chapter 8 training and personnel needs in biotechnology

Chapter 8

Training andPersonnel Needsin Biotechnology

“Most of our technology walks out every night in tennis shoes.”Robert Swanson

Genentech

“The key to educating a biotechnologist is flexibility in specialized aspects of a program thatis firmly based in science and engineering.”

David PramerRutgers University

“The biotechnology revolution . . . has changed in fundamental ways how biologists andchemists regard their disciplines and therefore how those disciplines may properly be taught .“

Budget Change ProposalCalifornia State University

Center for Biotechnology Education and Research

CONTENTSP a g e

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................131Size and Future Growth of Commercial Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Current Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............132Personnel Needs in Biotechnology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............133Types of Jobs Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............135Available Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........135potential Shortages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........135

Education and Training for Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..138Age of Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........138Curriculum Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........139Community College Laboratory Technician Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140College and University Bachelor’s Level Biotechnology Programs. . ..........143Certificate Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......144University Master’s Level Biotechnology Programs . . . . . ...................145Doctoral Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........146Short Courses in Biotechnology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........147University Biotechnology Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..147Other Curr icu lar Components o f B io technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148Retraining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149Biotechnology in Secondary Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......149

Funding of Training Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..150Federal Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . .151State Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153Industrial Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............153Private Philanthropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................153

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ...153Chapter p references.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..154

BoxBox Page

8-A. Scientific Positions in Biotechnology Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134

FiguresFigure Page8-1. University Initiatives in Biotechnology Training . . . . . . . . . . . .............1398-2, Biotechnology Laboratory Technician Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1418-3. Source of Funds for Biotechnology Training and Education Programs . . . ..150

TablesTable Page

8-1. Estimates of Employment in Biotechnology, 1982-87. ........,.,........1328-2. Anticipated Hiring of B.S.-Level Biotechnologists by San Diego Area

Biotechnology Firms, 1987-92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......1368-3, Number of Scientific Employees per Biotechnology Firm, 1983-87........1388-4. Biotechnology Programs Offering Associate of Applied Science Degrees ...1408-5. Proposed Two-Year Curriculum in Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1428-6. Biotechnology Programs Offering Bachelor of Science Degrees . . . . . . . . . .1438-7. Programs Offering Certificates in Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .1458-8. Biotechnology Programs Offering Master of Science Degrees . ...........1468-9. Biotechnology Programs Offering Ph.D. Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147

8-10. Biotechnology Programs Offering Short Courses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..148

Chapter 8

Training and Personnel Needsin Biotechnology

INTRODUCTION

The continued commercialization of biotechnol-ogy in the United States depends on trained sci-entific and technical personnel. High-technologyfirms consistently rank quality of education andthe availability of a skilled work force among themost crucial elements for success (16,30), and ac-cess to educational facilities is often pivotal in de-cisions about where to locate biotechnology firms(30).

Biotechnology is not one discipline but theinteraction of several disciplines to apply sci-entific and engineering principles to the proc-essing of materials by biological agents to pro-vide goods and services (37). Thus, currentlypracticing “biotechnologists” were not trained assuch, but were trained in such fields as molecu-lar biology, genetics, biochemistry, microbiology,botany, plant pathology, virology, biochemical engi-neering, fermentation technology, and others.Much of the training for biotechnology continuesto be in these and related areas.

Biotechnology personnel needs will change asthe industry continues to grow and mature. Theshift in emphasis from research and development(R&D) to production, for example, requires morebioprocess engineers and more technicians. Ap-plications in new industrial sectors will also changepersonnel requirements. While the pharmaceu-tical industry is currently the predominant userof biotechnology, agriculture is also a significantuser and other industrial sectors are increasinglyapplying biotechnology. Future personnel needsin biotechnology will depend on the R&D needs,the products that are produced, and the extentto which biotechnology is integrated into variousindustries. While most industry analysts and aca-demics agree that the number of biotechnologypersonnel needed will continue to grow in the next5 to 10 years, opinions vary on the specific typesof jobs that will be available and the type of train-ing required for these jobs. U.S. colleges anduniversities have responded to the perceived per-sonnel needs in biotechnology with a variety ofnew training and educational programs.

SIZE AND FUTURE GROWTH OF COMMERCIALBIOTECHNOLOGY

Few analysts expect biotechnology to generatea large number of new jobs, but its applicationsare growing rapidly and its personnel needs areoften for specific, highly trained individuals. OTAestimates the total personnel working in bio-technology for dedicated biotechnology com-panies (DBCs) and large, diversified companiesto be about 35,900, of whom 18,600 are scien-tists and engineers. While this indicates at leasta five-fold increase in employment since 1983, thetotal numbers are low when compared with otherhigh-technology sectors. Computer and data proc-essing services, for example, employed almost600)000 workers in 1986 (58).

A range of figures has been published on bio-technology employment in the past 5 years (table8-l). A 1982 report estimated the total U.S. pri-vate sector employment in “synthetic genetics” tobe 3)278) with an annual growth rate of 54 per-cent (26). Using data from a 1983 OTA/NationalAcademy of Sciences survey, OTA estimated em-ployment in U.S. biotechnology R&D work forceto be 5,000 (72). Using data from a similar surveyconducted in 1985, the Institute of Medicine (IOM)estimated that 12,000 scientists were employedin the biotechnology industry that year (39). A1986 report estimates that 15)959 scientists andtechnicians are working in biotechnology (62). The

131

—

132

Table 8-1.–Estimates of Employment in Biotechnology, 1982-87

Year Source of Estimate Estimated Number Employed Employment Sectors

1982

1983

1985

1985

1986

1986

1987

1987

1987

1987

Feldman & O’MaIleya

Office of Technology Assessmentb

Institute of Medicinec

National Science Foundationd

Center for Occupational Researchand Developmentf

National Science Foundationd

U.S. Department of Commerceg

Office of Technology Assessmenth

Office of Technology Assessmentt

Office of Technology Assessment

3,278 (total employees)

5,000 (R&D employees)

12,000 (scientists only)

7,000 (scientists and engineers)

15,959 (scientists and technicians)

8,000 (scientists and engineers)

25,000 (overall employment)

13,221 (scientists and technicians)24,347 (overall employment)

5,360 (scientists and technicians) i

11,600 (overall employment)

18,581 (scientists and technicians)35,947 (total biotech employees)

Private sector

Biotechnology companies (based on to-tal of 219)

Biotechnology companies (based ontotal of 282)

Biotechnology companies and largecorporations

Biotechnology companies, (based ontotal of 242)

Biotechnology companies and largecorporations

Dedicated biotechnology companies(based on a total of 300)

Dedicated biotechnology companies(based on total of 296)

Diversified companies(based on total of 53)

Diversified and dedicated biotechnol-ogv companies

aM. Feldman and-E, p, O, Malley, The B/0/echno/ogy lnd~stry /fI Ca//forn/a, contract paper prepared for the California Commission on Industrial Innovation, Sacramento,

CA, August 19S2.-.

bus., Congress, Office of Technology As~ssment, corrrrrrerc/a/ L3/otec/rno/ogy:An /ntemationa/ Ana/ys/s, OTA-BA-218 (Elmsford, f’JY: PeQamOn press, Inc., J~Uw l~kConstitute of Medicine, Committm on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research personnel, National Academy of Sciences, Personne/ Needs and Trah’IinQ

for B/omedlca/ and Behavioral Research (1985 Report) (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 19S5).dNational science Foundation, B/otechno/ogy Research and Development Act/~jt/es in /ndustry, Suweys of Science Resources a Series, Special Report, (NSF 86-311)

(Washington, DC: 1987).eNinety.four firms were estimated to represent two-thirds of the l~d@fy’S actiVitY.fB,F, Rinard, ~dfjca~/on for 8/o~ec~rro/ogy (Waco, TX: The Center of Occupational Research and Development, 19~).gtJ.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, 19S8 U.S. Industrial outlook (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, January 1988),hu,s congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Sumey of Dedicated Biotechnology Companies, 1987.iu,s, Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Survey of Diversified Corporations in Biotechnology, 1987.

National Science Foundation (NSF), however, esti-mated that only 8,000 scientists and engineersworked primarily in biotechnology as of Januaryof 1986 (56), A reason for the difference is thatNSF has assumed fewer companies are perform-ing the bulk of biotechnology R&D than the otherestimates, and NSF considered only personnel in-volved in R&D, not production (18,56). The U.S.Department of Commerce recently estimated that25,000 people worked for dedicated biotechnol-ogy companies (76). This estimate is very closeto OTA’s estimate, derived from a survey of dedi-cated biotechnology.

Current Survey Results

In the spring of 1987, OTA surveyed dedicatedbiotechnology companies (DBCs). Firms weredivided into small (1 to 20 employees), medium(21 to 100 employees), and large (101 to 1)000 em-ployees). The numbers of small and medium firms

were nearly even at 112 and 121, respectively.Only 56 companies employ 101 to 1,000 people.(See ch. 5.) The average company had 86 employ-ees, and the median response was 30. private com-panies averaged 40 employees, while public andsubsidiary companies were approximately equalin size with an average of approximately 165 em-ployees. Companies working in human therapeu-tics, plant agriculture, and human diagnosticstended to be the largest in the industry, averag-ing 120 employees. Specialty chemicals and rea-gents companies tended to be smaller, with 30 to45 employees. Chapter 5 discusses other sectoraldifferences of commercial biotechnology.

The OTA survey of DBCs found that 135 com-panies employed a total 11,597 people, of whom6,297 or 54 percent were scientific and technicalpersonnel. Extrapolating these figures to the to-tal of 296 biotechnology firms identified for thesurvey gives a total employment figure of 24)347)of which 13,221 would be scientific and techni-

133

cal personnel.l A second OTA survey covered 53diversified corporations involved in biotechnol-ogy research and development. The survey showedthese 53 companies, including large chemical,pharmaceutical, and agricultural companies (seech. 5), employed 11,600 in biotechnology, of whom5,360 were scientists and engineers with advanceddegrees. OTA estimates that the current numberof scientists and engineers employed in biotech-nology is at least 15,000 to 21,000, with an addi-tional 15,000 to 1 9)000 nontechnical personnelworking for biotechnology companies. Theseranges are probably slightly lower than the ac-tual total, as not all large corporations involvedin biotechnology could be identified and surveyed,and more dedicated biotechnology companieshave been identified since the 296 were surveyed(see ch. 5 and apps. A and B).

The future rate of growth of employment inbiotechnology will depend on the success of com-panies in introducing products and services basedon biotechnology, the expansion of biotechnologyapplications in new fields such as waste manage-ment and the extraction industries, and investorconfidence in biotechnology. Companies contactedfor a survey for the Industrial Biotechnology Asso-ciation (IBA) expected their staffs to grow an aver-age of 44 percent from July 1, 1987 to June 30,1989 (38). If companies grew at their hoped forrates, the biotechnology work force would num-ber almost 58,000 by June 1989 (70). Companiesresponding to the OTA survey also reported highlevels of employment growth, averaging 27.4 per-cent over the next 5 years. In 1983, companiesexpected to increase their staffs by 42 percentduring the next 18 months. They actually in-creased their staffs by 20 percent (39). While com-panies can be expected to be optimistic, growthin biotechnology employment is indicated. Accord-ing to analysts with the Bureau of Labor Statis-

‘The of’erall mean number of employees per biotechnology com-pany (85.9) times the number of companies (296) gives a slightlyhigher number (25,426) than given here. However, the presence ofa few large companies probably skews the average too high. OTAinstead multiplied the number of small companies (1 12) times thea~’erage number of employees (11.1), the number of medium com-panies (121) times the average number of employees (55.3), the num-ber of large companies (56) times the average number of employees(267), and the number of unclassified companies (17) times the overallakrerage number of employees (85.9) to arrive at the figure of 24,347.See ch. 5 for a description of the biotechnology industry.

tics, the overall number of life scientists is expectedto grow 21 percent or 30,000 jobs between 1986and the year 2000, largely because of increasingapplications of genetics research (67).

Personnel Needs in Biotechnology

Personnel needs in biotechnology are changingwith the maturation of the industry. Each stageof development requires different activities andskills. Early stages mainly require research scien-tists and supporting laboratory technicians. Aspotential commercial products are developed, bio-process scale-up engineers, cell culture and fer-mentation specialists, separation and purificationspecialists, analytical chemists, clinical scientists,regulatory affairs experts, and financial analystsare required. When full-scale production is under-way, technicians at a variety of levels and qualitycontrol specialists are needed, as well as market-ing managers and other business specialists.

This changing mix of personnel at biotechnol-ogy companies is becoming evident. Productionand quality control positions are being added tothe R&D jobs that have been the mainstay of em-ployment. The current trend is toward hiring tech-nicians rather than Ph.D. level researchers (47).opportunities for biologists and biochemists at themaster’s and bachelor’s level (38) and perhaps evenwith 2-year associate of applied science degrees(62) will increase. Currently, according to datafrom OTA’s survey of DBCs, Ph.D. scientists rep-resent 14 percent of company personnel and 28percent of scientific personnel. This demonstratesa continuing decline in Ph.D.s as a percentage ofthe scientific work force in biotechnology. Datafrom OTA’s 1983 survey showed that 43 percentof R&D personnel held Ph.D.s., while the Insti-tute of Medicine reports that 38 percent of thescientists employed in biotechnology firms heldPh.D.s in 1985 (39).

Biotechnology firms are also shifting somewhatfrom researchers to managers and marketers (17).Many scientist/founders of the dedicated biotech-nology companies have been replaced by man-agers geared to getting products to markets ratherthan out of the laboratory (3).

Different sectors of the biotechnology industryalso have differing personnel needs. The educa-tional requirements for a position in plant genetic

134

engineering are very different from those for a lar biology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry,position in developing monoclinal antibody test immunology, and several engineering disciplines.kits. The research scientists involved must know Positions within these disciplines range from Re-different biological systems, and the technicians search Director to Technician, and qualificationsinvolved must be familiar with different lab pro- range from a Ph.D. with substantial experiencecedures and equipment. to a bachelor’s degree or, possibly, less (box 8-A).

Scientific personnel needs in biotechnology in-volve a variety of disciplines, including molecu-

.

. .

135

Types of Jobs Available

Molecular biologists and immunologists consti-tute about a third of the research workers in bio-technology (82). Most molecular biologists havefocused on animal and bacterial systems becausethis research is most applicable to human health(13) and most funding for molecular biology hascome from the National Institutes of Health. Im-munologists are heavily involved in the develop-ment of hybridomas to produce monoclinal anti-bodies, More recently, the employment of plantmolecular biologists has been increasing with theredirection of agricultural research toward mo-lecular biological techniques (see ch. 10).

Bioprocess engineers, biochemists, and microbi-ologists develop methods of producing biotech-nology products in large quantities (13). The de-mand for these specialties will increase as productsare readied for production (82).

Microbiologists study bacteria, yeast, and othermicro-organisms and identify microbes with par-ticular characteristics for industrial processes (13).Microbiologists also identify optimum growth con-ditions for micro-organisms and conditions forproduction of the substance of interest.

Cell culture specialists perform similar functionsfor plant and animal cells grown in tissue culture.Tissue culture is becoming increasingly importantfor the production of useful products, and exper-tise in tissue culture is an increasingly importantskill.

Bioprocess engineers design systems to approx-imate conditions identified by the microbiologist.Bioprocess engineering is related to chemical engi-neering. One of the main tasks undertaken by bio-process engineers is the design of fermentationvats (13) and various bioreactors (55) for the micro-organisms that will produce a given product. Bio-chemists are required for the next stage of pro-duction–the recovery, purification, and qualitycontrol of a given product. Many high-value prod-ucts are extremely fragile, making purification adifficult and highly skilled task.

Available Personnel

For the most part, the available supply of lifescientists adequately meets personnel needs (2,45,48,56), though various observers have identi-fied certain specific shortages in areas such as pro-

tein chemistry (6,8,20,64), x-ray crystallography(32), bioprocess engineering (34,35,36,39,42,61,81),cell culture (7,81), quality control (21,52), and otheraspects of scale-up. Microbial ecologists are alsoseen as being in short supply (69,74). In general,companies see an ample supply of scientists trainedin molecular biology, biochemistry, cell biology,and immunology, since these areas have tradition-ally been well-funded by the National Institutesof Health (48).

There are about 66,500 Ph.D.s in the biologicalsciences work force, representing about a quar-ter of the total of this work force. Master’s de-gree holders represent another one-third of thistotal, with the rest holding bachelor’s degrees (75).The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in thebiological sciences peaked in 1976 at 59,000 andhas declined since then. About 38,640 bachelor’sdegrees were awarded in 1984 (75).

In terms of general biological sciences, the workforce is well supplied or oversupplied. During the1980s, unemployment of recent graduates withbachelor’s degrees in biosciences has been higherthan for other science and engineering fields, ex-cept physics. The life sciences in general, and thebiosciences in particular, have been oversuppliedfor several years, relative to demand (79).

potential Shortages

Shortages in certain emerging fields, such asprotein engineering, are largely unavoidable,due both to the difficulty of predicting whichfields will have the heaviest demands and thelag time required for educational institutionsto gear up for new fields. The expense of newfaculty and new equipment prevents institutionsfrom rapidly moving into new areas. In areas witha shortage of researchers, a shortage of univer-sity instructors is usually also apparent (32,.50).For example, pharmaceutical companies are hir-ing x-ray crystallographers with expertise in bio-logical molecules from academia at a rate thatthreatens to undercut both research and train-ing of future crystallographers (32).

A shortage of microbial ecologists has resultedfrom the increased interest in the purposeful re-lease of engineered organisms into the environ-ment. Until recently, microbial ecology was a rela-tively obscure field that attracted less money andtalent than more glamorous fields such as molecu-

136

lar biology. The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has identified ecological risk assessment, eco-system structure and function, and ecological andtoxicological effects as priority areas (77), but EPAdoes not fund many extramural research andtraining programs. The National Science Founda-tion also supports some research, and thus train-ing, in microbial ecology (74).

Predicting future employment needs accuratelyrequires information that is often unavailable.Such predictions are necessarily speculative. Asurvey of biotechnology firms in the San Diegoarea indicates that one-third of the bachelor’s levelemployees hired during the next 5 years will workin recombinant DNA. Other areas of high antici-pated need include DNA sequencing, separationchemistry, and animal tissue culture (8) (see table8-2). Personnel specialists at a 1987 meeting of theIndustrial Biotechnology Association also pointedto basic recombinant DNA techniques as their big-gest training need (37).

A 1984 OTA report said that a potential short-age of highly trained bioprocess engineers in theUnited States “could be a bottleneck to the rapidcommercialization of biotechnology in the UnitedStates” (72). While no such shortage is evidentalmost 4 years later, biotechnology still has notbeen used to produce a large number of prod-ucts and thus there is not yet a heavy demand

Table 8-2.—Anticipated Hiring of B.S.-LevelBiotechnologists by San Diego Area Biotechnology

Firms, 1987-92a

Number expected Percent ofArea of work to be hired total

Recombinant DNA. . . . . . . . .DNA Sequencing . . . . . . . . . .Animal Tissue Culture . . . . .Separation Chemistry . . . . . .Hybridoma Technology. . . . .Virology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Protein Synthesis . . . . . . . . .DNA Synthesis. . . . . . . . . . . .Plant Tissue Culture . . . . . . .Other (e.g., fermentation,animal model developmentand testing). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2921191181178452312419

29885

330/0131313

96432

3

aData rep~esent estimates for 27 organizations based on responses frOm 15. Num-bers are cumulative for the 5-year period.

SOURCE: Sanford Bernstein, San Diego State University, February 1987.

for bioprocess engineers. This is at least partlybecause biotechnology is still largely used to pro-duce high-value, low-volume products. Produc-ing high-volume, low-value products will requiremore engineering talent for successful scale-up(41). Some industry representatives fear a short-age of bioprocess engineers lies ahead as moreproducts reach the final stage of commercializa-tion (35,36). Shortages of bioprocess engineershave recently been predicted for the 1990s (61).However, most companies contacted by GeneticEngineering News, an industry trade journal, didnot expect any personnel shortages to develop dur-ing the next 5 years (48). Some biotechnology com-pany personnel managers have, however, re-ported difficulties hiring biochemical engineersat the B.S./M.S. level with cell culture or fermen-tation experience (38,29).

Since 1984, protein chemistry has emerged asa strong need (6,8,20,21,64). The knowledge ofmaking, purifying, and stabilizing proteins to theiractive form is required, especially in pharmaceu-tical applications. The need for immunologists hasalso increased, due to demand in both monoclinalantibody development and in AIDS research.

Whether or not shortages actually materializewill depend on how rapidly biotechnology prod-ucts are commercialized and how and whenuniversities and their students respond to pre-dicted manpower needs. While a shortage of bio-process engineers would be a serious bottleneckfor the industry, the actual number needed willnot be very large. Bioprocess engineering is notlabor intensive, and it has been estimated that per-sonnel requirements for bioprocessing, even af-ter firms enter mass production, will be only 10to 15 percent of the total biotechnology work force.Furthermore, technological advances, such as bio-sensors and computer-controlled continuous bio-processing, could reduce labor intensity (46,72,78).

Potential projected personnel shortagesmight also be ameliorated by mobility amongdisciplines. For example, potential shortages ofplant molecular biologists were identified severalyears ago (39,57,72). However, the field of plantmolecular biology has been able to move aheadquite rapidly in the last few years due to the largepool of molecular biology postdoctoral fellows and

137

‘1

Photo credit: Calgene

Cell and tissue culture methods are used to regenerateplant cells containing foreign genes into whole plants.

trainees. While many of these scientists weretrained in animal or bacterial systems, they wereable to apply their skills and knowledge of molecu-lar genetics to plant systems. The postdoctoral poolhas thus served as a buffer, although there is stilla strong need for biotechnologists with plant ex-pertise (5).

No such postdoctoral pool exists for bioprocessengineering. The current soft market for petro-chemical engineers creates a logical pool of po-tential bioprocess engineers, should shortagesbecome acute. However, traditional chemical engi-neers have no understanding of living systems.As one engineering professor put it, “When you’vespent your whole career with nonliving systems,you just don’t get an appreciation of living sys-tems overnight” (14).

Experience in the pharmaceutical industry hasshown that chemical engineers can be retrainedin bioprocess engineering (72). However, some in-dustrialists argue that large-scale fermentation anddownstream bioprocess engineering for recom-binant organisms are radically different fromtraditional biochemical engineering techniquesand require special training. For example, recom-binant organisms are often fragile and slow pro-

ducers. Since slow producers are at greater riskof being overrun by contaminants, special tech-niques to maintain pure cultures are needed (61).In addition, pharmaceutical production is rapidlychanging from bacteria and yeast fermentationto mammalian cell culture, which requires differ-ent expertise.

universities have responded with some in-creased emphasis on bioprocess engineering, al-though new biotechnology programs emphasizeengineering less than genetic manipulation tech-niques (see “New Initiatives in Biotechnology Train-ing)” below). College students appear to be highlyresponsive to market signals (73) and can thus beexpected to seek out educational programs forvarious aspects of biotechnology to the extent thatthey perceive occupational rewards from careersin particular areas.

Belief is widespread that interdisciplinary train-ing should be increased, although opinions varyon the specific disciplines that should be included(16,23,40,72). Industrialists have referred to theneed for “life-science-oriented engineers andengineering-oriented life scientists” (61), as wellas for chemical engineers with an understandingof biosynthesis and biologists with an apprecia-tion for scale-up problems.

Different types of firms have different person-nel needs. Generally, smaller firms have a higherpercentage of Ph.D. scientists than do larger firms(24). Small firms are more likely to be concentrat-ing on relatively basic research and development,and thus have more Ph.D. research scientists.Small firms are also less likely to be involved inlarge-scale production, and thus can be expectedto have less need for technicians than larger com-panies. Some analysts have indicated that smallcompanies are less able to afford on-the-job train-ing and need someone who can get up to speedright away (68). Others have indicated the impor-tance of a broad general education, adding thatspecial skills and protocols must be learned onthe job (15). The average firm size is increasing(table 8-3), indicating that more firms will needa variety of non-Ph.D. support personnel in bothscientific and nonscientific areas.

138

Table 8.3.–Number of Scientific Employees per Biotechnology Firm, 1983=87

Scientific and Technical Percent Ph.D.s inYear Employees per firm Ph.D.s per firm scientific work force Source

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 12 53 Office of Technology Assessment1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.12 16 37 Institute of Medicine1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.9 12 28 Office of Technology AssessmentSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY

Many academics and industry observers believethat the best preparation for biotechnology istraining in a traditional discipline, such as geneticsor plant physiology, while learning some of thetools of biotechnology. Individuals trained in tar-geted disciplines can then work in interdiscipli-nary teams on specific problems. For example,David Pramer, director of the Waksman Instituteof Microbiology at Rutgers University, wrote in1983 that:

. . . it would be unwise for universities to offereducational programs in biotechnology that arenarrowly conceived or overly professional, andit is essential for university scientists within tradi-tional academic disciplines not to abdicate a re-sponsibility to educate biotechnologists . . .

To continue to flourish, biotechnology must benourished by a steady supply of individuals whoalso are well educated in traditional disciplines . . .Since biotechnology 5 years from now may bequite different from what it is today, the key toeducating a biotechnologist is flexibility in special-ized aspects of a program that is firmly based inscience and engineering (60).

Many academics believe that new initiatives intraining and education are required by the Na-tion’s colleges and universities to meet the educa-tion and research needs of the emerging biotech-nology industry. OTA identified 60 new initiativesin biotechnology training at 49 different U.S. col-leges and universities. These programs are listedin appendix C. Forty-one of these programs re-sponded to an OTA survey requesting informa-tion about curriculum, funding, age, number andtype of students, and resources of the programs.Results of the survey give a good indication of howcolleges and universities have responded specifi-cally to new opportunities in biotechnology andshould be representative of new initiatives in bio-

technology on the Nation’s campuses. No attemptwas made to catalog the many traditional pro-grams that also provide education and trainingrelated to biotechnology. The identified programsrange from 2-year applied associate of sciencedegrees to short courses in particular biotechnol-ogies designed for professional scientists. Alsoincluded in the OTA list of new initiatives in bio-technology training and education are university-based biotechnology research centers. While thesecenters generally do not sponsor courses or grantdegrees, they do enhance biotechnology educa-tion on their campuses through access to equip-ment, faculty development, and research oppor-tunities for both graduates and undergraduates.These centers also provide a focal point for dis-cussions of how best to educate and train newbiotechnologists.

For the most part, university programs havebeen developed at the institutional level with lit-tle or no coordination or formal interaction amongthe program developers at different colleges anduniversities. Most do, however, have some formof interaction with industry. Only 7 of 41 programssaid that they did not consult industry in estab-lishing their programs. Consultations with indus-try included surveying local biotechnology com-panies and sending program proposals to industryrepresentatives for comments. While it is gener-ally too early to assess industry’s satisfaction withgraduates of these programs, most graduates haveapparently had a relatively easy time finding em-ployment in their fields.

Age of Programs

With the exception of programs in biochemicalengineering, all of the programs identified arenew: the oldest began in 1980. Of 56 programs

139

for which the year of initiation is known, morethan a third were begun since 1986 or are stillin the planning stage (figure 8-l). Additional pro-grams are probably in the planning stages andmay be created in the next few years.

As figure 8-1 indicates, a large number of bio-technology programs were initiated in 1983. Thiswould indicate a 2-year lag from the year whenmore biotechnology companies were founded,1981 (see ch. 5). Two years is a relatively shorttime in which to develop curricula and approveprograms, indicating that some institutions movedquickly into biotechnology (28) or at least to iden-tify themselves with biotechnology.

There is no clear pattern of which degree levelprograms were founded first. In each year a mixof programs was initiated, aimed at a variety ofeducational levels. For the most part, communitycollege programs are newer than bachelor’s andmaster’s programs.

At the doctoral level, most programs are in bio-processing or biochemical engineering, except forthe Iowa Biotechnology Training Program’s Ph.D.in microbiology and immunology. TraditionalPh.D. programs in molecular biology, microbiol-ogy, biochemistry, and other fields relevant to bio-technology were not surveyed.

Figure 8-l. -University initiatives inBiotechnology Traininga

14 I I

10-

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988Year of initiation

aThe total number of programs shown here is 56. Biochemical engineering pro-grams are not included.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1966.

Curriculum Content

Recombinant DNA techniques formed the coreof many of the programs. Of 32 programs thatprovided OTA with curriculum information, 26reported coursework in recombinant DNA. Noother specific skill or technology was mentionedby more than half of the programs. Courses orskills mentioned as requirements or electives byone-third to one-half of programs include tissueculturing, hybridoma technology, immunochem-istry, bioprocess engineering, fermentation, andpurification and separation sciences.

The extent to which training in bioprocess engi-neering is available is not clear. Only a few pro-grams have in-depth faculty expertise; most ex-pertise is scattered among chemical engineering

Photo credit: Case Western Reserve University

Two undergraduate students read a DNA sequence onan autoradiograph. Such opportunities were extremelyrare at the undergraduate level several years ago, but

are becoming increasingly common.

140

departments (14). According to the National Re-search Council, fewer than 20 U.S. colleges anduniversities have meaningful biochemical engi-neering programs (55). The American Council ofEducation reported in 1985a total of 58 doctoralengineering programs in biotechnology (33). Whilemany of these programs were in departments ofchemical engineering and so most likely relevantto OTA’s definition of biotechnology, many otherswere in departments such as biomedical engineer-ing, which have less relevance to industrial bio-technology.

The currently depressed market for chemicalengineering graduates may make it difficult fordepartments to add faculty, courses, and equip-ment for bioprocess engineering. If departmentshave fewer students, they will have some diffi-culty securing the additional funds. Decidingwhich, if any, areas of traditional chemical engi-neering to reemphasize is problematic.

The vast majority of the undergraduate chemi-cal engineering curriculum is mandated by theaccreditation standards of the American Instituteof Chemical Engineers and the AccreditationBoard for Engineering and Technology. At theUniversity of Iowa, for example, students inter-ested in biochemical engineering are urged to usetheir limited electives for courses in biochemis-try, microbiology, biochemical engineering,genetics, and biology. They have also integratedbioreactors, microbial kinetics, and enzyme re-

actions to illustrate concepts and techniques intraditional chemical engineering coursework (86).

All of the training programs are laboratory-intensive, except for some of the short coursesand workshops. Academic program directors whohad contacted industry representatives about theirneeds uniformly reported that industry neededtechnicians with hands-on laboratory experienceand have designed their programs accordingly.

Many biotechnology academic programs re-ported that a shortage of protein chemists existedin the industry, or that industry needed techni-cians and bioprocess engineers with an under-standing of protein chemistry. No course specifi-cally in protein chemistry was evident in thecurricula supplied to OTA, but nearly every pro-gram required courses in biochemistry, whichwould include protein chemistry. It is not clearthe extent to which students will learn the solu-tion properties of proteins, purification and se-quencing methods, and protein synthesis withinthese programs. A course in protein chemistrywas recommended in a model curriculum for a2-year program for biotechnicians (see table 8-4).San Diego State University, however, will initiatea Certificate in Protein Engineering in the fall of1988, which will include specific courses in pro-tein engineering (22). The California State Univer-sity at Los Angeles intends to offer a course inadvanced protein chemistry (66).

Table 8-4.—Biotechnology Programs Offering Associate of Applied Science Degrees

Year ofinitiation University Program

1983 Monroe Community College Biotechnology Program1986 Central Community College Biotechnology Program1986 State University of New York, Alfred Biotechnology Program1986 Technical College of Alamance Biotechnology1987 Boston University/Metropolitan College Biotechnology Laboratory Methods1987 Madison Area Technical College Biotechnology Laboratory Technician Program1988 Becker Junior College Biotechnician Program


Community College Laboratory ment of biotechnology, most work was done by

Technician Programs highly educated, innovative thinkers, who oftenhad to develop new procedures as their research

The need for biotechnicians with specialized but progressed. As with all technologies, as biotech-limited training has prompted several community nology matured, more of the work has becomecolleges to institute or consider instituting biotech- routine and can be assigned to less highly trainednology training programs. Early in the develop- technicians (9,62). Figure 8-2 gives a profile of skills

141

.

w

*

n

In

.

In

m

N

v

In

*

m

-

,

m

I

u’!

m

N.

a Lu L u

—

142

required by biotechnicians. Two-year training pro-grams may be appropriate for these technicians(62).

OTA has identified seven associate of appliedsciences (AAS) programs in biotechnology, sixtaught at community or junior colleges and onetaught at a state college (table 8-4). These programsare designed to fill the need for biotechnicians,(similar to the more established need of chemicaltechnicians),” although students from these pro-grams may go on to 4-year colleges. Six of theseven programs began since 1986, and the sev-enth began in 1983.

The need for biotechnicians at the AAS levelis not well established, but several analysts ex-pect it to surface soon (9,62) based on the prece-dent from other high-technology industries. Aconsortium of 2-year postsecondary schools com-missioned a study in 1986 to assess the need for2-year biotechnician training (62), Table 8-5 showsa model 2-year curriculum in biotechnology de-veloped as part of this study.

The 1986 study included a survey of biotech-nology companies and a Biotechnology Task Forceon Education, consisting of industry and academic

Table 8-5.—Proposed Two-Year Curriculumin Biotechnology

Year One Year Two

Quarter 1 Quarter 4Introduction to Biotechnology Industrial MicrobiologyTechnical Math 1: Algebra/ Computer Operations

Geometry Fundamentals of InstrumentationChemistry 1: Inorganic and ControlMolecular and Cell Biology I Analytical ChemistryTechnical Communications I Fluid Power Devices

Quarter 2 Quarter 5Technical Math II: Statistics/ Applied Genetics

Precalculus Instrumental AnalysisApplied Physics I Economics in TechnologyMolecular and Cell Biology II Biotech Internship or ProjectChemistry II: Organic Mechanical Devices and SystemsTechnical Communications II Elective

Quarter 3 Quarter 6Principles of Microbiology Protein ChemistryBiochemistry Industrial InstrumentationApplied Physics II Industrial RelationsElectronics Biotech Project or InternshipElective Technical ElectiveSOURCE: B.F. Rinard, EducatiorI for B/o@c/rrro/ogy (Waco, TX: Center for Occupa-

tional Research and Development, 1986),

members. The study produced a number of sig-nificant findings, among them:

technicians in biotechnology will be differ-ent from current technicians in other tech-nology fields, most significantly in that theywill require a broader and more interdiscipli-nary technical base;77 percent of the biotechnology companiessurveyed expected biotechnicians to have atleast a bachelor’s degree; however, since few2-year programs currently exist, the indus-try has little experience for judging the qual-ity of 2-year program graduates;based on the biotechnology industry’s presentlevel of employment of biotechnicians from2-year training programs, about 200 gradu-ates a year should be able to find placementfrom 1986 to 1995,2-year programs should be initiated in areaswith the largest markets for biotechnicians,which currently includes California, Massa-

chusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Mary-land. The need for biotechnicians exists inother parts of the country, however, and willexpand as the industry expands.

Industry appears skeptical toward the 2-yearprograms thus far. Concerns include whether 2years in college can provide the knowledge nec-essary to manage complex instrumentation andsensitive organisms (84) and that technicians with-out a theoretical understanding may not be ableto adapt to the changing needs of rapidly evolv-ing technology (84).

Industry representatives also give these reasonsfor skepticism: a current oversupply of B.S. andM.S. degreed biologists available for technicianwork; 2-year programs lack the breadth and depthof 4-year programs; and companies need the re-search background provided by B.S. and M.S. pro-grams (62).

Some reasons for reluctance in hiring gradu-ates of 2-year programs will dissipate as the dedi-cated biotechnology companies grow and mature.For example, small companies are more likely torequire their employees to assume multiple duties,some of which will require more training than2-year programs provide. As a company’s overall

143

workload and staff increases, it can divide tasksby level of skill and maybe able to employ peoplefull-time at the lower skill levels. Also, as workcontinues to shift from research and developmentto production, more of the tasks will become rou-

, tine. Larger companies may also be able to affordmore time for on-the-job training.

College and University Bachelor's LevelBiotechnology Programs

At least 11 colleges and universities have insti-tuted new bachelor’s-level programs in biotech-nology (table 8-6). Like the 2-year programs, theseprograms emphasize hands an laboratory experi-ence, but include more theoretical science andhumanities courses. Students are prepared eitherto go directly to work in industrial labs, or to en-ter master’s or doctoral programs.

The Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in-stituted its biotechnology program in 1983 “to pre-pare graduates to work as biotechnologists in re-search programs and development and productionfacilities in academia, government, private indus-try, and other organizations” (28). Students alsogoon to M.S. and Ph.D. programs. In addition tocourses in general biology, chemistry, biochemis-try, and molecular biology, the program requires25 courses related to biotechnology, including spe-cific courses on analytical chemical separations,mammalian tissue culture, plant tissue culture,hybridoma techniques, plant physiology, genetic

engineering, and an individual biotechnology sen-ior research project. Students are also encouragedto work in a cooperative education program forfour quarters, making the course of study a totalof 5 years instead of 4. Employers in the coopera-tive education program have included govern-ment, industry, and academic labs.

Although it is among the oldest of the new ini-tiatives in biotechnology education, the RIT pro-gram has only 45 graduates (as of spring 1988),due to the length of time required to completethe program.

Like many of the programs identified, the RITprogram consulted with industry during programplanning and implementation. RIT established aBiotechnology Advisory Council, consisting of rep-resentatives of 12 companies with interests inbiotechnology. The head of the Department of Bi-ology at RIT reports that council members “con-tinue to be involved in curriculum review in lightof the rapidly changing needs of the field, (and)in providing up-to-date information about theircompanies’ particular interests and needs” (28).

Another program in New York State is thebachelor of science degree in recombinant genetechnology offered by the State University of NewYork College at Fredonia. In addition to generalcourses in chemistry, biology, botany, and physics,the program requires courses in recombinant genetechnology, genetics, and cell and subcellular bi-ology. Initiated in 1983, the program had 43 stu-

Table 8-6.—Biotechnology Programs Offering Bachelor of Science Degrees


1980 State University of New York, Plattsburgh/W.H. In Vitro Cell Biology and BiotechnologyMiner Agricultural Center

1982 Worcester Polytechnic Institute Biotechnology1983 Cedar Crest College Genetic Engineering1983 Rochester Institute of Technology Biotechnology1983 State University of New York, Fredonia Major in Recombinant Gene Technology1984 Case Western Reserve University Concentration in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering1986 California Polytechnic State University Biochemical Engineering1986 Cook College, Rutgers University Biotechnology a

1986 North Dakota State University Biotechnology Academic Program1987 University of Kentucky Biotechnology1988 Ferris State College Biotechnology Emphasis

%urriculum is pending approval by the State Department of Higher Education

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988.

144

dents enrolled in the spring of 1988. A total of44 students had completed the program through1986, with most going to work in academic or gov-ernment laboratories.

The oldest bachelor’s level biotechnology pro-gram identified by OTA is the In Vitro Cell Biol-ogy & Biotechnology Program, begun in 1980 bythe State University of New York at Plattsburghand the W.H. Miner Agricultural Center. The pro-gram includes both an approved major field ofstudy at Plattsburgh leading to the bachelor ofscience degree and a self-contained semester ofintensive training in techniques of biotechnology.One semester of the B.S. program consists of a15-credit-hour course of lecture and laboratorywork in tissue culture and biotechnology in resi-dence at the Miner Institute. This course is alsoopen to qualified students from other colleges anduniversities, and attracts both undergraduate andpostbaccalaureate students.

The North Dakota State University at Fargooffers a bachelor of science degree in biotech-nology in both its College of Agriculture and itsCollege of Science and Mathematics. A minor inbiotechnology is also available. In addition to tradi-tional courses, North Dakota State offers coursesin recombinant DNA, plant cell and tissue culture,animal cell culture, plant micropropagation, andprocess biochemistry. Having begun in 1986, theprogram has no graduates yet.

The University of Iowa offers B.S. as well as M.S.and Ph.D. degrees in chemical and material engi-neering with opportunities in biochemical engi-neering/biotechnology. The Iowa program pre-pares its B.S. students primarily for M.S. and Ph.D.programs.

Other existing or planned B.S. level programsin biotechnology include those at Cook College ofRutgers University, Ferris State College in Michi-gan, the University of Kentucky in Lexington, andCedar Crest College in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Certificate Programs

Certificate programs are offered to postbac-calaureate students who wish to learn specifictechniques in biotechnology (table 8-7). Fouruniversities in the California State University sys-

Photo credit: Rochester Institute of Technology

An undergraduate student majoring in biotechnologyprepares DNA for restriction enzyme mapping.

tern offer certificates in biotechnology or relatedtechnologies to either undergraduate or postbac-calaureate students in the life sciences. Otheruniversities offer certificates at the graduate level.

Two of the most established programs are atSan Diego and San Francisco State Universities,both initiated in 1983. San Diego offers a certifi-cate in recombinant DNA technology as well asan M.S. in molecular biology and a Ph.D. in molec-ular and cellular biology. The certificate programconsists of 24 semester units of courses in radio-isotope techniques, biochemistry, bacterial genetics,molecular biology, and recombinant DNA tech-niques. An internship in a university or industriallaboratory is also required. San Diego State Univer-

—

145

Table 8.7.—Programs Offering Certificates in Biotechnology


1980 W.H. Miner Agricultural Center In Vitro Cell Biology and Biotechnology1983 San Diego State University Recombinant DNA Technology1983 San Francisco State University Genetic Engineering1986 California State University at Hayward Biotechnology1986 Rutgers University Biotechnology1986 Tufts University Training Program in Biotechnology Processing1987 California State University at Los Angeles Biotechnology1988 San Diego State University Protein Engineering

Planned San Diego State University Agricultural BiotechnologySOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1988

sity will offer a Certificate in Protein Engineeringstarting in Fall 1988, and plans to start offeringa Certificate in Agricultural Biotechnology in Fall1989 (22).

San Francisco State University offers a similarprogram. The Genetic Engineering Certificate Pro-gram is open to postbaccalaureate students ‘(whowish to become specifically competent in the con-cepts and laboratory skills of genetic engineer-ing” (65). The 13 units required for the certificatemay be used toward the 30 units required for themaster’s of science in biology. About 50 peoplehave completed the certificate program, and aboutthree-fifths are working for biotechnology com-panies. The remainder are working in universitylaboratories or are pursuing graduate degrees.

California State University at Hayward initiateda certificate program in biotechnology in 1986.The program requires one academic year to com-plete 28 quarter units of work in cell biology,molecular cloning, immunochemistry, cell culture,radiation biology, and other electives. Developersof the Hayward program consulted biotechnol-ogy companies and identified industry needs inprotein purification, immunochemistry, and cellculture.

California State University at Los Angeles starteda l-year certificate program in biotechnology inthe fall of 1987, which can be applied to a master’sdegree program. The core of the program con-sists of four courses in gene manipulation. Theprogram developers anticipate adding courses inhybridoma laboratory techniques, cell culture, andadvanced protein chemistry. The program direc-tor visited four biotechnology companies andheard the following needs expressed: employees

who bring their minds as well as their hands toa task; employees who have had research projectexperience of at least half-time intensity; and em-ployees with expert theoretical backgrounds inprotein chemistry (66).

A similar although shorter program is the Train-ing Program in Biotechnology Processing offeredby the Biotechnology Engineering Center of TuftsUniversity. Tufts offers this 15-week summer pro-gram designed to train students in biotechnologyprocessing, and to place them in positions as tech-nicians in industry. Sponsored by Tufts and a con-sortium of biotechnology companies, the programreceived start-up funds from the Bay State SkillsCorporation.

Rutgers University offers a certificate in biotech-nology to its M.S. and Ph.D. students in the De-partments of Microbiology and Chemical and Bio-chemical Engineering. In addition to the degreerequirements of their programs, students in thecertificate program must complete 15 credits froma list of courses in biotechnology, such as Chemis-try of Microbial Products and Enzyme Engineer-ing. For students in either the microbiology orthe chemical and biochemical engineering pro-gram, at least six credits must be taken outsideof the program in which the student is registered(59).

University Master’s LevelB i o t e c h n o l o g y P r o g r a m s

Master’s degree programs in biotechnology aremultidisciplinary and often interdepartmental (ta-ble 8-8). Almost all the programs preparing stu-dents for careers in bioprocessing are at the

146

Table 8-8.—BiotechnoIogy Programs Offering Master of Science Degrees

Year ofinitiation

19551970198019811982198419841985198519861986198719871988

PlannedPlanned

University

Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyRutgers UniversityState University of New York, Plattsburgh/Miner lnstituteUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyWorcester Polytechnic InstituteCase Western Reserve UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of IowaUniversity of Tennessee, KnoxvilleCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversityTufts Biotechnology Engineering CenterLehigh UniversityOld Dominion UniversityUniversity of IllinoisSan Diego State UniversityUniversity of South Florida

Program

Biochemical EngineeringBiochemical EngineeringIn Vitro Cell Biology and BiotechnologyApplied Molecular BiologyBiotechnologyConcentration in Biotechnology and Genetic EngineeringMicrobial EngineeringBiochemical Engineering/BiotechnologyBiotechnologyBiochemical EngineeringBiotechnology EngineeringApplied Biological SciencesBiotechnologyBiological EngineeringBiotechnologyB.S/M.S. in Biotechnology


master’s and doctoral levels, and several direc-tors of these programs indicated that industry con-sidered M.S. and Ph.D. degrees to be the entrylevel in bioprocessing (63)86). The need to com-bine process engineering with a basic understand-ing of molecular biology requires advanced train-ing, according to some observers (27,71,86).

The University of Maryland, Baltimore County,has offered a master’s degree in Applied Molecu-lar Biology since 1981, with the first class gradu-ating in 1984. The degree can be earned eitherin a 2-year postbaccalaureate program or as a 5-year B.S/M.S. program. Emphasizing hands-on lab-oratory skills, the program requires a summer re-search internship, A Ph.D. program in Molecularand Cellular Biology that will use the AppliedMolecular Biology program as its core curricu-lum is under development.

Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,is establishing an M.S. in applied biological science,which will provide students with hands an experi-ence in genetics, biochemistry, and bioprocess-ing. While preparation for a Ph .D. program is theprincipal goal of the program, students will alsobe prepared to work for industry. The programis sponsored by the Biology, Chemistry, and Chem-ical Engineering departments.

The University of Minnesota offers a master’sdegree in microbial engineering, which will en-able students to integrate the basic science ofmicrobiology with technological applications ofthe capacities of micro-organisms, cultured cells,

and parts thereof. The interdisciplinary programdraws on faculty from more than nine depart-ments of four colleges and institutes in the univer-sity. Begun in 1984, the first five students finishedin 1987.

San Diego State University is in the process ofestablishing a different type of master’s program,which will combine scientific instruction with cor-porate and legal instruction. The program willhave tracks in biopharmaceutical toxicology/riskassessment, venture capital and entrepreneurialbiotechnology business development, and regu-lation and biotechnology patent law (22).

Tufts University has a 5-year B.S./MS. programin chemical/biochemical engineering. The pro-gram includes all the courses required for cer-tification as a chemical engineer plus courses incell and microbe cultivation, biotechnology proc-essing lab, applied enzymology, and biochemicalengineering, Core courses are given in the earlyevening, making them accessible to people in in-dustry.

Doctoral Programs

Traditional doctoral programs in biological,chemical, and engineering sciences produced theexpertise that created today’s commercial oppor-tunities in biotechnology. Nonetheless, OTA didnot attempt to evaluate or catalog these programs,as they are well developed and have matureprofessional societies and accreditation systemsin place.

147

Academic opinion is divided about the desira-bility of creating new doctoral programs in bio-technology. Increasingly, biotechnology is viewedas comprising a set of tools that can be appliedto a variety of disciplines. On the other hand, bio-technology increasingly requires interdisciplinarytraining or at least the ability to collaborate effec-tively across disciplines.

Several doctoral programs are making biotech-nology an explicit component of their curriculaand Ph.D.s in biotechnology are under consider-ation (table 8-9). Case Western Reserve Univer-sity offers a Ph.D. in biology with a concentra-tion in biotechnology and genetic engineering. Atthe University of Minnesota, a Ph.D. minor in Bio-logical Process Engineering is under development.And the University of Maryland, Baltimore County,is developing a Ph.D. program in Molecular andCellular Biology that will use courses in appliedmolecular biology as its core curriculum. Severaluniversities offer Ph.D.s in biochemical engineering.

In many areas of the life sciences, biotechnol-ogy companies are well supplied with Ph.D. sci-entists (38). The greatest need at the Ph.D. levelis biochemical and bioprocess engineering (55).

Short Courses in Biotechnology

Short courses in biotechnology, ranging froma couple of days to a couple of weeks, are a popu-lar way for scientists of various backgrounds tolearn a particular technique (table 8-10). Shorterworkshops may be centered around lectures anddemonstrations, and longer workshops will usu-ally have hands -on laboratory components.

Begun in 1982, the Center for Advanced Bio-technology Training in Cell and Molecular Biol-ogy at the Catholic University of America in Wash-ington, D.C., has one of the most established seriesof short courses. Participants are usually maturescientists seeking information and skills to assistthem in research and, to a lesser extent, in teach-ing (53). The Center has trained about 1,200 sci-entists in areas such as immunochemistry, hybri-doma/monoclinal antibody production, tissueculture, recombinant DNA methodology, proteinsequencing, and separation techniques. Coursesare funded entirely by tuition.

Rutgers University in New Jersey also offers avariety of short courses related to biotechnology.Demand from industry for these courses is high,with students coming to New Jersey from Cali-fornia and Europe to participate (60). Tufts Univer-sity and Worcester Polytechnic Institute both of-fer short courses in bioprocessing for university-level instructors.

University Biotechnology Centers

University-based biotechnology research cen-ters take many forms and have varied purposes.Examples of centers include the Center for Bio-process Engineering at MIT, the BiotechnologyProgram at Cornell, the Center for Biotechnologyat the State University of New York at Stony Brook,the University of Wisconsin Biotechnology Cen-ter, and the Penn State Biotechnology Institute.The Ohio State University is in the process of estab-lishing a biotechnology center. (See ch. 4 for anextensive listing of biotechnology centers.)

Table 8.9.—Biotechnology Programs Offering Ph.D. Degrees


1955 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Biochemical Engineering1970 Rutgers University Biochemical Engineering1982 North Carolina State University Minor in Biotechnology1984 Case Western Reserve University Concentration in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering1985 University of Iowa Emphasis in Biochemistry/Biotechnology1986 Tufts University Biochemical/Chemical Engineering1987 Lehigh University Biochemical Engineering

Planned University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign Biological EngineeringPlanned University of Minnesota Minor in Biological Process Engineering


148

Table 8“10.—Biotechnoiogy Programs Offering Short Coursesa


1982 Catholic University of America Center for Advanced Training in Cell & Molecular Biology1983 American Type Culture Collection Workshops1983 State University of New York, Stony Brook Biotechnology1984 Cook College of Rutgers University Biotechnology1985 University of Minnesota Institute for Advanced Studies in Biological Process

Technology1986 Tufts University Biotechnology Engineering Center

aMan~ in~titution~ offer summer and other ~h~rt courses in fields related to biotechnology This list is only representative of some Of the more established or better

known programs.


Purposes of the centers frequently include con-ducting or sponsoring research, coordinating bio-technology research and training among the vari-ous university departments, providing a forumfor multidisciplinary projects, and purchasing spe-cialized equipment. Centers may also be involvedwith local biotechnology companies in technol-ogy transfer and economic development activi-ties. Some centers sponsor short courses in lab-oratory techniques for both academic andindustrial scientists.

Only two of the biotechnology centers contactedby OTA said their sole function was research. Allthe others reported that some portion of their mis-sion (usually 10 to 35 percent) was for trainingand education.

Founded in 1981, the Program in Molecular Bi-ology and Biotechnology at the University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill is one of the oldest pro-grams of its kind. The program sponsors workshopsand conferences designed to give researchersintensive hands-on experience in DNA technolo-gies. The program also supports core facilities im-portant for research and training in biotechnol-ogy and molecular biology. They state theirprimary purpose as “facilitating the diffusion ofmolecular technology throughout the biologicalcommunity.” Together with the North CarolinaBiotechnology Center, the program sponsors auniversity/industry cooperative research centerin monoclinal lymphocyte technology (25).

The Center for Biotechnology at the StateUniversity of New York at Stony Brook supports“programs for research and education to stimu-late a university/industry partnership and eco-nomic development” (49). Supported by more than

30 different biomedical departments, rangingfrom chemistry to medicine, the Center sponsorsseveral activities related to training and educa-tion. The Center also sponsors a variety of semi-nars and conferences on biotechnology, includ-ing a workshop cosponsored by Cold SpringHarbor Laboratory in molecular biology for sec-ondary school science teachers. The Center alsoprovides financial support for SUNY students towork in biomedical laboratories.

The University of Wisconsin Biotechnology Cen-ter is involved in a variety of training functions.It has sponsored short courses in biocomputingand sequence analysis and workshops in agricul-tural biotechnology. The Center is also workingwith the Biochemistry and Chemical EngineeringDepartments to develop a Bioprocess and Meta-bolic Engineering Training Consortium (44).

The Michigan Biotechnology Institute has an in-stitutional relationship with universities. Althoughit is a free-standing institute, it funds master’s,doctoral, and postdoctoral traineeships at Michi-gan State University, the University of Michigan,and Michigan Technological University.

Other Curricular Components ofBiotechnology

New biotechnology is being incorporated intomany traditional programs outside of the basicbiological sciences, such as chemical engineering,pharmacy, and agriculture.

The University of California at Davis, for exam-ple, has no formal curriculum in biotechnologyat the graduate or undergraduate level, but doeshave a Biotechnology Program of the College of

149

Agriculture and Environmental Sciences to facili-tate research and education programs. Discipline-based majors, such as biochemistry, bacteriology,genetics, fermentation science, and engineering,are tailored by the student and his or her advisorwith the necessary electives to prepare the stu-dent for a career in biotechnology. The Biotech-nology program serves to enrich and extend ex-isting strengths by reviewing curricula andassuring that relevant courses are offered fre-quently enough.

At San Jose State University, the concentrationin biochemistry, begun in 1972, is being modifiedto reflect new requirements for biochemists. Acourse in recombinant DNA methods is now in-cluded in the chemistry curriculum, and othermodifications are being considered, A memberof the San Jose State University (SJSU) Departmentof Chemistry reflects a widely held opinion in say-ing she would “most like to see biotech methodsto be incorporated into already established lab-oratory courses as opposed to having separate spe-cialty courses. ” SJSU organized a symposium withrepresentatives of biotechnology firms to deter-mine industry’s needs and found that industry waslooking for students who are well versed in basic,fundamental principles, and are capable of prob-lem solving and independent thought more thanstudents who are specialized in sophisticated tech-niques.

Photo credit: Case Western Reserve University

An undergraduate separates myosin and myosin-light-chains, using fast protein liquid chromatography, as

part of an undergraduate biotechnology program.

Tufts University has added a course in “Front-iers in Biotechnology” to their chemical engineer-ing curriculum. The course will give chemicalengineers an overview of genetic engineering, bio-technology, and hybridoma production, with em-phasis on laboratory techniques.

OTA has no figures on the number of universi-ties that have added courses in recombinant DNAand other biotechnologies to traditional majors,but it is probably significant. Many of thesecourses are new offerings. Until recently, studentswould not have the opportunity to conduct ex-periments with recombinant DNA technology untilgraduate school. Now many of these courses havebeen introduced to undergraduates and, in somecases, high school students.

Retraining

Retraining has emerged as a significant needgiven the rapid development of new biotechniquesand the large number of researchers who receivedtheir formal training before new techniques werewidely integrated into biological research. Shortcourses described previously are a principal wayof accomplishing this retraining. In addition, mostbiotechnology companies, at least the larger ones,provide training funds for their employees. Almost9 out of 10 (88 percent) of the biotechnology com-panies surveyed reported that they provide educa-tional assistance to their employees (38).

In addition, retraining is an integral part of manycompanies’ day-today operations. Companies holdseminars, sponsor cross-department training, andestablish systems to keep their research staffsabreast of current literature (43).

Retraining is also a principal motivation for com-panies to enter into collaborative arrangementswith universities. These arrangements frequentlyallow company scientists to spend time in univer-sity laboratories, updating their skills (see ch. 7).

Biotechnology in Secondary Schools

Gradually, aspects of genetic engineering andother new biotechnology techniques have reachedhigh school classrooms. Several programs suchas the Cold Spring Harbor/SUNY Stony Brookworkshop mentioned above, have been designed

150

to teach recombinant DNA techniques to second-ary school teachers. Over a dozen States are plan-ning biotechnology educational programs for highschools (10).

The North Carolina Biotechnology Center hasembarked on a 3-year Secondary Education Proj-ect to introduce biotechnology into the high schoolcurriculum. The first group of high school biol-ogy teachers was brought to the center in July1987 to conduct recombinant DNA experimentsand to develop lesson plans and materials to teachthe science, applications, and social issues of bio-technology. The University of Wisconsin Biotech-nology Center also sponsors workshops for highschool biology teachers.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory sponsors week-long workshops around the country to educatehigh school biology teachers in recombinant DNA

technology. The 3-month project, conducted in1987, had a goal of reaching 250 teachers. Twiceas many teachers applied as could be accepted (19).

The California Sector of the Industrial Biotech-nology Association also sponsors training in bio-technology for high school teachers at threecenters in the State (1). California has also recentlyestablished a Blue Ribbon Biotechnology Curric-ulum Advisory Committee in order to strengthenthe high school biology curriculum (4).

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, a majorpublisher of textbooks and learning modules forhigh school students, is increasing its emphasison biotechnology in its material. A module dueout in spring 1988 covers Advances in GeneticTechnologies and includes experiments in bac-terial transformation and plant crown gall forma-tion (51).

FUNDING OF TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Traditionally, most Federal funding of biotech-nology has been directed toward research at ma-jor universities. These funds, most of which comefrom NIH, indirectly support training, thoughmainly at the graduate and postdoctoral levels.Training at the undergraduate level is supportedonly to the extent that these funds “trickle down”in the form of making equipment available, pro-viding teaching assistants, and enriching facultymembers’ abilities to teach subjects related to bio-technology,

States provide a significant amount of fund-ing for education and training in biotechnol-ogy. About three-fourths of the programs identi-fied by OTA are at State institutions, and Statesprovide, on average, almost half of the funds forthese programs. The Federal Government providesabout 20 percent of the programs’ funds (figure8-3).

It is difficult and perhaps artificial to completelyseparate training funds from research funds, asthe two activities are closely linked at U.S. univer-sities. Nonetheless, funds are frequently allocatedby State and Federal agencies with one or the otherpurpose in mind. Programs stressing educationrather than research or vice versa have different

needs, in degree if not kind, so it is useful to dis-tinguish to the extent possible funds intended foreducation as opposed to funds intended for re-search.

As biotechnology education has permeated theundergraduate and even secondary school cur-riculum, sources of funds have become morediversified. Programs responding to OTA’s sur-vey reported that significant percentages of their

Figure 8-3.-Source of Funds for BiotechnologyTraining and Education Programs

Percentage5040

30

20

100

State T u i t i o n F e d e r a l I n d u s t r y O t h e r Otherdonations

Funding source

programs offering Bachelor’s degrees


151

funds came from State and industrial sources, aswell as from student tuition. For the 36 programsreporting their sources of funds, State govern-ments supplied the lion’s share of support, pro-viding almost half of the funds. Tuition providedthe next largest share of funds, just below one-fifth, followed closely by the Federal Government.Industry-sponsored research provided almost 10percent of program funds (figure 8-3).

The programs are costly due to expensive equip-ment and materials and generally intensive lab-oratory work. One State-subsidized program costsabout $10,000 per student (84). Three-fourths ofthe programs (29 of 41) reported unmet needsfor space or equipment.

Federal Funding

Most of the current cadre of Ph.D. biotechnol-ogists in industry and academia were supportedby Federal research or training grants when theywere trained in the various disciplines that un-dergird biotechnology (5). However, few Federalfunds are designated specifically for biotechnol-ogy training. Most agencies have no formal train-ing program; any training in biotechnology isachieved through the usual grants mechanisms.Most direct Federal support to students goes tograduate students in the form of fellowships,traineeships, and research assistantships. How-ever, Federal support for life sciences is strong,and in 1985, Federal funds were the primarysource of support for almost 20 percent of thelife science Ph.D.s, compared with less than 8 per-cent of other science and engineering fields (80).Of 35,980 full-time biological science graduate stu-dents, 10,532 received some Federal support in1984 (80). In the life sciences, enrollment rises withincreased Federal support, and drops when Fed-eral support drops. A drop in support since 1980already is reflected in a drop in the Ph.D.s awarded(80). Six Federal agencies contacted by OTA re-ported specific efforts in training for biotechnol-ogy (see ch. 3 for a full discussion of Federalfunding).

National Institutes of Health

The National Institutes of Health is by far thelargest Federal supplier of fellowships, trainee-

ships, and training grants, providing 87 percentof the funds for these activities. NSF is a distantsecond with 9.2 percent of the total (80).

Predoctoral training occurs in many fields andmany disciplines directly or indirectly related tobiotechnology. Postdoctoral traineeships havebeen funded by the National Institutes of Health(NIH) at a level of $150 to $170 million per yearin recent years. NIH estimates that $70 million in ,training funds go to students working in areaseither directly or indirectly related to biotechnol-ogy, mostly at the predoctoral level (83). Most ofthe funds come from the National Institute of Gen-eral Medical Sciences (NIGMS). In addition, NIHsupports 45 research associates in biotechnologyfor 1 to 3 years in an NIH laboratory. NIH officialsreport that the training dollar at NIH has shrunkfrom 18 percent of the research budget in 1971to less than 5 percent of the research budget infiscal year 1988. NIH supports a total of about12,000 graduate students (80), about half of whomcould be expected to be working in areas directlyrelated to biotechnology.

At a 1985 meeting of the NIH Director’s Advi-sory Committee, officials of the White House Of-fice of Science and Technology Policy suggestedthat NIH support training in biotechnology in alldisciplines, including the agricultural and physi-cal sciences. It is not surprising that NIH respondednegatively to this suggestion given the agency’sstrong tradition in the biomedical sciences. A con-sensus was reached, however, that in order forthe United States to maintain a strong lead in bio-technology there must be increased researchtraining in the basic disciplines of biotechnology—molecular genetics, biology, immunology, biochem-istry, and virology.

NIH is currently collaborating with the NationalScience Foundation to support the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology Biotechnology Center toenhance research training in bioprocess engineer-ing (see box 3-A). In addition to the predoctoraland postdoctoral fellowships available through theNational Research Service Awards Act, the NIHintramural program has recently established a re-search associateship and a biotechnology fellow-ship program through which about 40 people willbe supported to receive research training in appro-

152

priate intramural biotechnology-related labora-tories. The average cost is $18,000 to $36,000 ayear per individual.

National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsorscompetitive, peer-reviewed predoctoral fellow-ships, making 450-540 new 3-year awards eachyear from an annual appropriation of about $27million; 25-35 percent of the awards are in thebiological and biomedical sciences (55).

At the postdoctoral level, NSF funds about 20fellows in each of two areas relevant to biotech-nology-plant biology and environmental sciences–for a total of $2.2 million per year (55).

NSF also contributes to the Presidential YoungInvestigator awards, which support outstandingyoung faculty scientists at a base rate of $25,000per year for 5 years. In the biological sciences,25 recipients were named in 1984, 21 in 1985,and 10 in 1986 (55).

Other training funds within NSF are availablethrough the award structure itself, rather thanspecialized fellowships. However, research grantsare estimated to support only 0.3 trainees pergrant, due to the small size of most NSF grants(85). NSF also supports biotechnology educationthrough mechanisms such as the BiotechnologyProcess Engineering Center, which is an NSF Engi-neering Research Center at the Massachusetts In-stitute of Technology, and its support of ColdSpring Harbor Laboratories training and outreachprograms. Other programs, such as Instrumen-tation and Laboratory Improvement and Under-graduate Faculty Enhancement, also support train-ing efforts.Department of Defense

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) supportsfellowships run by the National Research Coun-cil at a level of about $400,000 annually. Approxi-mately five of the fellowships are in fields relatedto biotechnology. In addition, many graduate stu-dents are supported on contract awards, but itis not clear how many of those are in fields re-lated to biotechnology.

Department of Agriculture

The Food and Agriculture Sciences NationalNeeds Graduate Fellowship Grants program of the

Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) sup-ported 87 doctoral degree candidates in 16 insti-tutions in fiscal year 1986, totaling approximately$1.5 million. Although figures are not available,$45 million in biotechnology research (see ch. 3)provides varying levels of support to a large num-ber of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.It is difficult to determine the extent to which ei-ther of these programs actually supports studentsworking in areas relevant to biotechnology,

In 1984, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ini-tiated a peer-reviewed program of training grantsto university departments to support 302 predoc-toral students. Approximately 35 percent of the$5 million in training grants were in biotechnol-ogy. The same students, who had been guaran-teed 3 years of support, received an additional$5 million in 1985, but no new grants could beawarded as no additional funds were available.In 1986, funds were cut to $3 million, thus reduc-ing support for each student. A 1987 appropria-tion provided $2.8 million dollars, which will beused to fund a new crop of students for the full3 years, thus substantially reducing the numberof awards that can be made (55).

The Agricultural Research Service initiated acompetitive postdoctoral program in 1984 thatsupported 21 people for 1 to 2 years to work onspecific projects at ARS laboratories, Award re-cipients increased to 50 in 1985 and 100 in 1986.The programs’ 1986 appropriation was $4 million;about half of the fellowships involved biotechnol-ogy (55).

Agency for International Development

Training is an integral part of the AID researchprograms. Practically every AID-supported re-search project includes training and networkingamong the scientists of underdeveloped countriesand scientists in the developed world. Trainingprograms range from short workshops to longer,6-month programs. Graduate training and post-doctoral training is included in many researchactivities. About one-fifth of all AID research fund-ing is for training and networking, with the ex-ception of the International Agricultural ResearchCenters, where support for training scientistsfrom lesser-developed countries approximates 7percent.

153

Other Federal Agencies

Other agencies provide some training supportthrough various funding mechanisms. The Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationsupports approximately 50 students on 56 projectsbroadly related to biotechnology. The NationalAeronautics and Space Administration supports50 to 55 graduate and postdoctoral students viagrants awarded to universities but has no dedi-cated money for training, The Food and DrugAdministration, Environmental Protection Agency,Veterans Administration, and Department ofEnergy have no specific programs to supporttraining.

State Funding

States provided about 45 percent of the fundsfor new initiatives in biotechnology training iden-tified by OTA. Of those States responding to a sep-arate OTA survey (see ch. 4), 17 reported that theydirectly fund training programs in biotechnologyat their State universities and colleges. Not all wereable to provide exact dollar figures, In many cases,the State department of higher education providesfunds for research and training, under which bio-technology may fall. Because these funds are dis-persed to many institutions and many depart-ments within those institutions, accounting forspending specifically on biotechnology trainingis complex.

Some States, however, were able to report onexpenditures for biotechnology training programs.The nature of the programs and the degreesoffered were not specified. Of those reporting,expenditures in fiscal year 1987 ranged from$40,000 in Pennsylvania to $1.3 million in Geor-gia. Others included $250,000 in Connecticut,$500,000 in Iowa, $300,000 in Maryland, $450,000in Connecticut, $63,000 in New York, and $50)000in North Dakota. In Massachusetts, funding forbiotechnology training must go through the BayState Skills Corporation, with a requirement for

an industry match. The State provided $165)000in fiscal year 1986 and $75)000 in fiscal year 1987.

Industrial Funding

Industry funding accounted for just under IO

percent of the funds of biotechnology training pro-grams surveyed by OTA. In a 1984 survey, 32 per-cent of 106 biotechnology firms responding indi-cated that they provided grants and fellowshipsto schools and individual trainees (12). Based onthat survey, it was estimated that biotechnologycompanies provided between $8 and $24 millionfor training grants and scholarships in 1984 (11).In addition to grants and scholarships, approxi-mately 12 percent of trainees at research-intensiveuniversities receive industrial support for theirresearch, and 10 percent receive some industrialcontribution to their salary. All together, about19 percent of trainees receive some direct finan-cial assistance from industry in the form of train-ing grants, scholarships, research support, or sal-ary (31).

Private Philanthropy

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute has re-cently become a principal sponsor of biologicaleducation. In 1988, Hughes will announce grantstotaling $30 million to bolster undergraduate sci-ences at liberal arts and historically black institu-tions. The awards are part of a new 10-year pro-gram that will provide $500 million for educationin medical and biological sciences. The instituteis also funding education projects at several lab-oratories and gave the National Research Councilalmost $600,000 to study high school biology edu-cation.

The Institute also plans to award 3-year gradu-ate fellowships (renewable for 2 additional years)to 60 students each year. This year’s fellows willreceive stipends of $12)300, plus $10,700 for tui-tion and fees.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

For the most part, the supply of specialists inbiotechnology seems adequate to meet demandat the present time, though shortages in particu-

lar areas are evident. Shortages in cutting-edgeareas, such as protein engineering, have occurred,but are largely unavoidable. Anticipated shortages

154

of bioprocess engineers have not yet occurred,but may yet occur as more biotechnology prod-ucts reach the later stages of commercialization.Demand for expertise in plant and animal tissueculture and protein chemistry is high and maybe outstripping supply. A shortage of microbialecologists has been brought about by the needto assess the risks of releasing engineered micro-organisms into the environment. A large pool ofpostdoctoral fellows and trainees in molecular bi-ology who could shift into new areas has pre-vented the serious shortages of plant molecularbiologists predicted several years ago. Many ofthese scientists were originally trained in bacterialsystems.

Growth in employment in biotechnology hasbeen rapid and will continue, although bio-technology is not expected to generate a sub-stantial number of jobs compared with tradi-tional industrial sectors. The need forspecialized biotechnology workers, coupled withtime required to train personnel, demands plan-ning for future personnel needs. Current employ-ment trends include greater opportunities fortechnicians and an increase in demand for bio-process engineers.

University programs in biotechnology haveproliferated in recent years, addressing a varietyof educational levels. State sources have provided

a large percentage of funds for these programs,and Federal funds have provided a much smallerpercentage. Consultation with industry is the rulerather than the exception in the development ofbiotechnology programs. It is too early to assessthe effectiveness of most of these programs orindustry’s satisfaction with the training studentsin these new programs have received. Nonethe-less, the nation’s campuses have clearly movedquickly to establish new initiatives in biotechnol-ogy research and training.

Biotechnology programs usually emphasize re-combinant DNA techniques. Other aspects of bio-technology, such as plant and animal tissue cul-ture, are common though less frequently foundin biotechnology curricula. Bioprocess engineer-ing is less evident in the programs identified byOTA, but is gaining in importance. Bioprocess engi-neering will often be taught as part of a chemicalengineering department, and may be less readilyidentifiable as biotechnology. Only a few programsexplicitly cover bioprocess engineering in depth.Many of the best researchers in the field are scat-tered at various universities, so few programs arefocal points of research and training. While thesupply of bioprocess and biochemical engineershas not become a bottleneck for the industry, thisarea remains a major training need.

CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES

1. Abstracts in BioCommerce, “California Sector of 7. Benson, S., Professor, California State University,

2

3

4

5

the Industrial Biotechnology Association,” Abstractsin BioCommerce Cumulative Edition, 9(13-18):97-98, July 13-Sept. 28, 1987.Andelman, M., Recruiter in Biotechnology, AppliedResources, Inc., Medford, MA, personal commu-nication, August 1987.Applied Genetics News, “Biotechnology CompaniesGear Up for Marketing of Products with New Ex-ecutive Ta]ent,’’Ap@ed Genetics News 5(8):10-11,1985.Associated Press, “Sacramento Summary: A Sum-mary of Major Action, ” Sept. 14, 1987.Barker, R., Provost, Cornell University, Ithaca, New

Hayward, CA, persona] communication, May 1987.8. Bernstein, S., Associate Professor, San Diego State

University, San Diego, CA, personal communica-tion, May 1987.

9. Bezdek, R, H., Zampelli, E.M., and Jones, J.D., “Tech-nological Change: Do Scientists Always Benefit?”Issues in Science and Technology 4(1):28-34, Fall1987.

10. Bio/_I’echnology, “Education Initiatives, ” Bio~ech -no]ogy 6(3):240, March 1988.

11. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Epstein, S., et al,, “Uni-versity-Industry Relationships in Biotechnolo~: Im-plications for Federal Policy,” prepared for the U.S.

York, and member, Committee on National Needs Department of Health and Human Services, Officefor Biomedical and Behavorial Research Personnel, of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evalu -personal communication, Aug. 14, 1987. ation (grant #100A-83), Mar. 20, 1987.

6. Bayliss, F., Genetic Engineering Coordinator, De- 12. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Seashore-Louis, K., Wise,partment of Biology, San Francisco State Univer- D., “Industrial Support of University Research insity, San Francisco, CA, personal communication, Biotechnology,” Science 231:242-246, Jan. 17, 1986.March 1987. 13. Braddock, D., “Careers in the New Technologies:

155

Biotechnology, ” Occupational Outlook Quarterly28(4):31-34, Winter 1984.

14. Bru]ey, D., Dean, School of Engineering, Califor-nia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,CA, personal communication, Aug. 17, 1987.

15. Caulder, J., President, Mycogen Corporation, per-sonal communication, June 11, 1987.

16. California State Senate Office of Research, SiliconVa]]ey 11: A Review of State Biotechnology Devel-.opment Incentives, (Sacramento, CA: Joint Publica-tions Office, 1985).

17. Chemical and Engineering News, “BiotechnologyFirms Reshape Staffs for Move into Marketplace, ”Chemical and En&”neering News 62(25 ):10-1 1, June18, 1984.

18. Chirichiello, J., Study Director, Economic AnalysisStudy Group, National Science Foundation, Wash-ington, DC, personal communication, Oct. 26, 1987.

19. Cohn, D., “The High-Tech Evolution of Biology,” TheWashingIon Post, pp. Bl, B4, Aug. 1, 1987.

20. Coleman, M. S., Director of Graduate Studies, De-partment of Biochemistry, University of Kentucky,Lexington, KY, personal communication, March1987.

21. Covel, B., Director of Human Resources, GeneticsInstitute, Cambridge, MA, personal communica-tion, Oct. 23, 1987.

22. Dahms, A. S., Director of the California State Uni-~~ersitv System program for Biotechnology Educa-tion a“nd Research, and Bernstein, S.l., AssociateDirector, San Diego State University Molecular Bi-ology Institute, San Diego, CA, personal communi-cation, Oct. 30, 1987.

23. Demain, A. L., and Solomon, N. A., “Responsibilitiesin the Development of Biotechnology, ” Bioscience33(4):239, April 1983.

24. Dibner, M., “Report on the Biotechnology Indus-try in the United States,” contractor document pre-pared for the Office of Technology Assessment,May 1, 1987.

25. Edgell, M. H., Director, Program in Molecular Biol-ogy and Biotechnology, University of North Caro-lina, Chapel Hill, NC, personal communication,March 1987.

26. Feldman, M., and O’Mally, E. P., “The Biotechnol-ogy Industry in California,” contract paper pre-pared for the California Commission on IndustrialInnovation, Sacramento, CA, August 1982.

27. Fowler, E. M., “Careers: Producing Biotech Prod-ucts,’) The New York Times 134:51, Apr. 24, 1985.

28. Frederick, T., Professor and Head, Department ofBiology, Rochester Institute of Technology, Roch-ester, NY, personal communication, March 1987and October 1987.

29. Gani, P., Human Resources Administrator, Col-

laborative Research, Bedford, MA, personal com-munication, November 1987.

30. Gebhart, F., and Cass, M., “How to Select a Site forYour Biotech Plant, ” Genetic Engineering Ne\vs5(2):13, February 1985.

31. Gluck, M. E., Blumenthal, D., and Stoto, M. A., “Uni-versity-Industry Relationships in the Life Sciences:Implications for Students and Postdoctoral Fel-lows)” Research Policy 16(6):327-336, December1987.

32. Gwynne, P., ‘(x-ray Crystallographers Wooed byDrug Firms, ” The Scientist 1(11):5, 1987.

33. Holmstrom, E. I., and Petrovich, J., En@”neering Pro-grams in Emer#”ngAreas, 1983-84, Higher Educa-tion Panel Reports, Number 64 (Washington, DC:American Council on Education, November 1985).

34. Humphrey, A., Director, Center for Molecular Bio-science and Biotechnology, Lehigh University, Beth-lehem, PA, personal communication, March 1987.

35. Hyer, W .C., testimony before the Subcommittee onOversight and Investigations, Committee on Energyand Commerce, House of Representatives, Biotech-nology Development, Serial No. 99-53, Dec. 18,1985.

36. Hyer, W ,C., Managing Director, Association of Bio-technology Companies, personal communication,Washington, DC, May 19, 1987.

37. Industrial Biotechnology Association, Careers inBiotechnology, Washington, DC, January 1987,

38. Industrial Biotechnology Association and RadfordAssociates, “Biotechnology Compensation and Ben-efits Survey 1987 Seminar, ” Washington, DC, No\~.10, 1987.

39. Institute of Medicine, Committee on National Needsfor Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel,National Academy of Sciences, Personnel Needsand Training for Biomedical and Behavioral Re-search (1985 Report) (Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press, 1985).

40. Isbister, J.D., Atlantic Research Corporation, Alex-andria, VA, personal communication, Oct. 29, 1987.

41. Johnson, L.J., Manager, Biotechnolo&Y, Idaho Na-tional Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, per-sonal communication, Oct. 9, 1987.

42. Journal of Commerce, “Biotechnology Seen in Needof Engineers,” .lourna] of Commerce 367:21, Feb.10, 1986.

43. Keenan, N., Human Resources Ad~inistrator, Bio-technica International, Worcester, MA, personalcommunication, October 1987.

44. Kelley, J. J., Administrator, University of Wiscon-sin Biotechnology Center, Madison, WI, personalcommunication, November 1987.

45. Kincannon, K., President, Kincannon & Reed, St.Louis, MO, personal communication, Aug. 17, 1987.

76-582 0 - 88 - 6 : QL 3

156

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52,

53.

54.

55.

56

57.

Kingdon, C., and Newcombe, S., “Engineers HaveDesigns on Biology,” New Scientist 114(1558):56-59,Apr. 30, 1987.Klausner, A., and Fox, J., “Some Bird’s-Eye Viewsof Agbiotech ‘88, ” Bio/Technolog,v 6(3):243-244,March 1988.Kobbe, B., “Survey Examines Present and FuturePersonnel Needs in Biotechnology,” Genetic Engi-neering News, 6(9):23, October 1986.Koehn, R. K., Director, Center for Biotechnology,State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY, per-sonal communication, June 1987.Makulowich, J., “Biotech’s Growth Depletes Aca-demic Ranks, ’’Genetic l?ngineeringlVews 7(9):1-28,October 1987.McInerny, J., Director, Biological Sciences Curric-ulum Study, Colorado Springs, CO, personal com-munication, Jan. 19, 1988.McNair, C.J,, Director of Administrative Services,BioTechnica International, Inc., Cambridge, MA,personal communication, October 1987.Nardone, R. M., Director, Center for AdvancedTraining in Cell and Molecular Biology, Washing-ton, DC, personal communication, March 1987.National Research Council, Board on Agriculture,Committee on National Strategy for Biotechnologyin Agriculture, Agricultural Biotechnology: Strat-egies for National Competitiveness (Washington,DC: National Academy Press, 1987).National Research Council, Commission on Engi-neering and Technical Systems, Directions in En&”-neering Research: An Assessment of Opportuni-ties and Needs (Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1987).National Science Foundation, Biotechnology Re-search and Development Actha”ties in Industry, Sur-veys of Science Resources Series, Special Report(NSF 88-311) (Washington, DC, 1987).Papadopoulos, S., “Assessing University-IndustryTies in Biotechnology,” Genetic En#”neering News5(3):31, March 1985,

58. Personick, V. A., “Industry Output and Employmentthrough the End of the Century,” Monthly LaborReview 110(9):30-45, September 1987.

59. Pramer, D., “Ensuring Quality Education in Biotech-nology)” Bio~echnology 1(2):211-212, April 1983.

60. Pramer, D., Waksman Institute of Microbiology,Rutgers Un~ersity, Piscataway, NJ, personal com-munication, March 1987.

61. Rigl, T, C., “Sca]e-Up Technology and Talent Defi-ciencies Threaten U.S. Lead in Biotech, ” GeneticEn&”neering News 6(7):40, July/August 1986.

62. Rinard, B. F., Education for Biotechnology (Waco,TX: The Center for Occupational Research and De-velopment, 1986).

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

Rittman, B. E., Chairman, Bioprocess EngineeringLaboratory Committee, University of Illinois atUrbana~hampaign, Urbana, IL, personal commu-nication, March 1987.Rosazza, J. P. N., Professor and Coordinator of theBiocatalysis Research Group, College of Pharmacy,University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, personal com-munication, May 1987.San Francisco State University, Department of Bio-logical Sciences, “Genetic Engineering CertificateProgram,” (brochure), San Francisco, CA, n.d.Sharp, S., Assistant Professor of Biology, Director,Genetic Engineering Certificate Program, Cahfor-nia State University, Los Angeles, CA, persona] com-munication, June 1987.Silvestri, G.T., and Lukasiewicz, J. M., “Projections2000: A Look at Occupational Employment Trendsto the Year 2000, ’’Monthly Labor Rew”ew 110(9):46-63, September 1987.Swartwood, P., Consultant for Biotechnology, Of-fice of Career Planning and Placement, Universityof California at Davis, Davis, CA, personal commu-nication, June 1987.Taub, F., professor, School of Fisheries, Universityof Washington, Seattle, WA, personal communi-cation, Nov. 2, 1987.The Scientist, “Biotech Survey Sees Growth,” TheScientist 2(1):6, Jan. 11, 1988.Tufts University, Biotechnology Engineering Cen-ter, Mission Statement, Medford, MA, Oct. 1, 1985.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Commercial Biotechnology: An International Anal-ysis, OTA-BA-218 (Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press,

73.

74.

75

76.

77.

Inc., January 1984).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Demographic Trends and the Scientific and Engi-neering Work Force—A Technical Memorandum,OTA-TM-SET-35 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, December 1985).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,New Developments in Biotechnology: Il”eld-TestingEngineered Organisms: Genetic and Ecolo@”cal Is-sues, OTA-BA-350 (Washington, DC, U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, May 1988).U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Preparing for Science and En@”neering Careers:Field-Level Profiles (staff paper), (Washington, DC,Jan. 21, 1987).U.S. Department of Commerce, 1988 U.S. Indus-trial Outlook (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, January 1988).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofToxic Substances, Office of Policy, Planning, andEvaluation, “The Proceedings of the U.S. EPA Work-shop on Biotechnology and Pollution Control (held

.

157

March 20-21, 1986)” Nov. 10, 1986.78. Van Brunt, J., “Biosensors for Bioprocesses,” Bio/

Technology 5(5):438-440, May 1987.79. Vetter, B. M., “The Life Sciences, ” OTA contract re-

port, June 30, 1986.80. Vetter, B. M., “Federal Funding of Science and Engi-

neering Education, ” contract report prepared forthe Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.

81. Wang, D. I. C., Director, Biotechnology Process Engi-neering Center, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, personal communication, March 1987.

82. Weinstein, B., “Opportunities in Biotechnology, ”Business Week Careers 5(3):54-59, spring-summer1987.

83. Williams, L. S., Special Assistant to the Director forBiotechnology, National Institute of General Medi-

cal Sciences, National Institutes of Health, remarksat the NIGMS Meeting on Biotechnology Researchand Research Training, Bethesda, MD, Mar. 28,1988.

84. Wright, K. “Biotechnology: Doubts Over New De-gree Courses, “ Nature 323:99, Sept. 11, 1986.

85. Wooley, J.C., Directorate of Biological, Behavorial,and Social Sciences, National Science Foundation,remarks at the National Institute of General Medi-cal Sciences Meeting on Biotechnology Researchand Research Training, Bethesda, MD, Mar. 28,1988.

86. Yoshisato, R., Adjunct Assistant Professor, Depart-ment of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Uni-versity of Iowa, Iowa City, 1A, personal communi-cation, Apr. 29 and Oct. 29, 1987.

chapter 8 training and personnel needs in biotechnology

Documents