. In addition, neuroscientists identified in 1968 in the IBRO Survey of Research Faculties and Manpower in Brain Sciences in the United States, 1%8 (4), who were still listed in institutional catalogues in 1973-1974, were included. Similarly, neuroscientists listed in the most recent Membership Directory of the Society for Neuroscience (7)) who specified an academic institution in their address, were included. The latter source was partially helpful in identifying neuroscience faculty at smaller universities and colleges and, in aggregate, the 3666 faculty were located at 200 academic institutions.
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
TABLE NEUROSCIENCE
Fields All Fields Psychology Physiology Biology Anatomy Pharmacology Biophys./Engr. Biochemistry
DOCTORATES
1969-1973 Number Percent 1,776” 499 366 224 217 206 150 114
100 28 21 13 12 11 8 6
19
STUDY
3 BY FIELDS,
1969-1973
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
301 80 68 44 36 33 23 17
291 80 15 35 29 18 23 31
343 78 69 43 46 50 37 20
363 116 81 43 48 41 20 14
478 14.5 73 59 58 64 47 32
(1Of the total 1,807 doctorates, 31 did not fit clearly into the seven fields of this table and are omitted.
Table 4 shows the leading 75 institutions ranked by the numbers of their faculty in neuroscience. These institutions claimed 3079 or 84% of the total 3666 neuroscientists identified in 1973-1974. Subtotals of 1708 or 47% of the total were in the first 25 institutions ; 840 or 23% were in the second 25; and 531 or 14% were in the third 25. The leading 75 institutions, at which these 3079 neuroscientists were located, awarded 1407 or 78% of the 1807 neuroscience doctorates in 1969-1973. In further correlation, 2269 or 62% of the total 3666 neuroscience faculty were in that group of 48 institutions with integrated Ph.D. programs in the neurosciences. Of this latter number, 2223 were in the leading 75 institutions; 1568 of them in the first 25, 468 in the second 25, and 187 in the third 25 institutions. Federal Support of Research and Traivzing. Federal funds for biomedical research and training are also concentrated at the leading academic institutions in the United States. Table 5 lists the 75 institutions receiving the largest federal obligations for research, development, and training, in the life, medical, and psychological scienceq4 in fiscal year 1972; the most recent year for which such data are available (5). Of the aggregate $1,208,291,000 awarded to all U. S. institutions for these fields in fiscal year 1972, the leading 75 institutions received $978,367,000 or 81% of the total. Within this group, the leading 25 institutions were awarded 48% ; the second 25, 21% ; and the third 25, 11% of the total. Aggregate Indices. The average proportions of the three indices related to neuroscience presented above are shown graphically in Fig. 2. With totals of each index forming lOO%, the leading 75 institutions accounted 4 The NSF report does not present data for neuroscience fields. Use of the data provided for the aggregate life, medical, and psychological sciences may be advantageous in that the neurosciences extend widely into and across all of these fields.
20
MARSHALL
AND
TABLE NEUROSCIENCE
FACULTY SCHOOLS,
Institutions
Number
Total Leading
MAGOUN
4
AT 200 U. S. UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES, 1973-1974
MEDICAL
AND
Institutions
Number
Institutions
Number
3,666 (100%) 75
1st 25 U.C., Los Angeles Johns Hopkins Wisconsin Washington U. Pennsylvania
3,079 (84%) 2nd 25
1,708 (47%) 155 125 109 88 87
840
3rd 25
531 (14%)
(23%) Colorado Virginia Columbia U. Chicago U.C., Berkeley
46 45 44 41 40
Alabama, Birm. Tulane Cal. Med. Dent.. Texas, Houston Georgetown
N.J.
26 26 25 25 24
Michigan Harvard North Carolina Cornell Stanford
78 77 70 69 61
Case-Western Reserve CUNY Indiana SUNY. Buffalo Rochester
40 40 39 38 38
Rutgers Texas, Galveston Florida Temple Connecticut
24 24 23 23 22
Yale U.C.. San Francisco UC.. San Diego Minnesota Duke
61 59 58 57 55
New York U. Emory Miami Virginia Commonwealth Oklahoma
37 36 35 33 32
New Mexico Med. U. So. Carolina Arizona Arkansas SUNY, Stony Brook
22 22 21 21 21
10W-a
U. Washington Yeshiva Illinois Pittsburgh
53 53 51 50 50
SUNY, Southern Brown Louisiana Michigan
31 30 29 29 29
Florida State Massachusetts Wayne state Boston U. Hawaii
20 20 20 19 18
Ohio State Purdue Oregon Rockefeller Utah
49 49 48 48 48
Maryland TenWX3ee Baylor Col. Med. Loyola (Illinois) Pennsylvania State
29 28 27 26 26
Mass. Inst. Tech. U.C.. Irvine George Washington KZlllSZlS Northwestern
18 17 17 17 16
Downstate Calif. State State
Med.
for 84% of the neuroscience faculty at 200 academic institutions, in 19731974, 84% of all neuroscience doctorates awarded at 160 institutions, during 1969-1973, and 81% of federal support for research, development, and training in the life, medical, and psychological sciences at all universities, colleges, and selected nonprofit institutions in the United States in fiscal year 1972-an average for the three indices of 83%. Striking as the above may appear, this concentration is exceeded by the distribution of these indices within the leading 75 institutions. The first 25 accounted for 47% of all faculty, 50% of all recent doctorates in the neurosciences, and 48% of all federal support of research and training in the life, medical, and psychological sciences, with an average of 48% of all totals. The second 25 institutions accounted for 23% of the faculty, 21% of the new doctorates, and an equivalent 21% of all federal support
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
TABLE SUM OF FEDERAL TRAINING
Institutions
YEAR
DEVELOPMENT,
AND
SCIENCES,
1972 (Dollars in Thousands) Institutions
$
total
Leading
5
OBLIGATIONS BY ALL AGENCIES FOR RESEARCH, IN THE LIFE, MEDICAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FISCAL
U.S.
21
STUDY
t
.
Institutions
s
1,208,291 (100%) 75
978.367
(81%) 1st 25
579.684 (48%)
2nd 25
258.816
3rd 25
139.867 (11%)
(21%)
Harvard U. Washington Johns Hopkins U.C.. Los Angeles Minnesota
37.688 37.424 34,370 32,758 27,089
Alabama, Birm. Mass. Inst. Tech. Baylor Case-Western Reserve Vanderbilt
13.790 13,090 12,924 12.176 12.149
SUNY, Buffalo Kansas Purdue Missouri Cincinnati
7.737 7,700 7.631 7.1960 6,462
Wisconsin Columbia Stanford Pennsylvania U.C., San Francisco
27.036 26,284 25.306 25.223 24.091
Illinois Miami Pittsburgh Boston U. Florida
11,171* 11.126 11,115 10,749 10,606
Rutgers Virginia Cal. Inst. Tufts Connecticut
6.443 6.283 5,921 5,846 5.644
Yale Michigan Washington Chicago Yeshiva
23.956 23,727 23,097 22,273 22,250
Utah Iowa Temple Ohio State CUNY, Mt.
10,493 10,479 10,475 10,258 10.253
Oregon Texas, Austin Oregon state Tennessee Kentucky
5.423 5,420 5,238 5,202 5,121
New York U. U.C.. Berkley Duke Cornell U.C.. San Diego
21,058 19,354 18.886 17,820 lb.372
Pennsylvania State Northwestern Emory Rockefeller Michigan State
9,266 9.230 9,091 8.6930 8.669
Hawaii St. Louis Arizona Colorado State Georgetown
5,045 4,900 4,880 416930 4.692
Rochester North Carolina Colorado U.C.. Davis Southern Calif.
16,126 15.175 14,442 14,068 13,811
Texas, Anderson Maryland Indiana TUh3IZ Texas, SW Med.
8.638 8,505 8,427 8.418 8,026
George Washington Wayne state Georgia New York Med. Col. Nebraska
4.606 4,265 4,545 4.224a 3,750’
0 Sum
U..
St. Louis
of information
available;
full
support
was
Sinai
Med.
S.
Hosp.
Sch.
probably
Tech.
higher.
in life, medical, and psychological fields, for an average of 22%. The third 25 institutions accounted for 14% of the faculty, 13% of neuroscience doctorates, and 11% of federal support, an average of 13%. The average proportions for the three indices at each group of 25 institutions48, 22, and 13%--sum to 83% which, as just noted, represent the overall proportion of totals of these indices at the leading 75 academic institutions. It is of interest next to compare this distribution with that of an analogous, but not identical, survey of neuroscience indices undertaken earlier for fiscal year 1%9 (3). In that year, the percentage of aggregate indices at the leading 75 U. S. academic institutions was 74% and, by component groups, the first 25 accounted for 46%, the second 25 for 19%, and the
22
MARSHALL
AND
bfAGOUN
48%
FIG. 2. Proportions of three indices of neuroscience at 75 leading Percentages are averages for the three indicks: Sources: see text.
institutions.
third 25 for 9% of the total. These data present the same pattern of concentration of indices at leading institutions described above, but the average proportion of 83% of aggregate indices at the 75 institutions leading in neuroscience indices in 1972-1974 was nine percentage points greater than the 74% in 1968-1969. This increment held for each of the three component groups of 25 institutions, which accounted for 48, 22, and 13% of the total in 1973-1974, as compared with 46, 19, and 9% in 1969, an increase of two percentage points for the first 25 institutions, three percentage points for the second 25, and four percentage points for the third 25. Over the last few years, therefore, among the 75 institutions leading in neuroscience, to paraphrase an old adage, the rich got richer, the poorer also got richer and, proportionally, the poorer they were, the richer they got! These data raise several questions as to the future choices that institutions may wish to make in regard to their involvements in neuroscience.
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
STUDY
23
During the last 5 years, 50% of the doctorates in neuroscience were awarded by the leading 25 institutions, which formed 15% of all institutions involved. The question that must be faced in the decade ahead is whether these graduate institutions should be encouraged to continue producing such large numbers of doctorates or should graduate students be steered to the less populous institutions? From the point of view of the prospective student, a choice may have to be made between pursuing graduate study at a leading institution or at a less well supported and attended institution but one with other advantages. Because of the sizefrequency relationship involved, which appears to be valid throughout all fields and educational levels (Lindsey R. Harmon, personal communication), it may be necessary to counteract this tendency actively to effect a change. As background, it is important to determine the dimensions, within institutions, of the critical mass or optimal size of teaching and research groups. Institutions with interdisciplinary doctoral programs have been identified as being the most productive in neurosciences. This raises the question of whether or not institutions lacking such programs should be encouraged to develop them. Among steps in this direction, one which is at present not fully utilized, is that of joint appointments across departmental and professional school boundaries. Not only are scientists finding homes within clinical departments, but perhaps more to be encouraged, the basic science departments can become more involved in an effort to exploit to the fullest the clinical implications of their fields of expertise. REFERENCES 1. American Doctoral Dissertations, 1968-1972. Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.4 ~01s. 2. Dissertation Abstracts International. 1968-1972.Series B (the Sciencesand Engineering), Vols. 29-32. Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.4 ~01s. 3. MACOUN, H. W. 1972.Neuroscience doctoratesin the sixties. Bioscience22: 457462. 4. National ResearchCouncil, Committeeon Brain Sciences.1968. IBRO [International Brain ResearchOrganization] Survey of ResearchFacilities and Manpower in Brain Sciencesin the United States. National Academy of Sciences-National ResearchCouncil,Washington,D. C. 358pp. 5. National ScienceFoundation.1974.Federal Supportto Universities,Colleges,and SelectedNonprofit Institutions,FiscalYear 1972.PublicationNo. NSF 74-305. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington,D. C. 136 pp. 6. Society for Neuroscience.1974. Interdisciplinary Educational Programs in the Neurosciences at U. S. Universitiesand Colleges.Society for Neuroscience, Bethesda,Maryland. 62 pp. 7. Society for Neuroscience. 1973.MembershipDirectory, November,1973, Society for Neuroscience, Bethesda,Maryland. 128pp.
MARSHALL
AND MAGOUN
as the U. S. IBRO survey and the continuing evaluation of the National Institute of Mental Health training programs in the behavioral sciences. Two of the four papers presented here are concerned primarily with the collection of data, and two are focussed on concepts that must be seriously considered when making projections. Collecting data on neuroscientists turned out to be a difficult proposition, and it required ingenuity and perseverance to develop a base from which correlations and predictions could be made. Neuroscientists are found, or perhaps a better word would be hide, in a wide variety of departments and organizations. They dislike completing and returning questionnaires, as their responserate shows. The paper by Lindsey R. Harmon on demography and characteristics of neuroscientists reflects the questionnaire response plus data from existing files. Another data collection provided the institutional base for education and research in neuroscience that will be described by Marshall, Rivera, and Magoun. The other two papers, by Thomas J. Kennedy, Jr., and by Shooter and Magoun, deal with some of the realities of funding and careers that have implications for the future of neuroscience. THE
INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH L. H. MARSHALL,
National Research Bethesda, Medicine,
BASE FOR EDUCATION IN NEUROSCIENCE
J. A. RIVERA,
AND H. W.
AND
MAGOUN
Washington, D.C. 20418, Society for Neuroscience, 20014, and Department of Psychiatry, School of University of California, Los Angeles, California90024 Council,
Maryland
Introduction. The size of the personnel pool of teachers and investigators in neuroscience is determined largely by the inflow of new degree holders. As is true for other branches of science, this annual increment is superimposed on the relatively more stable core of persons who are already working and teaching in the field, and whose ranks contract and expand over narrower ranges due to retirement or death, movement into and out of the scientific field, and economic pressures. Analysis of the institutional base from which the new degree holders emerge has revealed some consistent and not surprising correlations between productivity, size of faculty, and fiscal support. The first step in assessingthe institutional base was to identify the new degree holders and the granting institutions. Due to inadequate categorization of the fields of degrees awarded,l this identification had to be made
1 The Xerox University Microfilms publications categorize dissertations only by broad disciplines (e.g. biology, psychology) ; the NRC Doctorate Records File has not added neuroscience to its list of specialties.
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
STUDY
1.5
from the titles or abstracts of the doctoral dissertations, as described below. The productivity of institutions in numbers of doctorates awarded in neuroscience was found to correlate with the types of educational programs offered in this field. In addition to their doctorate productivity, institutions were rank ordered by numbers of faculty members teaching and/or conducting research in the basic neurologic and communicative sciences; as well as by federal obligations for research, development, and training in the life, medical, and psychological sciences. By combining these indices, an aggregate institutional standing relative to neuroscience was derived based on doctorate productivity, size of faculty, and dollar support for research and development and higher education. Doctorates in the Neurosciences During 1969-1973. During the S-year span, 1969-1973, 1807 awards of new research doctorates were counted in the neurosciences. This was 747 more than the 1060 neuroscience doctorates awarded during the preceding 9 years, 1960-1968 (3). Seventy per cent of these 1,807 degrees were identified from the four annual publications of Awzerican Doctoral Dissertations (l), for 1968-1969 through 1971-1972, which reported the name, dissertation title, field, and institution of new doctorates, assembled from the commencement programs of participating universities for each academic year concluding with the June commencement. The remaining 30% of the 1807 neuroscience doctorates were identified from dissertation titles included in the Doctorate Records File of the National Research Council, for the fiscal year July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973.” In each annual group, neuroscientists were identified by the subjects of their dissertation research. When titles were ambiguous, they were clarified by examination of summaries published in Dissertation Abstracts (2). For the most part, selections were concentrated in the core biological or basic medical sciences and physiological psychology, in all of which dissertation research involved relatively direct contact with the nervous system.3 Doctorate Production. During fiscal years 1969-1973, doctorates in the neurosciences were awarded by 160 institutions. In Tables 1 and 2, these institutions are arranged in groups of 25 in descending order of numbers of neuroscience doctorates awarded. The leading 25 institutions awarded 900 (SO%), the second 25 awarded 389 (21%), and the third group of 2 Since the period of an academic year, concluding with the June commencement, is essentially the same as a fiscal year, ending June 30, annual neuroscience doctorates included are considered equivalent to those of fiscal years 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973. 3 More ranging selections from the Doctorate Records File, undertaken and *ported by Dr. Lindsey R. Harmon in his accompanying paper, included additional doctorates whose dissertations reported more general or conceptual studies in fields of bioengineering, psychology, the communicative sciences and, in a few cases, e&ation.
16
MARSHALL
AND
MAGOUN
TABLE NEUROSCIENCE Institutions U. S. Total Leading
DOCTORATES Number 1,807 (100%)
75
FROM
1 160 U. S. UNIVERSITIES,
Institutions
Number
1969-1973 Institutions
Number
1,524 (84%)
1st 25
900 (50%)
U.C.. Los Angeles Illinois U.C.. Berkeley Michigan Stanford
2nd &;z;c&
25
389
3rd
(21%)
(Illinois)
North Carolina Vanderbilt Columbia
25
235 (13%)
20 20 19 18 18
Arizona
Emory Rockefeller Rutgers
::
17 17 17 17 16
St. Louis Wayne state
::
U.C..
::
Indiana Chicago Wisconsin Rochester U. Washington
Boston
p&at
Cal. Inst. Tech. CUNY Temple U.C., Davis Duke
16 16 16 1.5 1.5
Connecticut Florida State Georgetown Georgia Illinois Inst. Tech.
SUNY. Buffalo Pittsburgh Penn. state -rr,,,,,,
15 15 :“4 13
Louisiana State Syracuse Texas, Austin Texas. Galveston Cincinnati
:; 12 12 12
Colorado Marquette Princeton Texas, Dallas Vermont
U.
El?,“: Washington U.C., Irvine
10U.a Michigan State New York U. Pennsylvania Maryland
Minnesota Case-Western
Reserve
U. (W.L.)
Kansas
Yale
Virginia. l&.CCiRwerside
Harvard Mass. Inst. Tech. Northwestern Johns Hopkins
Southern Yeshiva
Calif.
11
San Francisco
%thoma Alabama,
10 10 9
Birmingham
9” 9 ; 9 9 9 ii
25 institutions awarded 235 (13%) of the total 1,807 doctorates in the neurosciences. The fourth, fifth, and sixth groups, made up of the remaining 85 institutions, respectively awarded 8, 5, and 3% of the doctorates in neuroscience. TABLE NUMBER
OF
NEUROSCIENCE GROUPS
Institutions
Total 160 1st 25 2nd 25 3rd 25 4th 25 5th 25 6th 35
OF
1969-1973 Number Percent 1807 900 389 23.5 146 91 46
100 50 21 13 8 5 3
2
DOCTOFCATES INSTITUTIONS,
AWARDED 1969-1973
ANNUALLY
BY
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
297 155 64 39 19 16 4
293 160 58 39 19 10 7
342 162 66 52 3.5 20 7
365 176 74 44 35 21 15
510 274 127 61 38 24 13
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
STUDY
17
Program Base. The standings of these institutions in the numbers of doctorates awarded were correlated with the distribution among them of interdisciplinary programs of doctoral study in the neurosciences, recently compiled and published by the Society for Neuroscience (6). In this compilation, institutions were grouped by the type of program offered. Group A consists of institutions with interdisciplinary programs leading to the Ph.D. in neuroscience. In Group B, the Ph.D. is awarded in a traditional departmental field, with an interdisciplinary program of specialization in neuroscience. Among the 25 institutions that awarded the largest number of Ph.D.‘s in neuroscience, 17 had interdisciplinary doctoral programs of Groups A or B. In the second 25 institutions, 12 had such programs ; in the third group, there were 10. The three least productive groups of institutions had 3, 3, and 2 such programs respectively (Fig. 1). Field Base. Most of the current programs of interdisciplinary study have been introduced so recently that the bulk of neuroscience-related doctorates identified during 1969-1973 were actually awarded in the traditional fields of specialization included in Table 3. The distribution of doctorates in these fields is by no means uniform, but ranges from a high of 28% of the total in psychology to only 6% in biochemistry. Doctorates and second-place physiology (21%) together acin psychology (28%) counted for 49% or almost half the total awards during the last five years. Together, the next three fields with almost equivalent proportions, biology (ll%), accounted for 36% (13%), anatomy (12%), and pharmacology or a little more than a third of the total doctorates. The two remaining fields, biophysics/engineering (8% ) and biochemistry (6%)) together accounted for the balance of 14%. Grouped in another way, the 28% of all doctorates awarded in psychology and the 12% in biology, together amounting to 40% of the total, were awarded in departmental programs on university campuses. By contrast, the remaining 60% of doctorates, in physiology (21%), anatomy (12%), pharmacology (11%)) biochemistry (6%)) and biophysics (5%)) were awarded principally in graduate programs based in Schools of Medicine (some of which were, and others were not, on university campuses), and a remaining 3% were awarded in Schools of Engineering or Education. More generally, therefore, during the last 5 years, programs on university campuses have accounted for 40% of all neuroscience doctorates, and programs in the Schools of Medicine, Engineering, and Education have accounted for the larger proportion of 60%. Neuroscience Faculty. The identity of 3666 faculty members who were teaching courses or supervising research of students in fields of the neurosciences was determined from institutional catalogues current in 1973 and 1974. In some cases, the identification was based on a statement of the
18
MARSHAL1
,
AND
MAGOUN
INSTITUTIONS
FIG. 1. Neuroscience doctorates, 1969-1973 (IV= 1807) and doctoral training programs, types A and B (N = SO), at groups of 25 institutions (N = 160). Percentages are of the total number of doctorates (above striped bars) and of A and B programs (above solid bars). Sources: American Doctoral Dissertations (1) and Society for Neuroscience (6).
individual’s research interest; in others, the courses taught were interpreted as indicating a competence in the field. Rosters of a wide variety of departments in which neuroscientists might be found were scrutinized. In addition, neuroscientists identified in 1968 in the IBRO Survey of Research Faculties and Manpower in Brain Sciences in the United States, 1%8 (4), who were still listed in institutional catalogues in 1973-1974, were included. Similarly, neuroscientists listed in the most recent Membership Directory of the Society for Neuroscience (7)) who specified an academic institution in their address, were included. The latter source was partially helpful in identifying neuroscience faculty at smaller universities and colleges and, in aggregate, the 3666 faculty were located at 200 academic institutions.
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
TABLE NEUROSCIENCE
Fields All Fields Psychology Physiology Biology Anatomy Pharmacology Biophys./Engr. Biochemistry
DOCTORATES
1969-1973 Number Percent 1,776” 499 366 224 217 206 150 114
100 28 21 13 12 11 8 6
19
STUDY
3 BY FIELDS,
1969-1973
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
301 80 68 44 36 33 23 17
291 80 15 35 29 18 23 31
343 78 69 43 46 50 37 20
363 116 81 43 48 41 20 14
478 14.5 73 59 58 64 47 32
(1Of the total 1,807 doctorates, 31 did not fit clearly into the seven fields of this table and are omitted.
Table 4 shows the leading 75 institutions ranked by the numbers of their faculty in neuroscience. These institutions claimed 3079 or 84% of the total 3666 neuroscientists identified in 1973-1974. Subtotals of 1708 or 47% of the total were in the first 25 institutions ; 840 or 23% were in the second 25; and 531 or 14% were in the third 25. The leading 75 institutions, at which these 3079 neuroscientists were located, awarded 1407 or 78% of the 1807 neuroscience doctorates in 1969-1973. In further correlation, 2269 or 62% of the total 3666 neuroscience faculty were in that group of 48 institutions with integrated Ph.D. programs in the neurosciences. Of this latter number, 2223 were in the leading 75 institutions; 1568 of them in the first 25, 468 in the second 25, and 187 in the third 25 institutions. Federal Support of Research and Traivzing. Federal funds for biomedical research and training are also concentrated at the leading academic institutions in the United States. Table 5 lists the 75 institutions receiving the largest federal obligations for research, development, and training, in the life, medical, and psychological scienceq4 in fiscal year 1972; the most recent year for which such data are available (5). Of the aggregate $1,208,291,000 awarded to all U. S. institutions for these fields in fiscal year 1972, the leading 75 institutions received $978,367,000 or 81% of the total. Within this group, the leading 25 institutions were awarded 48% ; the second 25, 21% ; and the third 25, 11% of the total. Aggregate Indices. The average proportions of the three indices related to neuroscience presented above are shown graphically in Fig. 2. With totals of each index forming lOO%, the leading 75 institutions accounted 4 The NSF report does not present data for neuroscience fields. Use of the data provided for the aggregate life, medical, and psychological sciences may be advantageous in that the neurosciences extend widely into and across all of these fields.
20
MARSHALL
AND
TABLE NEUROSCIENCE
FACULTY SCHOOLS,
Institutions
Number
Total Leading
MAGOUN
4
AT 200 U. S. UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES, 1973-1974
MEDICAL
AND
Institutions
Number
Institutions
Number
3,666 (100%) 75
1st 25 U.C., Los Angeles Johns Hopkins Wisconsin Washington U. Pennsylvania
3,079 (84%) 2nd 25
1,708 (47%) 155 125 109 88 87
840
3rd 25
531 (14%)
(23%) Colorado Virginia Columbia U. Chicago U.C., Berkeley
46 45 44 41 40
Alabama, Birm. Tulane Cal. Med. Dent.. Texas, Houston Georgetown
N.J.
26 26 25 25 24
Michigan Harvard North Carolina Cornell Stanford
78 77 70 69 61
Case-Western Reserve CUNY Indiana SUNY. Buffalo Rochester
40 40 39 38 38
Rutgers Texas, Galveston Florida Temple Connecticut
24 24 23 23 22
Yale U.C.. San Francisco UC.. San Diego Minnesota Duke
61 59 58 57 55
New York U. Emory Miami Virginia Commonwealth Oklahoma
37 36 35 33 32
New Mexico Med. U. So. Carolina Arizona Arkansas SUNY, Stony Brook
22 22 21 21 21
10W-a
U. Washington Yeshiva Illinois Pittsburgh
53 53 51 50 50
SUNY, Southern Brown Louisiana Michigan
31 30 29 29 29
Florida State Massachusetts Wayne state Boston U. Hawaii
20 20 20 19 18
Ohio State Purdue Oregon Rockefeller Utah
49 49 48 48 48
Maryland TenWX3ee Baylor Col. Med. Loyola (Illinois) Pennsylvania State
29 28 27 26 26
Mass. Inst. Tech. U.C.. Irvine George Washington KZlllSZlS Northwestern
18 17 17 17 16
Downstate Calif. State State
Med.
for 84% of the neuroscience faculty at 200 academic institutions, in 19731974, 84% of all neuroscience doctorates awarded at 160 institutions, during 1969-1973, and 81% of federal support for research, development, and training in the life, medical, and psychological sciences at all universities, colleges, and selected nonprofit institutions in the United States in fiscal year 1972-an average for the three indices of 83%. Striking as the above may appear, this concentration is exceeded by the distribution of these indices within the leading 75 institutions. The first 25 accounted for 47% of all faculty, 50% of all recent doctorates in the neurosciences, and 48% of all federal support of research and training in the life, medical, and psychological sciences, with an average of 48% of all totals. The second 25 institutions accounted for 23% of the faculty, 21% of the new doctorates, and an equivalent 21% of all federal support
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
TABLE SUM OF FEDERAL TRAINING
Institutions
YEAR
DEVELOPMENT,
AND
SCIENCES,
1972 (Dollars in Thousands) Institutions
$
total
Leading
5
OBLIGATIONS BY ALL AGENCIES FOR RESEARCH, IN THE LIFE, MEDICAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FISCAL
U.S.
21
STUDY
t
.
Institutions
s
1,208,291 (100%) 75
978.367
(81%) 1st 25
579.684 (48%)
2nd 25
258.816
3rd 25
139.867 (11%)
(21%)
Harvard U. Washington Johns Hopkins U.C.. Los Angeles Minnesota
37.688 37.424 34,370 32,758 27,089
Alabama, Birm. Mass. Inst. Tech. Baylor Case-Western Reserve Vanderbilt
13.790 13,090 12,924 12.176 12.149
SUNY, Buffalo Kansas Purdue Missouri Cincinnati
7.737 7,700 7.631 7.1960 6,462
Wisconsin Columbia Stanford Pennsylvania U.C., San Francisco
27.036 26,284 25.306 25.223 24.091
Illinois Miami Pittsburgh Boston U. Florida
11,171* 11.126 11,115 10,749 10,606
Rutgers Virginia Cal. Inst. Tufts Connecticut
6.443 6.283 5,921 5,846 5.644
Yale Michigan Washington Chicago Yeshiva
23.956 23,727 23,097 22,273 22,250
Utah Iowa Temple Ohio State CUNY, Mt.
10,493 10,479 10,475 10,258 10.253
Oregon Texas, Austin Oregon state Tennessee Kentucky
5.423 5,420 5,238 5,202 5,121
New York U. U.C.. Berkley Duke Cornell U.C.. San Diego
21,058 19,354 18.886 17,820 lb.372
Pennsylvania State Northwestern Emory Rockefeller Michigan State
9,266 9.230 9,091 8.6930 8.669
Hawaii St. Louis Arizona Colorado State Georgetown
5,045 4,900 4,880 416930 4.692
Rochester North Carolina Colorado U.C.. Davis Southern Calif.
16,126 15.175 14,442 14,068 13,811
Texas, Anderson Maryland Indiana TUh3IZ Texas, SW Med.
8.638 8,505 8,427 8.418 8,026
George Washington Wayne state Georgia New York Med. Col. Nebraska
4.606 4,265 4,545 4.224a 3,750’
0 Sum
U..
St. Louis
of information
available;
full
support
was
Sinai
Med.
S.
Hosp.
Sch.
probably
Tech.
higher.
in life, medical, and psychological fields, for an average of 22%. The third 25 institutions accounted for 14% of the faculty, 13% of neuroscience doctorates, and 11% of federal support, an average of 13%. The average proportions for the three indices at each group of 25 institutions48, 22, and 13%--sum to 83% which, as just noted, represent the overall proportion of totals of these indices at the leading 75 academic institutions. It is of interest next to compare this distribution with that of an analogous, but not identical, survey of neuroscience indices undertaken earlier for fiscal year 1%9 (3). In that year, the percentage of aggregate indices at the leading 75 U. S. academic institutions was 74% and, by component groups, the first 25 accounted for 46%, the second 25 for 19%, and the
22
MARSHALL
AND
bfAGOUN
48%
FIG. 2. Proportions of three indices of neuroscience at 75 leading Percentages are averages for the three indicks: Sources: see text.
institutions.
third 25 for 9% of the total. These data present the same pattern of concentration of indices at leading institutions described above, but the average proportion of 83% of aggregate indices at the 75 institutions leading in neuroscience indices in 1972-1974 was nine percentage points greater than the 74% in 1968-1969. This increment held for each of the three component groups of 25 institutions, which accounted for 48, 22, and 13% of the total in 1973-1974, as compared with 46, 19, and 9% in 1969, an increase of two percentage points for the first 25 institutions, three percentage points for the second 25, and four percentage points for the third 25. Over the last few years, therefore, among the 75 institutions leading in neuroscience, to paraphrase an old adage, the rich got richer, the poorer also got richer and, proportionally, the poorer they were, the richer they got! These data raise several questions as to the future choices that institutions may wish to make in regard to their involvements in neuroscience.
NEUROSCIENCE
MANPOWER
STUDY
23
During the last 5 years, 50% of the doctorates in neuroscience were awarded by the leading 25 institutions, which formed 15% of all institutions involved. The question that must be faced in the decade ahead is whether these graduate institutions should be encouraged to continue producing such large numbers of doctorates or should graduate students be steered to the less populous institutions? From the point of view of the prospective student, a choice may have to be made between pursuing graduate study at a leading institution or at a less well supported and attended institution but one with other advantages. Because of the sizefrequency relationship involved, which appears to be valid throughout all fields and educational levels (Lindsey R. Harmon, personal communication), it may be necessary to counteract this tendency actively to effect a change. As background, it is important to determine the dimensions, within institutions, of the critical mass or optimal size of teaching and research groups. Institutions with interdisciplinary doctoral programs have been identified as being the most productive in neurosciences. This raises the question of whether or not institutions lacking such programs should be encouraged to develop them. Among steps in this direction, one which is at present not fully utilized, is that of joint appointments across departmental and professional school boundaries. Not only are scientists finding homes within clinical departments, but perhaps more to be encouraged, the basic science departments can become more involved in an effort to exploit to the fullest the clinical implications of their fields of expertise. REFERENCES 1. American Doctoral Dissertations, 1968-1972. Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.4 ~01s. 2. Dissertation Abstracts International. 1968-1972.Series B (the Sciencesand Engineering), Vols. 29-32. Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.4 ~01s. 3. MACOUN, H. W. 1972.Neuroscience doctoratesin the sixties. Bioscience22: 457462. 4. National ResearchCouncil, Committeeon Brain Sciences.1968. IBRO [International Brain ResearchOrganization] Survey of ResearchFacilities and Manpower in Brain Sciencesin the United States. National Academy of Sciences-National ResearchCouncil,Washington,D. C. 358pp. 5. National ScienceFoundation.1974.Federal Supportto Universities,Colleges,and SelectedNonprofit Institutions,FiscalYear 1972.PublicationNo. NSF 74-305. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington,D. C. 136 pp. 6. Society for Neuroscience.1974. Interdisciplinary Educational Programs in the Neurosciences at U. S. Universitiesand Colleges.Society for Neuroscience, Bethesda,Maryland. 62 pp. 7. Society for Neuroscience. 1973.MembershipDirectory, November,1973, Society for Neuroscience, Bethesda,Maryland. 128pp.
