The training of brazilian biochemists in brazil and in developed countries: Costs and benefits

182 T h e T r a i n i n g o f B r a z i l i a n B i o c h e m i s t s in B r a z i l a n d in D e v e l o p e d C o u n t r i e s : C o s t s a n d B e n e f i t s

500 -

-

Brazil

/'X

._I '-t",,./

400

L E O P O L D O DE MEIS and P A U L O H L O N G O

Instituto de Ciencias Biomedicas Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro, CEP 21910, Brasil

~"~e"e

500

-- • ~ Q ...../ 2oo

Z

Introduction

Science in an institutionalized form began in the midnineteenth century, and produced an impact that was reflected in everyday life. The estimated world population was 300 million inhabitants at the beginning of the Christian era and hardly tripled during the subsequent eighteen hundred years. However, with advances in medicine that include the discovery of vaccines, antiseptics and antibiotics, and with the mechanization of agriculture, the world population increased, from 900 million to 5 billion inhabitants in less than 200 years.1 The production of knowledge that lay behind these changes originated in a relatively few countries: the USA, Britain, Russia, Germany, Japan, France and Canada. Scientists in these countries are responsible for 75% of the scientific papers published in the most important scientific journals each year 2 and, with the exception of Japan, received 79% of the Nobel prizes in science awarded between 1901 and 1984. These countries have been referred to as 'producers of new knowledge') The rest of the planet - - representing 83% of the world population - is composed of countries that consume knowledge: their social and economic developments are closely dependent on those countries that generate knowledge. In many Third World countries, including Brazil, there has been increasing awareness of the need to develop science and the training of new scientists in these countries has become a major concern of their governments. In Brazil, the first governmental organization designated to develop science was CNPq (Council for Scientific and Technological Development) which was founded in 1951. A major concern of this agency has been the training of new scientists, an objective that has failed to attain the expected degree of success despite the efforts devoted to it over the last four decades (Fig 1). The magnitude of this problem can be appreciated by comparing two countries in the same hemisphere: the USA and Brazil. The two countries have similar geographical and population sizes. Since 1975 the USA has contributed approximately 37% of the scientific literature published in international journals 2 while the Brazilian contribution has been less than 0.5%. 3 This great discrepancy in scientific production can be correlated with the number of students obtaining PhD and MSc degrees in the two countries. For example, in 1985 students in the life sciences were awarded 179 PhD and 445 MSc degrees in Brazil (Fig 1) as opposed to 5000 PhD and 8000 MSc degrees in the USA. 4 In an attempt to improve the situation, Brazilian science funding agencies such as CNPq and CAPES (Coordinating Agency for Advanced BIOCHEMICAL

EDUCATION

18(4) 1 9 9 0

ioo

o 75

E

I

I

t

[

1

[

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

85

84

85

86

15 r",

12

~-

[I

j

USA

e~o~e~ o,__ o . . , . o /

e"~'e ~ o ~ o ~ e % . o . _ . . °

% 7 >,

6 5 4 5

Z_

2 I 0 75

I

l

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

h

I

I

I

I

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

Year

Figure 1 Degrees in life sciences produced annually in Brazil (A) and in the USA (B). (0) Master's degree; (0) PhD degrees awarded. The data for Brazil are from CAPES and those for the USA are from ref 4 Training of High Level Personnel) have adopted a policy of incentives and support of graduate and postgraduate studies abroad. In 1989, these two agencies granted 5 500 fellowships to Brazilian students working overseas, mainly in N America and Europe. 5 A similar policy has been followed by many countries of the Third World. This coincides with the fact that a significant fraction of PhD degrees in science, in developed countries, are given to foreign students. In the USA for example, foreign graduate students enrolled full-time in institutions granting doctorates in science accounted for 12.2% of the fulltime student body in 1976. The fraction of non-American doctorate students in science had risen to 23.1% in 1986. 4 The objective of the Brazilian strategy of sending students abroad is the training of a great number of highly skilled investigators in a relatively short period of time. These students are sent to universities that have higher scientific standards than those available in Brazil. Therefore, it is expected that because of their better training, after returning to Brazil these investigators should be more productive than those who were trained within the country. This project currently absorbs a very large fraction of the resources allocated to Brazilian science. Data are available for one of the CNPq funds devoted to the support of basic research. 6 In 1989, this program sent 1076 students abroad to work for an advanced degree, and

183 384 for post-doctoral work at a total cost of approximately $US 43 million. The same program spent only $US 15.5 million in Brazil on basic research grants in all areas of science, including biological, engineering and social sciences. 6 In view of the extremely limited amounts of money allotted for the support of science in Brazil, the training of students abroad represents a significant movement away from support for scientific work done in Brazil. For example, the scientific laboratories in Brazil depend on instrumentation that is not manufactured in the country: in the last 10 years the most productive laboratories have not been able to renew their equipment due to lack of funds. The objective of the present work was to assess the benefits derived from the financial investment involved in sending students to developed countries to obtain PhD degrees. This was done by comparing the quality of their performance with that of those who obtained their degrees in Brazil. The group studied was restricted to scientists who obtained a PhD in biochemistry or in a related field such as molecular biology or genetics. Profile of the sample studied The sample consisted of 60 investigators working in the main departments in the country. All of them had PhDs and had requested financial support for research projects from the major federal granting agencies over the past five years. This sample represents a significant fraction of the total number of active workers in biochemistry in Brazil. This conclusion is derived from the following data: (1) The Brazilian Biochemical Society has a total membership of 400. To join the Society the minimum requirement is one published paper: a PhD degree is not necessary; (2) in Brazil only six departments of biochemistry award PhD degrees in biochemistry; (3) among the biochemistry departments that have significant scientific productivity, the total number of faculty members is only 490. 7 It was not possible to retrieve from governmental agencies the number of students supported by them in Brazil and abroad, but who did not complete their graduate degree or, having done so, did not return to Brazil. It is also not known how many have left the academic world to go into industry or who have abandoned science altogether. The individuals who form part of this Study work in state or federal universities in seven states (Tables 1-3). Of the 60 biochemists in the survey, 51 found their first employment in the university where they graduated and have never changed jobs. Of the 9 that went to work in a different university, only 3 moved to a different state. The biochemists studied ranged in age from 30 to 67 years. The curricula vitae of these research workers were analyzed on the following basis: (1) time spent obtaining the PhD ,degree; (2) number of papers published while working for the degree, as a post-doctoral fellow, and during the ensuing professional career; (3) the impact factor of the journals in which the articles appeared. This latter index is based on the SCI Journal Citation Reports,8 BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 18(4) 1990

in which each scientific journal registered in the SCI database is assigned an 'Impact Factor' representing the average annual citation rate of articles published in that journal, measured during the first two years following publication. It is assumed that the higher the impact factor of a given journal, the higher the quality of the papers published by the journal. For instance, the impact factors of Nature, Science, J Biol Chem, Biochem J and Biochim Biophys Acta are 15.0, 14.3, 6.4, 3.8 and 2.4 respectively. 8 Costs and productivity of Brazilian biochemists The biochemists studied were divided into three groups: those who went to Europe or USA to obtain a PhD (Table 1), those who received a PhD in Brazil and never went abroad for post-doctoral training (Table 2), and finally those who after obtaining their PhD in Brazil, were granted a post-doctoral fellowship for training in N America or Europe (Table 3). Table 4 summarizes the data obtained for the three different groups, and shows the cost of training each type of student. In the calculation of the expenditure needed to obtain a PhD degree, only the university registration fee and living expenses were included. The amount spent on bench fees was not included. A fellowship for a PhD degree is more expensive than a post-doctoral fellowship because registration fees have to be paid (Table 4). A surprising finding was that the performance of the biochemists who obtained a PhD in Brazil and never went abroad for formal training (Table 2) was essentially the same as that of those who went to advanced centers in the USA and Europe (Table 1). Those who studied in Brazil took a little longer to obtain their degrees, but the scientific productivity as estimated by the number of papers and from the impact of the journals where these papers were published was essentially the same, both during PhD training and during the subsequent professional life. However, the cost of training a biochemist overseas was four times higher than in Brazil (Table 4). Among the three groups studied, the best performance during professional life in Brazil was shown by biochemists who received a PhD in Brazil and went to the USA or Europe for post-doctoral training (Table 3). Of the 15 biochemists in this group, 11 published more papers annually during their post-doctoral training than.while they worked in Brazil for a PhD degree and these papers appeared in journals of equal or greater impact. On average, during their post-doctoral training the biochemists in Table 3 published 1.76 + 0.3 (~ + SE) articles per year, with a mean impact of 2.38 + 05 and maintained their higher scientific productivity after returning to Brazil (Table 4). Statistical analysis revealed that the 15 scientists who received post-doctoral training abroad published more papers annually during their post-doctoral years than during their doctoral training in Brazil (p < 0.02 by the nonparametric statistical test of Wilcoxon). The difference in numbers of publications during post-doctoral training and later professional life was not significant (17 =

184

Table 1 Biochemists sent to N America and Europe for a PhD degree Scientific performance Yearsa

During PhD training Public~yearb

Impact c

Years d

Public/year

Impact

S~o Paulo

4 3 5 5 5

1.00 2.33 0.80 1.00 2.20

2.30 0.50 4.23 4.37 4.66

34 22 5 3 2

1.38 1.64 0.40 0.67 2.00

2.64 0.64 0.73 3.21 4.99

Rio de Janeiro

4 5 4 3

3.00 0.40 2.25 0.67

1.88 1.53 5.76 2.65

6 5 12 12

1.50 1.00 2.00 0.25

1.35 0.61 1.91 1.97

Minas Gerais

4 4 4

0.25 0.50 0.25

5.31 5.07 0.35

23 20 10

0.91 1.80 1.40

0.37 1.92 0.46

Rio G r a n d e do Sul

4

0.50

1.72

4

4.00

0.32

Pernambuco

4 4 3

0 0 0

0 0 0

16 10 5

0.56 0.30 0

0.18 0.93 0

Ceara

5 4 4 4 4 6 4

1.20 0.25 0.25 1.75 0.25 1.50 0.25

0.40 1.58 2.98 3.05 1.47 1.32 0.35

16 6 6 4 4 4 2

1.00 0.33 0.33 1.50 0 0 0.50

0.55 1.66 2.28 0 0 0 0.32

Paranfi

4

0.25

1.01

0.60

0.85

14 12

1.79

5

0.84 0.33

State of Brazil

After returning to Brazil

1.25

aYears spent overseas to obtain PhD. bNumber of scientific papers published while studying to obtain the PhD divided by the number of years spent in obtaining the degree, cSum of the impact factors for the journals that published the papers in b, divided by the total number of publications, aYears working in Brazil after PhD. By the nonparametric statistical test of Wilcoxon, there was no difference between the number of papers published during PhD studies and after returning to Brazil (p = 0.34). For impact, p was 0.05, ie on the boundary of significance

0.58). T h e r e was no difference in the impact of the journals over the three periods (p = 0.80 and 0.69). The averages presented in Table 4 show that while they were studying, all three groups of biochemists published the same n u m b e r of papers per year and in journals having the same impact factor. Based on the nonparametric statistical test of M a n n - W h i t n e y , a comparison between students who studied abroad and those who studied in Brazil showed that publications produced in the course of thei~ P h D work were no m o r e n u m e r o u s (p = 0.19) nor of g r e a t e r i m p a c t (p = 0.95) for one group than for the other. This suggests that the quality of the training that the students received while working for a P h D thesis in Brazil was not much different from that of those who went overseas. A m o n g those who received a P h D in

BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 18(4) 1990

Brazil, the ones who did not take post-doctoral training abroad took one m o r e year on the average to obtain a degree (Table 4). This difference is probably not related to a difference in talent a m o n g the two groups of biochemists. Until recently, Brazilian funding agencies granted post-doctoral fellowships only to those which went overseas. Fellowships for post-doctoral training inside Brazil have been available only since 1988. Therefore, a student in Brazil would have reason to postpone his or her P h D defence in order to hold on to the P h D fellowship until another r e m u n e r a t e d working position could be found.

The adaptation problem The data in Table 4 show that post-doctoral training

185

Table 2 Biochemists who received the PhD degree in Brazil Scientific performance Years a

During PhD training Public~year b

Impact ~

Years d

Professional life Public~year

Impact

S~o P a u l o

4 7 4 3 2 3 5 5 5 7 5

0.75 0.14 0.50 0.33 1.50 0.67 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.43 2.40

6.34 0 2.35 4.23 2.36 2.33 1.03 1.33 3.78 2.58 3.24

18 14 7 14 18 <1 4 6 11 <1 11

1.00 0.50 1.00 0.93 0.39 nd 0.25 1.17 0.82 nd 1.18

1.38 0.72 2.41 2.42 1.82 nd 0 1.18 0.65 nd 2.24

Rio de Janeiro

4

1.25

3.93

<1

nd

nd

10 4 4 7 3 4 4 11

0.30 1.00 3.00 0.71 3.67 1.25 2.00 0.27

1.59 1.65 0.47 0.83 0.42 0.36 0.43 0.51

<1 3 3 <1 8 18 3 <1

nd 0.33 0.33 nd 1.25 0.83 0.67 nd

nd 1.02 0.86 nd 1.28 0.70 0.08 nd

State of Brazil

Parana

aYears spent to obtain PhD; b'c'das in Table 1. By the nonparametric statistical test of Wilcoxon, there was no difference between the number of papers published (t7 = 0.46) or impact of the journals (p = 0.46) when the period of PhD training was compared with that of the professional life. nd: For biochemists with less than one year of professional life, these numbers were not computed and not included in the averages of Table 4

Table 3 Biochemists who went overseas for post-doctoral training after receiving a PhD degree in Brazil

State of Brazil

Ys a

During PhD Pub/yr b

lmpt c

Sciennfic performance Post-doctoral Ys a Pub/yr b Impt ~

Ys a

After Post-doc Pub/yr b lmpt c

Silo Paulo

6 4 4 2 2

0.50 0.25 2.75 0.50 2.00

2.95 1.21 0.44 1.35 2.39

1 2.5 2 1 2

1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 1.50

1.63 8.34 2.92 1.66 2.10

<1 5 16 21 <1

nd 1.40 1.94 1.52 nd

nd 0.84 2.90 1.95 nd

Rio de Janeiro

5 2 3 2 3 2 3

0.40 1.00 0.67 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00

5.94 6.01 4.18 0.67 2.89 1.97 2.15

2 2 2 2 3 3 2

2.00 0 1 2 1.33 3.00 2.00

2.00 0 2.47 2.06 2.49 4.21 3.87

<1 <1 10 7 12 10 10

nd nd 0.60 3.86 2.83 1.50 0.70

nd nd 1.72 2.90 1.70 5.55 4.76

Minas Gerais

Parana

3

1.00

3.58

4

1.00

3

1.67

1.51

2

0.50

1.29 0

16 4

2.00 0.75

1.61 1.08

4

0.25

1.46

2

1.00

0.73

17

1.47

0.54

~Years; bpublications per year; Clmpact of the publications determined as shown in Table 1. nd as in Table 1 BIOCHEMICAL

EDUCATION

18(4) 1990

186 Table 4 Costs of training biochemists in Brazil and overseas During PhD

Training PhD Overseas (n = 25)

PhD in Brazil (n = 20)

PhD in Brazil and Post-doc overseas (n = 15)

Cost in $US (thousands) Per year Total a 30

6

6-18#

126

30

55 @

Professional life Publ/year Impact

Years

Publ/year

Impact

4.20 +

0.86 +

2.13 +

1.06 +

1.13 +

0.14

0.17

0.37

0.18

0.24

5.05 +

1.07 __

1.99 +

0.76 +

1.20 +

0.52

0.22

0.37

0.09

0.21

3.20 +

0.97 +

2.58 +

1.69" +

2.32* +

0.31

0.18

0.44

0.29

0.48

Years, publications per year and impact are average and standard errors from Tables 1-3. ~Average current cost per year × average of number of years of PhD study. #Numbers show average annual cost (left) of PhD and (right) of post-doctoral fellowshipoverseas. @Sumof total cost for PhD (3.2 years) and post-doc (2 years). *p < 0.01 compared to other groups in the same column (Student's t test). During PhD training, there was no statistical difference in the scientificproductivity among the three groups overseas is effective in improving the scientific productivity of Brazilian biochemists, but that no advantage is gained from sending them abroad to obtain a PhD. When department chairmen were asked how they compared their faculty members who obtained a PhD abroad with those who went overseas only for postdoctoral training, all of them responded that the individuals of the first group suffered adjustment problems upon their return. This group tended to demand working conditions similar to those to which they were accustomed in the centres where they had studied and found it extremely difficult to be productive in Brazil. The group that went abroad as post-doctoral fellows, on the other hand, had a better notion of what to expect on their return, and apparently had been able to keep the reality of Brazilian working conditions in mind. As a result they were better able to re-adapt to Brazil and therefore tended to be more productive. It could be argued that adaptation becomes a more crucial problem if the individual returns to an institution where the working conditions are less than optimal. While this may be true, it is possible to find individuals who are productive even in places with a less than favourable infrastructure, suggesting that local drawbacks can be overcome given sufficient drive and talent on the part of the person involved. This is exemplified in Table 5, which shows the performance of three non-Brazilian scientists who worked for long periods in developed countries and then, for various reasons, came to Brazil to work in research centres which were not the most advanced in the country. Because of their competence, these scientists had occupied leading positions in advanced research centers in their home countries: After settling in Brazilian universities in Pernambuco, Parana and Rio Grande do Sul, they were able not only to maintain their scientific proB I O C H E M I C A L E D U C A T I O N 18(4) 1990

ductivity, but also to train other investigators and attract funds for their departments. Table 5 Performance of selected foreign biochemists in Brazil

Biochemist A B C

Before moving to Brazil Publ/ Years Yeara Impactb 5 15 5

4.80 6.87 2.40

1.62 1.66 6.51

After moving to Brazil Publ/ Years Year Impact 15 5 10

6.00 5.60 2.20

1.91 1.68 2.33

a'bAs in Table 1

The brain drain A n o t h e r explanation for the unexpectedly low productivity of biochemists who went abroad to obtain a PhD might be that only the less talented amongst them returned, the better ones having accepted positions in their country of study. That this may play a role can be inferred from the increasing demand for scientists and engineers in developed countries. This is shown in Table 6 with data from the u s a . 4'9 From 1976 to 1986 the number of employed scientists and engineers in the USA increased by a factor of 1.98. This was not accompanied by a parallel increase in the number of graduate students (Fig 1 and Table 6): in the same period, the total enrollment in institutions granting doctorates in science and engineering increased by a factor of only 1.21. Most of this increment was due to a significant increase in the number of foreigners enrolled in these institutions (Table 6). This tendency for young scientists to migrate to First World countries may be reinforced by the large difference in age between the populations of developed and developing countries (Fig 2). In underdeveloped countries a much larger fraction of the population is less than 24 years old.

187

Table 6 Science and technology in the USA Year

Indicator

1976

1986

(A) Employed scientists 2 331 x 103 4 626 x 103 and engineers (B) Population 0-24 97 617 × 103 96 090 x 103 years old (C) Number of 0-24 year olds who should study science in order to maintain the current work force* 41.9 20.8 (D) Graduate enrollment in science and engineering doctoralgranting institutions Total 214 089 259 980 Foreign 34 400 72 809 (A) and (D) are fromref 4 and (B) and (C) fromref 9. *The indicator (C) was calculatedby dividingthe populationin the 0-24 yearage group (B) by the number of employedscientists(A) The difference in age distribution increased over the last decade. The population aged 0-24 years in Latin America increased from 169.4 million in 1975 to 240.2 million in 1985 while in N America this age group decreased from 104.3 million in 1975 to 102.6 million in 1985 (Fig 2). The same pattern is observed in the USA as in N America (Table 6) and as a whole this trend must make it difficult to maintain the work force in science and technology. In order to replace the workers in this field in 1976 in one generation, one out of every 41.9 young Americans would have had to choose to study science. Ten years later, the Developed

~es I +

eounbies

I00

DeveLoping

0 I00 200 MiLLions

300 400

500

number of working scientists was proportionately greater, and since this increase in demand was not accompanied by an increase in the 0-24 age group, replacement of this work force by Americans would require that one out of every 20.8 young Americans should study science (Table 6). This apparently has not occurred. Fig 3 shows that between 1975 and 1985 there was a significant increase of the median age of the population working in the USA in science and technology. In 1982, foreignborn, naturalized scientists and engineers made up 13 percent of the US workforce in these areas. 4 There are no statistics available on the extent of the 'brain drain' from Brazil to advanced countries. However we asked ten biochemists who are working in Brazil and who are known for their high professional standards, 3,7 whether they knew of talented Brazilian biochemists who had emigrated to developed countries. Each of them was immediately able to mention more than ten such biochemists. Next we asked whether they knew of unproductive biochemists who had obtained a position in an advanced country. None of them could recall a single case, but all of them were able to name an overwhelming list of such cases in Brazil.

The quest for talent The above observations suggest that with the appropriate drive and talent it is possible to overcome Third World obstacles and increase the scientific development of a country. It is difficult to assess talent among scientists. Analysis of the frequency with which the work of any one scientist is quoted by others may give a clue to the distribution of talent among scientists. Even considering the influence of trends and fashion in science and the high frequency of citation of methods, 1°-12 the data in Table 7 indicate that the science that causes a real impact is produced by a small number of scientists. This table shows that only 14% of all scientists who appeared as first authors in the Science Citation Index had their work quoted in 1982 more than 12 times. We do not know how many papers are never quoted. Thus, among all authors the percentage whose work was cited is much smaller than that shown in Table 7. From these data it can be inferred 25

2O

i

~ .......

Northern

America

~

~0

20

2

~

I0

-

-

-

0 I0 MtLUons

-

20

1975 I 1985

15

LoOn 1 America

30

40

50

I0

60 <30

Figure 2 World Population-Age groups. The data are from refs 1 and 9. "N America" includes Bermuda, Canada, Greenland, St Pierre and Miquelon, and the USA. "'Latin America" is the rest of America

BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 18(4) 1990

35-~

.:,',~-ZA

45-49

40-44

55-59

50-54

){55

60-64

Age

Figure 3 Age distribution of employed US scientists and engineers. (0) 1975; (91) 1985. The data are from ref 4

188 that many students must be trained in science in order to ensure production of a few whose work will have a significant impact. These few are the scientists most likely to improve both the scientific productivity and the training of new scientists in Brazil.

(FINEP), Fundaq~io Amparo a Pesquisa do Rio de Janeiro, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico and Fundaq~o Banco do Brasil. The authors are grateful to Dr Vivian Barral Dodd Rumjanek and Dr Martha M. Sorenson for helpful discussion of the manuscript and to both FINEP and Lucia Fonseca of FINEP for providing data concerning scientific publications in Brazil.

References

Table 7 Citation frequency in 1982 Number of citations

% of authors

l t o 12 13 to 28 29to 44 45 to 58 59 to 90 90 to 124 124 to 180 >180

86.1 7.2 2.8 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.4

Source: Science Citation Index, 1983. The total number of scientists cited in 1982 (100% in the table) was 519 551. The number of citations refers only to publications in which the scientist appears as the first author. Citations include those citing their own work

Conclusions and proposal The low number of degrees granted in Brazil (Fig 1) is related to the lack of skilled biochemists available to select and train students in the laboratory (see 'Profile of the sample studied' above and references 2, 3 and 6). Therefore, it is proposed that instead of sending young students overseas, qualified scientists should be brought into the country to train students. The aim would be to import capable experienced scientists, not those with the highest qualifications whom it would be impossible to contract, but scientists having qualifications similar to those of Table 5. In 1985 the median annual salary of employed doctoral scientists and engineers in the USA varied between $35 000 and $52 000 depending on age. 4 Using these salaries as a reference and allowing for inflation in the last 5 years, it would be possible to pay the salary of one senior scientist with the sum spent to send two students overseas to acquire a PhD. Thus, with the funds spent by the CNPq and CAPES to send 5 500 students overseas in 1989, 5 it would be possible to import 2 250 talented scientists. This number is small when compared to the scientific workforce in the USA, but it would represent a formidable addition to the scientific workforce in Brazil. A major drawback to this proposal is the difficulty of finding high-level scientists willing to move from the country where they are settled to underdeveloped countries. This might be circumvented by selecting senior scientists who are approaching retirement. If these scientists have had a productive career, their experience could be extremely valuable for the training of young students. Acknowledgement This investigation was supported by Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos

BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION 18(4) 1990

1Aurelio Peccei. 100 pages pour l'avenir. Reflexion du Club de Rome. Editions Economica, Paris 1981. 2Martin, B R, Irvine, J, Narin, F and Sterritt, C (1987) Nature 330, 123-126 3de Meis, L, Longo, P H and Falcfio, E B M (1989) Biochem Educ 17, 127-132 4 National Patterns of Science and Technology Resources: 1987. Survey of Science Resources Series National Science Foundation, USA. NSF 88-305 SAnderson, A (1989) Nature 342, 355-374 6Investimentos na formacao de recursos humanos e fomento a pesquisa. Relatorio Institucional: Resultados Finais dos Julgamentos pelos comites assessores em 1989 - - Programas Basicos. CNPq, Conselho Nacional do Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico. Brasilia, November 1989 7Meneghini, R and Fonseca, L (1990) Ciencia e Cultura, in press 8Garfield, E (editor) (1987) SC1 Journal Citation Reports, Institute for Scientific Information 9Statistical Year book UNESCO, 1984 WMacRoberts, M H and MacRoberts, B R (1989) Trends Biochem Sci 14, 8-12 llCole, S (1989) Trends Biochem Sci 14, 9-13 12Seglen, P O (1989) Trends Biochem Sci 14, 326-327

Teaching To Do or Teaching About* BRUCE CHARLTON

Department of Anatomy University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland Introduction There is a long running educational debate about whether teaching should be vocational or liberal; whether we should be teaching people to do specific jobs or instilling more abstract educational virtues. The case for either side is well rehearsed by now. But in a sense both sides have got it wrong. Whatever the aims of teaching, the achievement is shaped by how the teaching is done and, in particular, how it is examined. The fact that we may be giving a lecture on philosophy on the one hand, or bricklaying on the other, is secondary to the fact that we are giving a lecture. We are telling the students about the subject, and we are not teaching them to do it. This is reinforced by the usual methods of examination. The form of an examination (or, more accurately, the form as perceived by the students) is a powerful force moulding what the student learns. In English literature, for example, although there may be much wide-ranging * This article first appeared in the A UT Bulletin and is reproduced here by kind permission of the Editor