Letter: Biotech Training

This letter is to correct any misleading impressions that we believe readers might have received from the recent article entitled "Academy Panel Urges Companies To Help Train Young Bioscientists" (The Scientist, March 19, 1990, page 6). The article, which was based on the 1989 National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine report, Biomedical and Behavioral Research Scientists: Their Training and Supply, states that there was disagreement between the National Institutes of Health and th

Gerald Levey
Jun 24, 1990

This letter is to correct any misleading impressions that we believe readers might have received from the recent article entitled "Academy Panel Urges Companies To Help Train Young Bioscientists" (The Scientist, March 19, 1990, page 6). The article, which was based on the 1989 National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine report, Biomedical and Behavioral Research Scientists: Their Training and Supply, states that there was disagreement between the National Institutes of Health and the NRC committee over existing and proposed levels of training for bioscientists. Confusion over this issue stems mainly from the two organizations' definition of training. While the NRC committee used full-time equivalent positions based on actual program enrollments, published NIH figures are based on budgeted positions or on training appointments (head count). The article adds to the confusion by comparing biomedical predoctoral awards from the NRC committee report to total predoctoral awards (biomedical, behavioral,...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?