Being President Nixon for a Day: Origins of the National Research Service Award (NRSA) program.

Geoff's post has motivated me to dig up the info I had gathered on the NRSA program back in 2002.

I think one of the most important issues concerning the NRSA program is broadly the postdoc NRSA stipend level has been applied by universities in setting minimum postdocs salaries for the ALL departments at a given university. This was never intended to be the case, especially since the postdoc-NRSA level was set intentionally low and meant to be supplemented by departmental funds, as I understand it. Also, the postdoc stipend levels directly affect the number of NEW NRSA postdoc awards provided in a given year.

In order to understand the current state (and future trends) of the NRSA program, it is important to look back to its origins back in the early 1970s. There are very interesting analogies between budget issues back then and now. Also, when Congress created the NRSA program by passing legislation, it mandated that the NAS/NRC write yearly reports [now every four years] on the NIH training programs. More on this point to follow in another posting.

The history of the NRSA program is discussed in the 2000 report by the NAS on the NIH training programs.

Addressing the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists (2000) http://grants.nih.gov/training/nas_report/index.htm

See page 5 of Chapter 1 of this report:

http://grants.nih.gov/training/nasreport/Chapter1.pdf

ORIGINS OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM

Many roots of today’s research training programs in the biomedical and behavioral sciences extend back to 1930 and the beginnings of the NIH. The enactment of the Ransdell Act that year established the NIH as the focus of the growing research activities of the Public Health Service and assigned the new agency a role in maintaining the research workforce. Recognizing that the agency would require a supply of trained personnel to fulfill its mission, legislators provided for the NIH to award fellowships to investigators interested in conducting research. . . . By 1968 about 15 percent of NIH extramural re-search funding was dedicated to research training programs, and the agency was supporting the training of some 16,000 new investigators each year. But by this time, growing inflation and the Vietnam war were taking a toll on the federal budget, and spending for domestic programs, including research and research training, was subjected to heightened scrutiny [17,18] After several years of fiscal constraint, the federal budget proposed by President Nixon in 1973 eliminated funding for the NIH’s training grant and fellowship awards. The NIH was not the only target; the National Science Foundation’s research training grants had already been slated to be phased out as well. [19]

In making the case for eliminating the NIH’s training programs, the Nixon administration cited several significant concerns. With the NIH receiving many more applications for research grants than it had funds to support, administration officials contended that the supply of investigators was more than sufficient to carry out the agency’s research mission and that the NIH’s responsibilities for building up the research workforce had been fulfilled. Furthermore, many of those undergoing research training did not pursue careers in either academics or research but instead established private practices as medical specialists or clinical psychologists. [20]

Though not explicitly stated, some believed that the Nixon administration’s greatest concern was that training new investigators at the same pace as in the past would create a continuing cycle of pressure for increases in research funding.[21]

For their part, universities, faculty, and their professional organizations vigorously objected to the White House proposal, maintaining that their concerns did not merit such drastic measures. Ultimately, Congress entered the debate, holding hearings and initiating legislative action. The result was the National Research Service Award Act of 1974, [22] which consolidated the research training activities then sponsored by the NIH and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration into a single inclusive program of training grants and fellowships: the National Research Service Awards.

The National Science Foundation, however, did not fare so well; its program of research training grants was eliminated in 1973. [23] Yet supportive as it was of the NIH and its sister agency, the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA), Congress shared some of the Nixon administration’s reservations about the management of research training support.[24] As a result, legislators incorporated measures into the National Research Service Award Act to ensure that the new training program would be equitably administered and responsive to the needs of research. From the outset, Congress signaled its intent that the National Research Service Award (NRSA) program should treat its participants evenhandedly and eliminate the “discrepancy in stipends paid to Ph.D. as opposed to M.D. graduate students” [25] that existed in the earlier NIH training programs. Legislators also took steps to discourage individuals from going into medical specialties or other nonresearch careers following their training by requiring that trainees and fellows “pay back” their funding support by engaging in health research or teaching.

Finally, Congress decreed that National Research Service Awards (NRSA) be made only in areas for which “there is a need for personnel” and directed that the National Academy of Sciences provide periodic guidance on the fields in which researchers were likely to be required and on the numbers that should be trained (see Box 1-1).

The present study [Addressing the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists (2000)] is the eleventh to offer such guidance. This report was written by the Committee on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists. Richard Freeman and Michael Teitelbaum were listed as members of this committee for year 2000.

Helpful links for the NRSA program:

http://grants.nih.gov/training/outcomes.htm

"Addressing the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists (2000) http://grants.nih.gov/training/nas_report/index.htm

NIH's response to the "Addressing the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists (2000)" report:

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-01-027.html

More to follow on these points.

Bob

To address this comment: "Why are these numbers going down at all? NRSA fellowships are one of NIH's premier forms of support for the training of new researchers. Postdocs are incredibly cheap, too -- maybe 10% of the cost of an R01, tops, so it's not like a lot of money is saved by cutting them."

See the discussion below:

From my previously posted comment, Congress mandated in a 1974 law that the NRC/NAS oversea the administration of the NIH training programs, including the NRSA program.

Again, here is the report for the year 2000:

"Addressing the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists (2000)" http://grants.nih.gov/training/nas_report/index.htm

To possibly explain the declining numbers of new NRSA postdoc awards, look at this recommendation by the committee:

In the excutive summary, the NRC/NAS committee recommends:

http://grants.nih.gov/training/nasreport/ExecSummary.pdf

....As described in Chapter 2, the committee found that the number of new Ph.D.s awarded annually in the basic biomedical sciences is well above that needed to keep pace with growth in the U.S. economy and to replace those leaving the workforce as a result of retirement and death. Moreover, many recent entrants to the biomedical workforce are working in postdoctoral or other temporary positions. From its review of these and other trends in the education and employment of basic biomedical scientists, the committee concluded that research training and overall Ph.D. production in these fields should not be increased.

NIH's response to the "Addressing the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists (2000)" report: Release Date: March 22, 2001

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-01-027.html

At the end of this report: . . SUMMARY OF PLANS TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE NAS REPORT . . The NIH supports higher stipends for NRSA recipients and therefore announces tentative targets of $25,000 for graduate and $45,000 for entry-level postdoctoral stipends. Future budget requests will incorporate 10 to 12 percent stipend increases until these targets are reached. After attainment of these targets, the real value of stipends will be maintained with annual cost-of-living adjustments.

However, as you can see from these links, the 10 to 12 percent increases were not implemented. But, you should see some correlation between the slowdown of the growth of the NRSA postdoc program and the tiny increase in the stipend awards over the years.

2006

Postdoctoral Years of Experience: 0 $36,996

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-06-026.html

2005

Postdoctoral Years of Experience: 0 $ 35,568

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-032.html

2001 Postdoctoral Years of Experience 0 $28,260

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-01-011.html

One can still ask, to what extent the NIH even abides by the recommendations made the NRC/NAS committee?

Bob