Global Manpower Needs for 
Integrative Systems Physiologists

Allen Cowley
(Reprinted with permission from the 
IUPS Newsletter vol. 7, September 2004)

Top ten countries by highly cited scientists (Figure 2). It is useful to first gain some perspective on those countries or regions of the world where the most highly cited scientists currently reside. As cited from the Scientist (August 2003), these are the United States followed by the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Japan, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Italy and Australia. Since the statistics obtained from the LSRO survey of US academic institutions represent a large proportion of the overall scientific activity, the LSRO survey may reflect major directions of manpower needs for integrative/systems physiologists. As cited by the National Science Foundation Survey, 25-30% of all those entering college in the US intend to study science, but fewer than half actually even complete a baccalaureate degree over five years (data compiled in 2001). Despite an upward trend for the general area of science over the past 20 years, the number of PhD’s trained in biological sciences and engineering has been declining since 1996. These reductions stem from a declining number of foreign-borne students seeking graduate degrees in the US and increasing availability of opportunities in their own countries. In 1999, 74% of the foreign PhD students intended to remain in US, but by 2001 only 50% had done so due to opportunities at home. The decline in the training of foreign-born students has inevitably continued to erode since 9/11 given the well-recognized difficulty in obtaining US visas. As pointed out in an editorial in Nature Genetics 34:233, 2003, however, “If foreign born scientists in the US are taking advantage of the increasingly attractive opportunities in their home countries, that ought to be a net gain for international science, while at the same time giving young American scientists a bit more leverage in their own marketplace.”

Why the need for integrative and organs systems sciences? Based on the summary report of this LSRO conference, six major reasons were cited as to why there is a need for more integrative and organs system sciences. First, “findings from the reductionist sciences can only be extrapolated to a refined and defined discrete molecular or cellular phenomenon.” Second, “findings from the reductionist sciences differ relative to the integrative and organ systems sciences in their focus and generalizability to intact animals and organ systems.” Third, integrative sciences represent a crucial component in biomedical experiments directed toward advancing the fight against debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Fourth, integrative sciences provide the infrastructure to support a wide variety of scientific fields including: physiology, pharmacology, toxicology, nutrition and developmental biology. The integrative sciences are, therefore, crucial supportive sciences. Fifth, integrative sciences are vital for discovery, validation and development of the research required to relate genes to complex functions and diseases. Sixth, the integrative sciences are necessary for drug development, including verification to establish relevance, identification of targets to pursue, and evaluation of therapeutic safety and efficacy issues prior to initiating phase I human clinical trials.

Current Trends in US Physiology and Pharmacology (Figure 3). The following information was obtained from three sources: the American Association for the Advancement of Science Report (AAAS) published in the journal Science; Dissertation Abstracts for the Integrative and Biomedical Sciences (1980, 1990, 2000); and the American Journal of Physiology (AJP) and the Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics (ASPET). It is important to recognize that the surveys and questionnaires from which this data was obtained were based on the following definitions. “Reductionist Sciences” are defined as those “aimed at identifying molecular and cellular events, studied in purified form or in isolated systems and include genomics, proteomics, biochemistry and cell biology.” “Integrative and Organ Systems Sciences” (IOSS) were broadly defined as “studies relying on animal models to provide specific tissues, individual organs or entire organ systems; and narrowly defined as “studies relying on animal biology to understand physiological function in the context of the entire animal, organ or organ systems model.” 

One way used to gain a perspective on the need for integrative and organ systems physiologists was to count the employment announcements appearing in ten random issues of Science over the last several decades. As summarized in Figure 4, compared to 1980, there has been nearly a doubling of the total job announcements in Science over the past 20 years. It is also clear that there has been proportionately only a very small increase (0.6%) in announcements advertising for individuals carrying out integrative and organs systems scientists (IOSS) as “broadly defined.” At the same time, there has actually been a slight reduction (0.3%) in the percent of “narrowly defined” announcements seeking individuals who can carry out experiments and understand physiological function in the context of the entire organism. These data would suggest that academic institutions (largely within the US) at the beginning of the 21st century were not seeking to expand their faculties in the area of integrative systems physiologists. 

Dissertation Abstracts. Figure 5 represents the total number of biomedical dissertations in English during this same time period (comparing years 1982, 1991, 2000). These data indicate that there has been a nearly 10% reduction in the percent of dissertations carried out in the area broadly defined as integrative systems biology and within the narrow IOSS definition of “research relying upon animal biology to understand function in the entire animal, organ or organ systems model.” However, as reflected in the scientific journals of the APS and ASPET (Figure 6), the total number of articles considered as integrative systems biology has not changed nearly as drastically. For example, compared to 75% in 1980, currently 66% of the publications of the APS represent studies that rely on animal models (as broadly defined) and 45% are studies related to context of the entire animal organ or organ systems model down from 67% in 1980 (as narrowly defined). In contrast, it would appear that pharmacologists were carrying out considerably less research in the area of narrowly defined integrative systems sciences as represented by only 24% in the year 2000 compared to 43% in 1980 and 1990. 

Current status of Integrative and Organ Systems Scientists (IOSS) in the US. The following information was obtained by LSRO from 163 (of the 414 departments) physiology and pharmacology departments in the United States with a response rate of 40%. It is encouraging that “US physiology and pharmacology department chairs overwhelmingly responded that IOSS approaches are important in maintaining academic scientific research programs.” Eighty-three percent of the respondents thought there was an important need, 13% a qualified need, while only 4% thought there was no need for IOSS scientists. When queried if they “perceive this issue to be a problem,” 124 chairs responded with written comments, 81% indicating it was an important problem. However, as seen in Figure 7, it was found that during the last decade of the 20th Century (1991-2001) there was an average reduction of 30% in faculty who could be defined as IOSS scientists in the United States, despite 20% of these departments reporting an overall increase in size. Among these departments, 38% also reported fewer full-time IOSS tenured faculty. It is remarkable that despite the feeling of a need for IOSS scientists and recognition that these scientists contribute to their departmental research efforts, 31.8% (41) of the respondents did not anticipate hiring IOSS scientists in their department in the next five years, and 24% (31) anticipated hiring no more than one. Conversely, 44.2% (57) did anticipate hiring more than one IOSS scientist over the next five years, suggesting that at the time of this survey (2002-2003), the majority of departments recognized the need and were making plans to hire IOSS scientists. Such projections in face of the aging of their current faculty in these areas of research are indeed rather feeble given the stated relevance and important of such scientists. The reasons for not being more aggressive in hiring IOSS scientists most often stated were research funding, university support, and animal rights issues. 

Loss of Training Curriculum. Regarding the state of training of scientists in the area of integrative and organs systems biology, 70.5% of the responding departments reported no change in IOSS courses since 1991, although it was unclear from the survey how often these courses were taught or how many students were involved in them. It was, however, also indicated that the organ systems courses suitable for graduate students had been reduced, eliminated or incorporated into significantly condensed courses. The 66 physiology and pharmacology departments that responded to this survey emphasized that there was currently a dramatic reduction in the competency of students capable of carrying out integrative and organs systems research. Specifically, 66 programs indicated that in 1991 they were training more than ten students capable of doing IOSS and in vivo whole animal research while in 2001 only 12 programs could make this statement. 

The LSRO survey on the current status of integrative and organ systems scientists in the United States was summarized as follows. 

• Total number of faculty employed in physiology and pharmacology departments was unchanged for 76.7% of respondents.
• Total number of IOSS faculty employed in physiology and pharmacology departments was unchanged for 52% of respondents, whereas 36.3% reported a decline in their numbers. Declining departments led increasing departments by more than 3:1.
• Total number of tenured IOSS faculty employed in physiology and pharmacology departments was unchanged for 46.5% of respondents, whereas 38.1% reported a decline in their numbers.
• Total number of non-tenured IOSS faculty employed in physiology and pharmacology departments was unchanged for 61.3% of respondents.
• Total number of IOSS courses was unchanged for 70.5% of respondents, yet 75.8% of departmental chairs report dropping IOSS courses.
• Total number of PhD students in physiology and pharmacology departments was unchanged for 74% of respondents.
• Total number of PhD graduate students capable of conducting IOSS research in US physiology and pharmacology departments was unchanged for 59.7% of respondents, while 30.5% reported a decline. Declining departments led increasing departments by more than 2:1. The average number of PhD graduate students capable of conducting IOSS research in these departments has declined.
• Demand for academic IOSS faculty in the next five years is not promising as 1.1 positions per department have been projected.

International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) Survey. At the time the Life Sciences Research office was conducting the US survey on the current status and supply and demand issues of integrative/systems physiology, the IUPS also conducted an informal survey; a small sampling of eleven regions of the world represented by the council of the IUPS for the nations and regions using the same questionnaire as the Life Sciences Research Office for the US survey. Although, this survey is largely anecdotal and only a limited number of regions were surveyed, one can still obtain the flavor of what may be happening in these various regions of the world. 

United Kingdom. The most informative response was received from the Life Sciences Committee of the United Kingdom (now the Biosciences Federation). This response went far beyond the survey questions since the national curriculum related to the education of integrative of systems scientists in the UK had just been independently explored by the Animal Science Group of the UK (the Life Sciences Committee). This report emphasized that within the national curriculum in the UK animal dissection is no longer a requirement in the A Level Biology practical assignment and is no longer in the main body of the courses except for some demonstrations. The report reflected on the fact that course content has changed drastically over the past two to three decades from an emphasis on evolutionary integrative biology to “bio-molecular” science, which they refer to as “modern bioscience.” It was stated that students “have little practical knowledge of animal form and function.” At the undergraduate level (BSc University Students) the focus of most syllabi is on non-whole animal topics. Commonly there is no dissection during undergraduate years. 

The reasons for this situation were stated as follows:

• Given the intense competition to register undergraduate students in science subjects, animal dissection was viewed as a disincentive to do so. 
• There has been a reduction in the laboratory component of Biology courses. This was attributed in part to reduced time allocated to teaching as the UK system moved toward the US semester system and modular degree programs. 
• There has been substantial Government cost cutting whereby staff/student ratios have been reduced and laboratory sessions that require considerable staffing have fallen by the wayside. 
• The use of animals for students doing honors projects has presented problems, as well, due to the fact that most Universities lack animal facilities, or if present, they are very expensive. 
• There are fears from animal rights groups and considerable bureaucratic delays and cost in order to obtain Home Office Education licenses. 
• Regarding the undergraduate level situation in the UK, students at many UK universities do not receive the education they need to make informed choice of future careers, which has contributed to the current chronic shortage of integrated systems scientists. 
• The supply and demand situation at the post-graduate level in the UK reflects some of the same problems. The shortage of such scientists is well recognized, but little has been done to address the problem. Efforts to recruit such scientists have resulted in few, if any, applicants from the UK, and research is also hampered by a well-recognized major shortage of qualified animal technicians. 

The reasons for the present situation in the UK were attributed to two major factors. First, the anti-vivisectionists have been very successful based on a long history of engaging in rigorous lobbying activities to local governments and parliament. They have created a climate of fear with many examples of extreme violence. There has been enormous pressure brought to bear on animal breeders to abandon business. The most publicized of these being the Huntingdon Life Sciences, a major drug testing company that was nearly bankrupt by the activities of the anti-vivisectionists. This climate of fear and intimidation has led to the delay and establishment of animal research centers such as the primate center in Cambridge. The second major reason for the present situation was attributed to the overall cultural changes that have occurred within the country. These changes include the increased urbanization of the population with loss of understanding of the realities of animal use. They include the increased awareness of environmental changes and a desire to prevent further erosion leading to increases in vegetarianism, antagonism against the use of furs for clothing, and a trend toward a preference for “natural foods” leading to changes in farming procedures. 

What is being done to change this situation in the UK? As in many countries in the industrialized world, public opinion polls have supported animal experiments for biomedical research as needed. Efforts are being made in the UK to present the facts for the continued need for integrative and systems biology using whole animals. Funds for these activities can be obtained from the pharmaceutical industry and by medical organizations with progress in this field represented by the formation of the “campaign for medical progress” currently ongoing within the UK. There is also a recognized need to change the National Curriculum to consider ethics of animal experimentation in secondary schools and there is effort to change the curricula at all educational levels. 

A separate report was sent by Sara-Jane Stagg representing the British Pharmacological Society that also conducted a survey relevant to the IUPS questionnaire. Most of the information was reflected in the report of the UK Life Sciences Committee, but the report placed greater emphasis on the concerns of the UK pharmaceutical industry regarding the manpower needs for integrative systems physiologists. It was emphasized that there is a rapidly diminishing number of undergraduates capable of carrying out hands-on in vivo laboratory studies. Industry is very concerned due to the difficulties of recruiting employees for in vivo work related to drug discovery. Industry has emphasized that even for those going to spend their life in molecular biology it was important to understand what colleagues do in in vivo research and how it relates to the whole drug discovery process. The reasons presented by the Pharmacological Society for the reduction in the opportunities for in vivo work were much the same as reflected by the UK Life Sciences Committee. This included cost of maintaining animal facilities in universities; the cost of providing the necessary training for undergraduates and the cost for government licenses; the cost and intrusiveness of the security necessary to protect such work from animal rights protesters; and the difficulty to find people to staff this work within the universities especially practical classes with animals that require high levels of supervision. Finally, the ethical problems with the use of animals were again cited. 

Efforts are being made in the UK to address some of these problems. The British Pharmacological Society has invited pharmaceutical companies to contribute grants to departments that would assist in the cost of courses. This would include hands-on in vivo laboratory studies. They have received donations from six companies as of one year ago and the society also provides some funds. As of 2002 this pharmaceutical “partnership challenge” was providing grants to ten departments within the UK. The Pharmacological Society has joined with The Physiological Society and industry to develop two short vacation courses of one week’s duration in London and Scotland where students will learn about in vivo pharmacology and physiology. In 2002 there were 70 applications and support for 27 places for these courses. 

IUPS overall survey results. The next series of figures reflects the responses of the 12 countries and regions that were surveyed. It is evident from these overall responses that the majority of the universities within these regions still employ integrative and organs systems scientists among their faculty (Figure 8). However, since 1990 nearly all countries, with the exception of Denmark and India, indicate that they have experienced a decreasing number of IOSS faculty members within their universities (Figure 9). Furthermore, few foresaw a tendency within the next five years for additional hires (Figure 10), except Denmark, India and the USA. Regarding the courses offered in the curriculum within the universities, the responses suggest that some opportunities still exist within nearly every country for students to participate in a course that provides some level of integrative and organs systems science. However, when asked whether integrative and organs systems PhD students were capable of doing in vivo whole animal research, the answers were rather ambivalent (Figure 11), although the majority believed that most were indeed capable of this. 

In response to the question regarding the future needs for IOSS scientists (Figure 12), it was indicated that in general there is an increasing demand for scientists trained to carry out integrative organs and systems research and teaching within their countries and regions, with two exceptions (Chile and Russia). With few exceptions, all of these countries believe that this is an important problem (Figure 13). Interestingly, the problem was viewed as both supply side and demand side, perhaps suggesting that at this time serious movement has not yet begun to rectify these needs. This is also reflected by the answers given to the question as to whether they foresee a tendency within the next five years for additional hires, with most of the countries responding in the negative (Figure 11.) 

Anecdotal comments from our colleagues in industry. An effort was also made to survey the view of pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Unfortunately, the responses provided to the LSRO survey were insufficient for meaningful assessment. For this reason, I personally contacted some individuals from a number of companies who agreed to reflect their own personal views on the state of affairs regarding manpower needs for integrative systems physiologists. 

• A summary of discussions with several scientists who have started Biotech Genome-based Discovery Companies concluded that pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries “now must outsource to Universities to move from target gene identification with a differential expression or phenotype in a gene knockout mouse to needing a proof-of-concept using an in vivo disease model-integrative physiologist/pharmacologist is needed for this.” Others shared similar opinions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries: Paul Vanhoutte (Servier, Belgium): “a great need but very few candidates;” Peter Morsing (Astra Zeneca): “now recognize a great need, but there are few candidates;” Mark Fishman (Novartis): “integrative biology is clearly important to drug discovery;” and Bruce Markham (Pfizer): “a dearth of candidates now and a growing need.”
• Global head of in vivo pharmacology and member of APS, Peter Thoren, MD, PhD, stated the following. “No doubt that the state of in vivo sciences in preclinical departments in Sweden is very unfortunate. Grants are much too small and the number of new graduates is too low. Until now, we have experienced no major problem in recruitment of ‘in vivo’ personnel but the future looks grim. I expect that we will get into major problems within a few years. The number of graduates goes down and many of the graduates do not have the broad knowledge in basic anatomy, histology, pharmacology and physiology as we used to recruit. Swedish students with a medical background seldom go into preclinical work any longer.” 
• Terry Opgenorth, (Abbott) believes that there is a shortage of in vivo scientists, which are at the top of the hiring list and this makes it difficult to recruit. However, in vivo people are coming from different backgrounds, which include gene knockout labs (primary training not in physiology or pharmacology) and MD degrees, to fill the positions. “If one has broad systems training there are great opportunities.”

Conclusions. It seems evident that there is at this time a great need for the training of more scientists who can carry out physiological research in the context of the entire animal, organ, or organ system. These surveys indicate that the manpower needs for physiologists at the beginning of this 21st century are growing at both universities and in industry. Unfortunately, there is yet no tangible evidence that either is responding to these perceived needs. The great challenge within most countries and universities will now be to restructure curricula and research centers in ways that will stimulate new approaches and lead to the convergence of scientific experts needed to carry out integrative biological research. It would appear evident that to accomplish these goals, it will be necessary to change the ways in which we teach, carry out and fund science. This will require rethinking the ways in which the departments and research centers within our academic institutions are defined and integrated. Enormous opportunities will exist for those able to carry out research that can lead to levels of understanding of the integrated emergent properties of the living systems. More physiologists seem to be desperately needed, and we can only hope that more will soon become trained and that the current directions of science will indeed provide positions for them.