biomedical research in usa

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) Committee for Monitoring the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical, Behavioral, and Clinical Personnel. Advancing the Nation's Health Needs: NIH Research Training Programs. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2005.

Advancing the Nation's Health Needs: NIH Research Training Programs.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

2 Basic Biomedical Sciences Research

Basic biomedical research, which addresses mechanisms that underlie the formation and function of living organisms, ranging from the study of single molecules to complex integrated functions of humans, contributes profoundly to our knowledge of how disease, trauma, or genetic defects alter normal physiological and behavioral processes. Recent advances in molecular biology techniques and characterization of the human genome, as well as the genomes of an increasing number of model organisms, have provided basic biomedical researchers with the tools to elucidate molecular-, cellular-, and systems-level processes at an unprecedented depth and rate.

Thus basic biomedical research affects clinical research and vice versa. Biomedical researchers supply many of the new ideas that can be translated into potential therapies and subsequently tested in clinical studies, while clinical researchers may suggest novel mechanisms of disease that can then be tested in basic studies using animal models.

The tools also now exist to rapidly apply insights gained from model organisms to human health and disease. For example, gene mutations known to contribute to human disease can be investigated in model organisms, whose underlying characteristics lend them to rapid assessment. Resulting treatment strategies can then be tested in mammalian species prior to the design of human clinical trials.

These and other mutually supportive systems suggest that such interactions between basic biomedical and clinical researchers not only will continue but will grow as the two domains keep expanding. But the two corresponding workforces will likely remain, for the most part, distinct.

Similarly, there is a symbiosis between basic biomedical and behavioral and social sciences research (covered in Chapter 3 ) and an obvious overlap at the interface of neuroscience, physiological psychology, and behavior. The boundary between these areas is likely to remain indistinct as genetic and environmental influences that affect brain formation and function are better understood. Consequently, such investigations will impact the study of higher cognitive functions, motivation, and other areas traditionally studied by behavioral and social scientists.

Basic biomedical research will therefore undoubtedly continue to play a central role in the discovery of novel mechanisms underlying human disease and in the elucidation of those suggested by clinical studies. As an example, although a number of genes that contribute to disorders such as Huntington's, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's disease have been identified, the development of successful therapies will require an understanding of the role that the proteins encoded by these genes play in normal cellular processes. Similarly, realizing the potential of stem cell–based therapies for a number of disorders will require characterization of the signals that cause stem cells to differentiate into specific cell types. Thus a workforce trained in basic biomedical research will be needed to apply current knowledge and that gained in the future toward the improvement of human health. Since such research will be carried out not only in academic institutions but increasingly in industry as well, the workforce must be sufficient to supply basic biomedical researchers for large pharmaceutical companies as well as smaller biotech and bioengineering firms, thereby contributing to the economy as well as human health.

The role of the independent investigator in academe, industry, and government is crucial to this research enterprise. They provide the ideas that expand knowledge and the research that leads to discovery. The doubling of the NIH budget has increased the number of research grants and the number of investigators but not at a rate commensurate to the budget increases. Grants have become bigger and senior investigators have received more of them. While this trend has not decreased the nation's research capacity, there may be things that will affect the future pool of independent researchers, such as a sufficient number of academic faculty that can apply for research grants, an industrial workforce that is more application oriented, and most important, a decline in doctorates from U.S. institutions.

• BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH WORKFORCE

The research workforce for the biomedical sciences is broad and diverse. It is primarily composed of individuals who hold Ph.D.s, though it also includes individuals with broader educational backgrounds, such as those who have earned their M.D.s from the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) or other dual-degree programs. In addition, some individuals with M.D.s but without Ph.D.s have acquired the necessary training to do basic biomedical research. But although the analysis in this report should ideally be based on the entire workforce just defined, there are no comprehensive databases that identify the research activities of M.D.s. Therefore much of the analysis will be restricted to holders of a Ph.D. in one of the fields listed in Appendix C , with the assumption that an individual's area of research is related to his or her degree field. A separate section in this chapter is devoted to M.D.s doing biomedical research, and an analysis of the clinical research M.D. workforce is given in Chapter 4 .

It should also be noted that the discussion in this chapter does not include individuals with doctorates in other professions, such as dentistry and nursing even if they hold a Ph.D. in addition to their professional degrees. However, there are important workforce issues in these two fields, and they are addressed separately in Chapters 5 and 6 of this report.

• EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSION

The major sources of Ph.D. researchers in the biomedical sciences are the U.S. research universities, but a substantial number also come from foreign institutions. These scientists, whether native or foreign born, enter the U.S. biomedical research workforce either directly into permanent assignments or via postdoctoral positions.

For most doctorates in the biomedical sciences, interest in the field begins at an early age, in high school or even grade school. In fact, almost all high school graduates (93 percent) in the class of 1998 took a biology course—a rate much greater than other science fields, for which the percentages are below 60 percent. 1 Even in the early 1980s, over 75 percent of high school graduates had taken biology, compared to about 30 percent for chemistry, which had the next-highest enrollment. This interest in biology continues into college, with 7.3 percent of the 2000 freshman science and engineering (S&E) population having declared a major in biology. This was an increase from about 6 percent of freshman majors in the early 1980s but less than the high of about 9.5 percent in the mid-1990s. Overall, the number of freshman biology majors increased from about 50,000 in the early 1980s to over 73,000 in 2000. 2 In terms of actual bachelor's degrees awarded in the biological sciences, there was a decrease from about 47,000 in 1980 to 37,000 in 1989 and then a relatively sharp rise to over 67,000 in 1998. This was followed by a slight decline to about 65,000 in 2000.

There is attrition, however, in the transition from undergraduate to graduate school. In the 1980s and 1990s only about 11,000 first-year students were enrolled at any one time in graduate school biology programs. Percentage-wise, this loss of students is greater than in other S&E fields but is understandable: many undergraduates obtain a bachelor's degree in biology as a precursor to medical school and have no intention of graduate study in biology per se. The total graduate enrollment in biomedical sciences at Ph.D.-granting institutions grew in the early 1990s and was steady at a little under 50,000 during the latter part of the decade. However, there was some growth in 2001, of about 4 percent over the 2000 level, and the growth from 2000 to 2002 was about 10 percent (see Figure 2-1 ), driven in large part by an 18.9 percent increase of temporary residents. The overall growth may not continue, however, as the first-year enrollment for this group slowed from 8.9 percent in 2001 to 3.0 percent in 2002.

First-year and total graduate enrollment in the biomedical sciences at Ph.D.-granting institutions, 1980–2002. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

The tendency for graduate students to receive a doctorate in a field similar to that of their baccalaureate degree is not as strong in the biomedical sciences as it is in other fields, where it is about 85 percent. From 1993 to 2002, some 68.4 percent of the doctorates in biomedical programs received their bachelor's degree in the same field and another 8.4 percent received bachelor's degrees in chemistry. 3 This relative tendency to shift fields should not be viewed negatively, however, as doctoral students with exposure to other disciplines at the undergraduate level could provide the opportunity for greater interdisciplinary training and research.

• EARLY CAREER PROGRESSION IN THE BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES

Advances in biomedical research and health care delivery, together with a strong economy in the 1990s and increased R&D support, drove the growth of academic programs. Total academic R&D expenditures in the biological sciences, in 2001 dollars, began to rise dramatically in the early 1980s. They started from a base of about $3 billion and reached a plateau of almost $5 billion in the mid-1990s. As seen in Figure 2-2 , this increase of about $2 billion was virtually repeated in the much shorter period from the late 1990s to 2002, as the NIH budget doubled. Although the increases in R&D support during the earlier period were reflected in the increased graduate enrollments of the 1980s and mid-1990s (seen in Figure 2-1 ), the enrollments since then have not kept pace with fast-growing R&D expenditures. This disconnect between research funding and enrollment in the late 1990s is difficult to explain but could in part be due to the unsettled career prospects in the biomedical sciences. In a report 4 from the American Society for Cell Biology, the authors examined the data on enrollment and surveyed both undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctorates on their career goals and found that students were aware of and concerned about the problem young people were having in establishing an independent research career. This ASCB report, as well as in the National Research Council report, Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists, 5 express concern for the future of biomedical research, if the best young people pursue different career paths. This slowdown in graduate enrollment in the late 1990s might have also contributed to the expansion of the postdoctoral and non-tenure-track faculty pool of researchers, since there was an increasing need for research personnel.

Academic research and development expenditures in the biological sciences. (All dollars are in thousands.) SOURCE: National Science Foundation R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, 1973–2002. Adjusted to 2002 dollars by the Biomedical (more...)

The increase in funding and enrollments in the early 1990s did lead to an increase in doctoral degrees awarded in the late 1990s, as seen in Figure 2-3 . Since the 1970s, Ph.D.s awarded by U.S. institutions in the biomedical sciences increased from roughly 3,000 then to 5,366 in 2002. Most of the increase occurred in the mid-1990s and has since remained fairly constant. The year with the largest number of doctorates was 2000, when 5,532 degrees were awarded. The number of degrees in 2000 may be an anomaly, since the number in 2001 (5,397 Ph.D.), 2002 (5,375 Ph.D.), and 2003 (5,412 Ph.D.) are more in line with the number in the late 1990s (see Appendix Table E-1 ).

Number of doctorates in the biomedical sciences, 1970–2003. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2001.

Increases in doctorates were seen among women, temporary residents, and underrepresented minorities. Notably, since 1986 much of the increase in the number of doctorates has come from increased participation by women. In 1970 only 16 percent of doctorates were awarded to women; by 2003 the percentage had grown to 45.2. Temporary residents earned about 10 percent of the doctorates in 1970, and although this had increased to almost one-quarter in the early 2000s, it was still lower than the percentage awarded in many other fields in the physical sciences and engineering. Participation by underrepresented minorities in 2003 stood at 9.4 percent—as in many other S&E fields, substantially below their representation in the general population.

The percentage of doctorates with definite postdoctoral study plans increased from about 50 percent in the early 1970s to a high of 79 percent in 1995. It then declined to 71 percent in 2002 but increased to 75 percent in 2003. The changes in doctorates electing postdoctoral study are reflected in those choosing employment after they received their degrees (from 20 percent in 1995 to 28 percent in 2002 and 25 percent in 2003). It is difficult to find reasons for these changes in career plans. Prior to 2003 it may be the result of more diverse and attractive employment opportunities generated by recent advances in the applied biological sciences, especially in industry, or a conscious choice not to pursue an academic research career, where postdoctoral training is required since an academic position may not be available down the road. The increase in postdoctoral appointments in 2003 and the decline in employment might be due to poor economic conditions in the early part of this decade. Whether these changes will impact the quality of the biomedical workforce and its research should be monitored.

Time to degree, age at receipt of degree, and the long training period prior to reaching R01 research status have been cited as critical issues in the career progression of biomedical researchers. 6 Graduate students are taking longer and longer periods of time to earn their Ph.Ds. The median registered time in a graduate degree program gradually increased from 5.4 years in 1970 to 6.7 years in 2003, and the median age of a newly minted degree holder in the biomedical sciences grew during the same period—from 28.9 in 1970 to 30.6 in 2003 (see Appendix E ). It should be noted that this time to degree is shorter than those of such fields as physics, computer science, and the earth sciences. Only chemistry, mathematics, and engineering have a lower median age at time of degree. While shortening the time in graduate school would reduce the age at which doctorates could become independent investigators, it may not significantly affect their career paths since postdoctoral training is required of almost all researchers in the biomedical sciences, and the time spent in these positions seems to be lengthening.

With the growth of research funding and productivity in the biomedical sciences, the postdoctoral appointment has become a normal part of research training. From the 1980s to the late 1990s, the number of postdoctoral appointments doubled for doctorates from U.S. educational institutions (see Figure 2-4 ). The rapid increase in the postdoctoral pool from 1993 to 1999 in particular appears to be the result of longer training periods for individuals and not the result of an increase in the number of individuals being trained since Table E-1 shows a decline in the number of new doctorates planning postdoctoral study and the number of doctorates has remained fairly constant over recent years.

Postdoctoral appointments in the biomedical sciences by sector, 1973–2001. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

The lengthening of postdoctoral training is documented by data collected in 1995 on the employment history of doctorates. 7 Of the Ph.D.s who pursued postdoctoral study after graduating in the early 1970s, about 35 percent spent less than two years and about 65 percent spent more than 2 years in a postdoctoral appointment. By contrast, of Ph.D.s who received their degrees in the late 1980s and completed postdoctorates in the 1990s, 80 percent spent more than two years and 20 percent spent less than 2 years in such appointments. More indicative of the change in postdoctoral training was the increase in the proportion that spent more than 4 years in a position, from about 20 percent to nearly 40 percent.

In 2001 the number of postdoctoral appointments actually declined across all employment sectors. This decline might be the result of lower interest by new doctorates in postdoctoral study and an academic career but is probably a response to the highlighting of issues related to postdoctoral appointments, such as the long periods of training with lack of employment benefits, the general perception that the positions are more like low-paying jobs than training experiences, and the poor prospects of a follow-up position as an independent investigator. Not only is interest in postdoctoral positions declining, there appears to be more rapid movement out of them by present incumbents. (These phenomena are more fully explored in Chapter 9 , Career Progression.)

The above discussion applies only to U.S. doctorates. There are also a large number of individuals with Ph.D.s from foreign institutions being trained in postdoctoral positions in U.S. educational institutions and other employment sectors. Data from another source are available for postdoctorates from this population at academic institutions, 8 but there is no source for data in the industrial, governmental, and nonprofit sectors other than an estimate that about half of the 4,000 intramural postdoctoral appointments at NIH are held by temporary residents. Almost all of these temporary residents have foreign doctorates. The number of temporary residents in academic institutions steadily increased through the 1980s and 1990s until 2002 when the number reached 10,000 (see Figure 2-5 ). The data also show that the rate at which temporary residents took postdoctoral positions slowed in 2002. The decline in academic appointments in 2001 for U.S. citizens and permanent residents population that was described above is also seen in this data, but that might be temporary since there was an increase in 2002. The reasons for this change may be twofold: a tighter employment market for citizens and permanent residents and immigration restrictions. However, it is still important to recognize that foreign-educated researchers hold about two-thirds of the postdoctoral positions in academic institutions. If national security policies were to limit the flow of foreign scientists into the United States, this could adversely affect the research enterprise in the biomedical sciences.

Postdoctoral appointments in academic institutions in the biomedical sciences. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

• A PORTRAIT OF THE WORKFORCE

The traditional career progression for biomedical scientists after graduate school includes a postdoctoral position followed by an academic appointment, either a tenure-track or nonpermanent appointment that is often on “soft” research money. As shown in Figure 2-6 , the total population of academic biomedical sciences researchers, excluding postdoctoral positions, grew at an average annual rate of 3.1 percent from 1975 to 1989. 9

Academic positions for doctorates in the biomedical sciences, 1975–2001. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

Since 1995, growth slowed to about 2.5 percent, with almost all of the growth in the non-tenure-track area. From 1999 to 2001 there was actually a decline in the number of non-tenure-track positions (by a few hundred). The fastest-growing employment category since the early 1980s has been “Other Academic Appointments,” which is currently increasing at about 4.9 percent annually (see Appendix E-2 ). These jobs are essentially holding positions, filled by young researchers, coming from postdoctoral experiences, who would like to join an academic faculty on a tenure track and are willing to wait. In effect, they are gambling because institutions are restricting the number of faculty appointments in order to reduce the possible long-term commitments that come with such positions. From 1993 to 2001, the number of tenure-track appointments increased by only 13.8 percent, while those for non-tenure-track faculty and other academic appointments increased by 45.1 percent and 38.9 percent, respectively.

The longer time to independent research status is also seen by looking at the age distributions of tenure-track faculty over the past two decades (see Figure 2-7 ). By comparing age cohorts in 1985 and 2001, it is observed that doctorates entered tenure-track positions at a later age in 2001.

Age distribution of biomedical tenured and tenure-track faculty, 1985, 1993, and 2001. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

For example, while about 1,000 doctorates in the 33 to 34 age cohort were in faculty positions in 1985, only about half that number were similarly employed in 2001, even though the number of doctorates for that cohort was greater in the late 1990s than in the early 1980s. The age cohort data also show that the academic workforce is aging, with about 20 percent of the 2001 academic workforce over the age of 58. The constraints of a rather young biomedical academic workforce and the conservative attitudes of institutions to not expand their faculties in the tight economic times of the early 1990s may have slowed the progression of young researchers into research positions. However, this may change in the next 8 to 10 years as more faculty members retire.

Meanwhile, over 40 percent of the biomedical sciences workforce is employed in nonacademic institutions (see Figure 2-8 ). Researchers' employment in industry, the largest of these other sectors, has been growing at a 15 percent rate over the past 20 years. There was a lull in employment in the early 1990s, but growth since the mid-1990s has been strong. The increases in industrial employment may be due to the unavailability of faculty positions, but is more likely fueled by the R&D growth in pharmaceutical and other medical industries from $9.3 billion in 1992 to $24.6 in 2001 (constant 2001 dollars). 10 In 1992 almost all of this funding was from nonfederal sources, but in 2001 only 42 percent was from those sources. The result of this increase in federal funding has resulted in an increase in R&D employment, but not as large as would be expected. It is difficult to estimate the increase in biomedical doctorates in this industrial sector since they are drawn from many fields and are at different degree levels, but the total full-time equivalent R&D scientists and engineers increased 6.2 percent from 38,700 in 1992 to 41,100 in 2001. 11 However, there may be a trend toward increased employment in this sector, since a growing fraction of new doctorates are planning industrial employment (see Table E-1 ). The downturn in 2003 may be an anomaly due to the economy and not the strength of the medical industry, but data from a longer time period will be needed before definite trends in industrial employment can be determined. The government and nonprofit sectors have been fairly stable in their use of biomedical scientists, with about 8 and 4 percent growth rates, respectively, in recent years.

Employment of biomedical scientists by sector, 1973–2001. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Doctorate Recipients.

The number of underrepresented minorities in the basic biomedical sciences workforce increased from 1,066 in 1975 to 5,345 in 2001 and now accounts for 5.3 percent of the research employment in the field. Even though the annual average rate of growth for minorities in the workforce has been 15 percent over the past 10 years—more than twice the growth rate of the total workforce (6.5 percent)—the overall representation of minorities in biomedical research is still a small percentage of the overall workforce (see Appendix E-2 ). Their representation is also important from the scientific perspective, since researchers from minority groups may be better able and willing to address minority health care issues.

• PHYSICIAN-RESEARCHERS

Throughout this report Ph.D.s are considered to be researchers or potential researchers, but no such assumption is made of M.D.s because they could be practitioners. The above discussion, in particular, applies only to Ph.D.s in the fields listed in Appendix C , but it does not take into consideration physicians who are doing basic biomedical research. It is difficult to get a complete picture of this workforce because there is no database that tracks M.D.s involved in such activity, but a partial picture can be obtained from NIH files on R01 awards.

In 2001, R01 grants were awarded to 4,383 M.D.s (and to 17,505 Ph.D.s). 12 The number of R01-supported M.D. researchers has been increasing over the years (see Table 2-1 ) but has remained at about 20 percent. This means that the size of the biomedical workforce could be as much as one-fifth larger than indicated above. In fact, since NIH began to classify clinical research awards in 1996, it has become evident that both M.D.s and M.D./Ph.D.s supported by the agency are more likely to conduct nonclinical—that is, biomedical—than clinical research. Because many physician-investigators approach nonclinical research with the goal of understanding the mechanisms underlying a particular disease or disorder, their findings are likely to ultimately contribute to improvements in human health.

Number of M.D.s and Ph.D.s with Grant Support from NIH .

Some data are available from the American Medical Association on the national supply of physicians potentially in research. In 2002 there were 15,316 medical school faculty members in basic science departments and 82,623 in clinical departments. Of those in basic science, 2,255 had M.D. degrees, 11,471 had Ph.D.s, and 1,128 had combined M.D./ Ph.D. degrees. To identify the M.D.s in basic science departments who were actually doing research, the Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster was linked to NIH records; it found that 1,261 M.D.s had been supported as principal investigators (PIs) on an R01 NIH grant at some point. This number is clearly an undercount of the M.D. research population, however, given that there are forms of NIH research support other than PI status and non-NIH organizations also support biomedical research.

• THE NATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM AND BIOMEDICAL TRAINING SUPPORT

The National Research Service Award Program

In 1975, when the National Research Service Award (NRSA) program began, 23,968 graduate students in the basic biomedical sciences received some form of financial assistance for their studies, and about 8,000 supported their own education through loans, savings, or family funds. 13 The number of fellowships and traineeships, whether institutional or from external sources, was about 8,500 in 1975 and remained at about that level into the early 1990s, increasing only recently to 12,186 in 2002 (see Figure 2-9 ).

Mechanisms of support for full-time graduate students in the biomedical sciences, 1979–2002. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

In the 1970s the majority of graduate student support came from these fellowships, traineeships, and institutional teaching assistantships. The picture began to change in the early 1980s as the prevalence of research grants grew. By 2002 it represented almost 50 percent of the support for graduate study in the biomedical sciences, and NIH's funding of this mechanism grew as well. In the early 1980s, NIH research grants formed about 40 percent of the total, and by the early 1990s this fraction grew to 64 percent and has remained at about this level through 2002 (see Figure 2-10 ). Even during the years when the NIH budget doubled, there was not a shift in this balance. In fact, from 1997 to 2002 both research grant and trainee/fellowship support from NIH increased by 14 percent. NIH in its response to the 2000 assessment of the NRSA program 14 has stated that research grants and trainee/fellowship awards are not used for the control of graduate support and that it would be inappropriate to try to do so.

FIGURE 2-10

Graduate support for NIH, 1979–2002. SOURCE: National Science Foundation Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering.

The NRSA program now comprises the major part of NIH's fellowship and traineeship support. It began small in 1975—with 1,046 traineeships and 26 fellowships—but quickly expanded. By 1980 the number was nearly 5,000 for the traineeships; it remained at that level until 2001, though it dropped to a little over 4,000 in 2002 (see Table 2-2 ). (The drop in 2002 traineeships was probably an institutional reporting issue. Given that the total number of awards by NIH under the T32 15 mechanisms was about the same as in 2001, it is unlikely that the awards in the biomedical sciences would fall below the 2000 or 2001 levels.)

NRSA Predoctoral Trainee and Fellowship Support in the Basic Biomedical Sciences .

Information on funding patterns for postdoctorates in the basic biomedical sciences is not as complete as that for graduate students since academic institutions are the only sources of data. As has been the case for graduate student support, the portion of federal funds devoted to postdoctoral training grants and fellowships has diminished since the 1970s. In 1995, 1,966 (or 45.3 percent) of the 4,343 federally funded university-based postdoctorates received their training on a fellowship or traineeship. By 2002 the number had increased to 2,670 but was still only 20.3 percent of the total federal funding. The remaining 79.7 percent (or 10,514) in 2002 were supported by federal research grants. Meanwhile, the number of postdoctoral positions, funded by nonfederal institutional sources, was fairly constant at about 25 percent and grew from 1,325 in 1975 to 4,628 in 2002.

The picture for NRSA support at the postdoctoral level for the period following introduction of the NRSA program resembled that of the graduate level. However, in 2002 there was a sharp decrease in the number of postdoctoral traineeships; but, as in the case for predoctoral trainees, this may be an institutional reporting issue (see Table 2-3 ). Since the decline from 2001 to 2002 is nearly 50 percent and the decline for predoctoral trainees was only 20 percent, there may be a real decline at the postdoctoral level. The reason for this is unclear, though factors may include the limited number of individuals who can be supported under the increased stipend levels and the general decline in the number of postdoctoral research trainees eligible for NRSA support.

NRSA Postdoctoral Trainee and Fellowship Support in the Basic Biomedical Sciences .

The shift in the pattern of federal research training support, at both the graduate and postdoctoral levels, can be traced to a number of related trends. Over the past 25 years, the number of research grants awarded by the NIH and other agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has more than doubled. 16 PIs have come to depend on graduate students and postdoctorates to carry out much of their day-to-day research work, and, as a result, the number of universities awarding Ph.D.s in the basic biomedical sciences, as well as the quantity of Ph.D.s awarded by existing programs, has grown.

Furthermore, federal funding policies have inadvertently provided universities with an incentive to appoint students and postdoctorates to research assistantships instead of training grants or fellowships. An example given in the eleventh NRSA study 17 shows that in 1999 the NIH provided almost $9,000 more to research assistants and their institutions (largely in the form of indirect cost payments to universities) than to NRSA trainees or fellows. Because the indirect cost rate for institutional training grants is generally about 7 percent compared to the 60 to 70 percent rate on research grants, it is financially advantageous for an institution to have as many research grants as possible for the support of graduate students. However, current policies at NIH have raised the NRSA predoctoral stipend levels to $19,968 and starting postdoctoral levels to $34,200. These increases might force stipends on research grants to similar levels and reduce the number of students who can be supported on research grants.

As described earlier, the number of students and postdoctorates provided with research training through NRSA training grants and fellowships has been deliberately limited over much of the past 25 years, as a control on the number of researchers entering the workforce. No similar federal effort has been undertaken thus far to ensure an adequate supply of technically prepared support staff in research, nor is there a system for regulating the number of research assistantships. As Massy and Goldman concluded in their 1995 analysis of science and engineering Ph.D. production, the size of doctoral programs is driven largely by departmental needs for research and teaching assistants rather than by the labor market for Ph.D.s. 18

In any case, NRSA training grants to institutions are highly prized and competitively sought. They confer prestige and add stability to graduate programs as they are usually for five years and allow for planning into the future. On the other hand, since the legislation that established the NRSA program allows only U.S. citizens and permanent residents to be trained through these grants and fellowships, the growing number of graduate students with temporary-resident status must be supported by other mechanisms.

Another factor in the shifting pattern of federal research training support is the type of education the students receive. Since the beginning of the NRSA program, NIH has required predoctoral training grants in the basic biomedical sciences to be “multidisciplinary” in order to expose students to a range of biomedical fields and even to other branches of science. Given that research collaborations between a wide variety of scientists have been producing significant advances, this requirement is even more important. Although the level of multidisciplinary training varies from program to program, students in training grant programs with this as part of their curriculum may better be ensured of such interdisciplinary training than those on a research assistantship. The committee considers multidisciplinary training in the biomedical sciences to be very valuable and of increasing importance. (A full discussion of these issues is presented in Chapter 8 , Emerging Fields and Interdisciplinary Studies.)

Although research grants provide an important base for training, data suggest that NRSA training grant participants complete training faster and go on to more productive research careers than do non-NRSA-supported students at their institution or doctorates from universities without NRSA training programs. This is supported by an assessment, completed in 1984, in which NRSA participants were found to complete their doctoral degrees faster and were more likely to go on to NIH-supported postdoctoral training than graduate students with other forms of support. 19 They also received a higher percentage of NIH research grants, authored more articles, and were cited more frequently by their peers.

Comparable outcomes were seen in a more recent study conducted by NIH. 20 Ph.D.s in the basic biomedical sciences who received NRSA support for at least one academic year spent less time in graduate school. About 57 percent of NRSA trainees and fellows received their doctorates by age 30, while only 39 percent of their classmates and 32 percent of graduates from departments without NRSA support similarly reached that milestone.

The study also showed that NRSA trainees and fellows were more likely to move into faculty or other research positions. Nearly 40 percent of the NRSA program participants held faculty appointments at institutions ranking in the top 100 in NIH funding, as opposed to 24 and 16 percent, respectively, for non-NRSA graduates from the same institution and graduates from non-NRSA institutions. Similarly, NRSA trainees and fellows were more likely to be successful in competing for grants and had better publication records than either of the other groups.

The NRSA program is essential to training in the biomedical sciences not only for these and other direct reasons; there are also its indirect benefits, such as establishing high standards for the entire graduate program and creating a generally improved environment for all students. Also, when students are supported by a combination of NRSA and research grant support, the NRSA funding is significantly leveraged.

The Medical Scientist Training Program

The MSTP was established at NIH in 1964 by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) to support education leading to the M.D./Ph.D degree. By combining graduate training in the biomedical sciences with clinical training offered through medical schools, the program was designed to produce investigators who could better bridge the gap between basic science and clinical research. Since its inception, the Ph.D. portion of the training has been expanded to include the physical sciences, computer science, behavioral and social sciences, economics, epidemiology, public health, bioengineering, biostatistics, and bioethics, though almost all trainees receive a Ph.D. in a biomedical field.

When the MSTP began, it had only three programs, but it has since grown—in 2003 it had 41 programs involving 45 degree-granting institutions, with a total of 925 full-time training slots. This number is slightly down from the 933 slots in 2002. In addition, about 75 medical schools that do not have MSTP grants nevertheless offer opportunities for M.D./Ph.D. studies. The number of new students supported each year by MSTP funds varies from 2 or 3 at many institutions to 10 to 12 at a few exceptional ones, such as Duke University and the University of California, San Francisco. Some 170 new students nationwide are added to the program each year, with selection being highly competitive. The program provides 6 years of support for both phases of training, and institutions usually continue the awards for any additional years needed to complete the degrees. Support includes a tuition allowance, a stipend that is usually supplemented by the institution, and modest funds for travel, equipment, and supplies.

While the funds from NIH are sufficient to support only a few students in any one year of their training, institutions have been able to parlay the NIH funds by judiciously using institutional or research grant funds to support more students. A typical scenario is to support a student on MSTP funds during the first two years of medical training and again in the sixth or seventh years, when he or she returns to complete the medical degree. But during their Ph.D. studies, MSTP students are in a position to receive research grant support just like any other Ph.D. student. For example, one institution uses MSTP funds to support only 10 students during their first year and 2 during their second year in medical school, but there are 60 students in the MSTP program, with the remaining 48 receiving institutional or research grant support. This combination of funding results in the awarding of about 350 MSTP M.D./Ph.D. graduates each year. In the eyes of NIH, any student who receives MSTP funds and is supported for his or her entire course of study is considered a product of the program.

These graduates usually move on to postdoctoral, intern, and residency appointments and after completing their training tend to find academic research positions relatively easily. Another measure of the program's success is seen at the other end of the cycle—the competition among students for entry into the program. Some institutions, such as Johns Hopkins University, receive over 500 applications for the 10 or 12 available positions. Many of these students are highly qualified, and they apply for many programs simultaneously. Institutions easily fill their MSTP class, but some institutions with smaller and less well recognized programs have only a 30 percent acceptance rate. Occasionally these institutions lose students to other programs and begin the year with unfilled MSTP slots. Although not all applicants find MSTP positions, many end up pursuing a joint dual-degree program at an MSTP institution with partial or sometimes full support from non-MSTP funds. They follow the same track as the MSTP students and are indistinguishable from them.

Funding of the program is an issue at almost all MSTP institutions. While institutions are creative in the use of MSTP funds, they are unable to support many highly qualified students who have an interest in research but opt instead to attend just medical school and pursue a professional career. At a time when there is a need for more researchers with a medical background, it would be advantageous to have more M.D.s who are generally debt free and able to pursue research that requires the unique combination of biomedical and clinical training.

In addition to the advantages to biomedical and clinical research, MSTP graduates appear to have more productive research careers. In 1998 the NIGMS published a study of past recipients of MSTP support. 21 This study used résumé data of MSTP graduates with both an M.D. and a Ph.D. to compare their careers to four other groups of doctorates: MSTP-supported students who received only an M.D., Ph.D. recipients at MSTP institutions supported by NIH training grants, non-MSTP dual-degree graduates from an MSTP institution, and non-MSTP dual-degree graduates from a non-MSTP institution. The individuals in the study were divided into four 5-year cohorts from 1970 to 1995 to allow for changes over time in the educational characteristics and research environment. The cohorts and doctoral grouping were also compared on existing data from NIH files. The training and career paths of the MSTP graduates and the comparison groups were assessed from different perspectives, including time to degree, postdoctoral training, employment history, and research support and publication outcomes. By almost all measures, the MSTP-trained graduates fared better than the other groups. For example, they entered graduate training more quickly and took less time to complete the two degrees. Only the Ph.D. group applied for NIH postdoctoral fellowships at a higher rate, but the MSTP success rate was about the same as for the Ph.D. group. Depending on the cohort, between 60 and 70 percent of the MSTP graduates had a clinical fellowship and about 50 percent had both a clinical fellowship and postdoctoral training.

In terms of research activity, the NIH data showed that the MSTP graduates applied for research grant support from NIH at a greater rate and they were more successful in receiving support. The research productivity of the MSTP graduates across each of the cohorts as measured by published articles from the résumé data was about the same as that for the Ph.D. group and only slightly higher than the non-MSTP graduates from MSTP institutions. However, an examination of publications over the period from 1993 to 1995 showed that the earlier cohorts were more likely to be currently active than the Ph.D. graduates by publishing twice as many articles. The 1976–1980 non-MSTP cohorts, from MSTP institutions, also continued to be almost as active in publishing as the MSTP graduates.

The résumé analysis also provided insight into the professional and research activities of the different groups. About 83 percent of MSTP graduates in the study who were employed in 1995 had one or more academic appointments. This was higher than the M.D.- and Ph.D.-only groups and somewhat higher than the non-MSTP M.D./Ph.D.s group. Most of the dual-degree graduates in either group were in clinical departments and probably indicates some responsibility with regard to patient-oriented care. To better assess the type of research conducted by the different groups, the study classified the publications reported on the résumés into basic, clinical, and mixed type. Even though many of the dual-degree graduates are in clinical departments, they are still more likely to publish in basic journals, and this tendency is stronger in later cohorts.

The conclusions drawn from this analysis are that MSTP graduates appear to have been highly successful in establishing research careers, and their recent publication records suggest that members of all cohorts continue to be productive researchers. However, MSTP graduates appear most similar to non-MSTP M.D./Ph.D.s from the same institution; both groups are likely to be employed in academia with appointments in clinical or dual clinical and basic science departments, and both have similar publication patterns. This is not surprising, since non-MSTP-supported students at MSTP institutions follow the same program as their MSTP counterparts, complete the same degree requirements, and benefit from the MSTP-sponsored training efforts at those institutions.

• RESEARCH LABOR FORCE PROJECTIONS

The biomedical workforce with degrees from U.S. universities was estimated to be 100,262 in 2001. This included individuals in postdoctoral positions but did not count the 4,935 doctorates with degrees in biomedical fields who were unemployed or the 8,091 in positions not considered related to biomedical research (see Table 2-4 ). These three groups brought the potential workforce of U.S. doctorates to 113,288 (the only doctorates excluded were those who had retired). Table 2-4 also shows the change in this workforce over the past decade.

Potential Workforce in the Biomedical Sciences by Employment Status, 1991–2001 .

Note that in 2001 almost 80 percent of the potential workforce was employed in S&E and unemployment was less than 1 percent. Even with the inclusion of those unemployed and not seeking employment, only about 4.5 percent were unemployed.

The above figures represent only part of the total potential workforce, however, because foreign-trained doctorates also are employed in this country (and a few U.S. doctorates leave the country). Estimating this foreign component is difficult, given that no database describes the demographics of this group. Some data sources with information on foreign-trained doctorates exist, but they provide only a partial picture. 22 Based on these sources, it is estimated that about 15,500 such individuals are involved in biomedical research in the United States, though the size of this contingent could be as high as 25,000.

How the overall size of the S&E workforce might change over the next 10 years will be influenced by several factors: the number of doctorates who graduate each year, the unemployment levels in the field, the number of foreign-trained doctorates, and retirement rates. These factors can be accounted for by taking a multistate life-table approach, which models the workforce to estimate the numbers of researchers who enter and exit the workforce at various stages. It is also important to know the age of the workforce and the age at which individuals enter it, as this information determines retirement rates. What follows in this section is a short summary of the findings from this model's analysis, with full details available in Appendix D (Demographic Projections of the Research Workforce).

The largest and most relevant source of new researchers is the set of graduates from U.S. doctoral programs. The size of this group grew significantly in the 1990s but has leveled off or declined in recent years. Making projections of the numbers of future graduates, therefore, depends on which years are used to develop the model (a quadratic regression). Rather than choose just one scenario, three different scenarios for Ph.D. growth were developed. The first was a regression from 1985 to obtain a high estimate; the second was a low estimate, based on the assumption of constant growth from the 2001 level; and the third was the average of the two to represent “moderate” growth. For the high estimate the annual number of Ph.D.s grows from 5,386 in 2001 to 7,433 in 2011, and the average of this number and the one resulting from no growth yields 6,441 in 2011 (see 10-year totals in Table 2-5 ).

Projected Changes in U.S. and Foreign Doctorates Entering the Biomedical Workforce Between 2001 and 2011 .

A similar approach—with low, median, and high scenarios—was used for the inflow of foreign doctorates. However, because it is difficult to estimate the number of individuals in the current workforce with a foreign doctorate, the scenarios are based on estimates of the growth rate in the 1990s and the resulting population in 2001. Based on these estimates, it is possible to project the potential workforce in the biomedical sciences between 2001 and 2011. Using estimates of unemployment and the flow of doctorates in and out of the S&E workforce, the employed biomedical researcher population can also be estimated. Table 2-6 shows the results of the multistate life-table analysis under the medium scenario. These totals exhibit an annual growth rate in the biomedical workforce of 2 to 2.5 percent, which is comparable to the projected annual growth rate of the overall labor force.

Projected Workforce by Status for the Median Scenario, 2001–2011 .

Although these workforce projections are subject to many caveats, such as incomplete data and uncertainties in the economy and government spending, the balance between Ph.D. production and employment looks quite stable through 2011. Unemployment remains at about 1 percent, and the portion of the workforce remaining in science is about 80 percent. The committee believes this is a healthy percentage of trained people employed in science, but it has concerns about those unemployed and not seeking employment. The percentage of women in this category is significantly greater than their male counterparts, and there is a fear that some talented researchers may be lost because of the difficulty of balancing a career in science and raising a family. (This matter is considered further in Chapter 9 , Career Progression.)

The analysis in this chapter suggests that the number of researchers in basic biomedical research will remain stable for the next decade, as will employment opportunities, and the percentage of postdoctorals in holding patterns appears to be declining. Nevertheless, the committee's concern about the increased time to degree and the length of postdoctoral appointments should be noted—an infusion of young people into independent research positions, after all, is critical to the health of the research community. However, we also note that the increase in the average age of researchers parallels the aging of the general population.

“Success” is not easily quantified, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the NRSA program has successfully produced high-quality research personnel and has been important for the upgrading of research training in general. The MSTP program also merits special mention. It has been brilliantly successful at attracting outstanding physicians into basic biomedical research, much to the benefit of future health care. Given their special knowledge of human disease, physicians lend a unique perspective to such research.

The committee's recommendations for future training in the basic biomedical sciences are presented below, along with brief justifications based on the analysis described in this chapter.

• RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 2-1: This committee recommends that the total number of NRSA positions awarded in the biomedical sciences should remain at least at the 2003 level. Furthermore, the committee recommends that training levels after 2003 be commensurate with the rise in the total extramural research funding in the biomedical, clinical, and behavioral and social sciences.

Although manpower models have been developed in this report, they are not particularly useful in assessing the role of NRSA support in particular, as this represents only a small fraction of the total training support in the biomedical sciences. Available information, however, suggests that the system is in reasonable balance. Stipends clearly should rise over time, but this should be accomplished by the allocation of additional funds, not by decreasing the number of trainees. The relatively low unemployment among Ph.D.s in the biomedical sciences, an almost constant number of U.S.-trained doctorates from 2001 to 2003, and the fact that the pool of postdoctorates appears to be stabilizing or declining justify the suggested level, which should not fall below that of 2003.

The year 2001 is the last one for which reasonably accurate data were available for awards specific to the biomedical sciences. However, the total number of NRSA awards continued to rise ( Figure 1-1 ) in 2002 and 2003, and it is assumed that the awards in the biomedical sciences have also increased. Using the percentage increase from 2001 to 2003 from Table 1-1 and the actual awards data for 2001 in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 , the predoctoral and postdoctoral traineeships in the biomedical sciences in 2003 are estimated to be 5,390 and 1,740, respectively. Fellowship data for 2002 appear to be more complete and show that awards at the postdoctoral level are somewhat below those of 2001. Based on the totals for NRSA predoctoral and postdoctoral training in 2001 and 2003, the estimated levels for fellowships in 2003 for the biomedical sciences are 425 and 1,450, respectively.

The primary rationale for NRSA is to attract high-quality people into specific research areas and to set the training standards for major research fields. NRSAs should be a paragon for quality training and have served this role admirably. NRSA programs are an important investment in the future to ensure the health of the research enterprise and should be made by all NIH institutes and centers.

Beyond the monetary requirements of maintaining NRSA training numbers, this committee does not recommend that support be shifted from research grants to training grants (contrary to the recommendation of the previous committee). A balance is needed between research and training grants for the productive support of students and postdoctorates. Research grants offer an alternative training venue, and students and postdoctorates are essential for accomplishing the research specified in research grants. Moreover, a variety of support mechanisms for training is desirable. The NRSA provides multiple pipelines into the research endeavor, most notably for foreign students and postdoctorates. In certain technical areas, insufficient numbers of U.S. citizens are available to train in and carry out national research efforts in critical areas. The training of foreign scientists on research grants has also significantly enriched the talent pool in this country, as they often join the workforce for extended periods of time, including permanent residence.

Although two earlier National Academies committees 23 , 24 have recommended that some NIH research funding be shifted to training grants and fellowships, our committee has concluded—based on the uncertainty about the rate of future growth in employment opportunities in industry, and perhaps other sectors, and the considerations discussed above—that the number of graduate students supported on NRSA training grants should not increase any faster than NIH research funding, which is a principal determinant of employment demand. With regard to postdoctoral support, another National Academies committee 25 has recommended that foreign scientists be permitted to receive training grant and fellowship support—thereby increasing the size of the eligible pool—and that some research funds be transferred to training budgets. However, consideration of the current restriction on supporting foreign scientists on NRSA training was outside the scope of this study and was not discussed by our committee.

At the present time, the committee does not recommend a shift in the overall proportion of training dollars spent on NRSA versus other training vehicles but does suggest that the ratios of research dollars to fellows/students be maintained in approximate alignment for the different areas and that training efforts be supported by all NIH institutes and centers. Better coordination of training efforts across institutes is needed. The committee recognizes, however, that the balance may vary from field to field and will evolve over time.

Recommendation 2-2: This committee recommends that the size of MSTP programs be expanded by at least 20 percent and that the scope be expanded to include the clinical, health services, and behavioral and social sciences.

Available evidence suggests that it is increasingly difficult for physicians to move into research because of the high cost of medical training and graduates' enormous debt load. Nevertheless, the committee believes that it is very important to attract physicians into research and that MSTP programs have done so with remarkable success; the excellent record of these programs' M.D./Ph.D.s in obtaining research grants and remaining in research is well documented. This would increase the number of trainees from the 2003 level of 933 to about 1,120.

As has been the policy, MSTP grants should be confined to institutions where high-quality medical and research training are both available. Expanding the range of disciplines should be helpful in attracting physicians into clinical and health services research but not at the expense of current MSTP support for basic biomedical training. Today's applicant pool for MSTP positions can easily accommodate a doubling of the size of the program without compromising its current quality. However, in recognition of the high cost of the MSTP program and budget constraints, the committee recommends a 20 percent increase as a significant and prudent investment.

U.S. Department of Education. 2000 .

Tabulations from the Higher Education Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Education.

Unpublished tabulation from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2001. Available from the National Academies.

Freeman, R. B., et. al. 2001 .

National Research Council. 1998c .

Goldman, E. and E. Marshall. 2002 .

National Science Foundation. 1997 .

National Science Foundation. 2002b .

The down turn in 1991 may be due to a change in the Survey of Doctorate Recipient data collection methods.

National Science Foundation. 2004 .

NIH Web site: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/research/rgbydgre01.htm . Accessed on October 22, 2004.

Unpublished tabulation from the NIH IMPAC System.

NIH Web site: NIH Statement in Response to Addressing the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists, http://grants.nih.gov/training/nas_report/NIHResponse.htm .

See Appendix B for a complete explanation of the awards.

NIH Web site. Available on http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/research/rgbydgre01.htm . Accessed October 22, 2004.

National Research Council. 2000b .

Massy, W. F., and C. A. Goldman. 1995 .

Coggeshall, P., and P. W. Brown. 1984 .

Pion, G. M. 2000 .

National Institute of General Medical Sciences. 1998 .

Partial data are available from the Association of American Medical College's Faculty Roster and from the National Science Foundation, National Survey of College Graduates.

National Research Council. 2000a .

National Research Council. 1998c . op. cit.

National Research Council. 2005 .

• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) Committee for Monitoring the Nation's Changing Needs for Biomedical, Behavioral, and Clinical Personnel. Advancing the Nation's Health Needs: NIH Research Training Programs. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2005. 2, Basic Biomedical Sciences Research.
• PDF version of this title (1.4M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health

Recent Activity

• Basic Biomedical Sciences Research - Advancing the Nation's Health Needs Basic Biomedical Sciences Research - Advancing the Nation's Health Needs

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Insert your title here

Featured story.

Aug. 21, 2024

Senior health science industry innovation leader joins Virginia Tech’s Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC

A senior business leader in the development and translation of biomedical science innovation through the commercialization pipeline has joined Virginia Tech to facilitate the growth of the academic health sciences research enterprise through building strategic industry partnerships and facilitating commercialization of discoveries.

Sally Allain, formerly the head of Johnson & Johnson Innovation JLABS @ Washington, D.C., has been named the Chief of Health Sciences Growth and Innovation Officer with the  Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC  and the Office of  Health Sciences and Technology , said Michael Friedlander, the university’s vice president for health sciences and technology and executive director of the research institute.

Allain will be involved in all aspects of the commercialization and industry partnership enterprises specifically related to health sciences, including technology commercialization, startup companies, and research collaborations with corporate, academic, and government organizations. She will serve as the Virginia Tech Office of Health Sciences and Technology ambassador and representative with established biotechnology industry partners such as pharmaceutical, medical device, imaging, diagnostic, and digital health companies.

Campus News

We are committed to making our workplace inclusive for everyone. Read our  Fralin Biomedical Research Institute Principles of Human Dignity and Non-Discrimination , and visit our Diversity and Inclusion page for more information. 

Creating a healthier future. For everyone.

The Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC is one of the nation’s fastest-growing academic biomedical research enterprises and a destination for world-class researchers.  The institute’s Virginia Tech scientists  focus on diseases  that are the leading causes of death and suffering in the United States, including brain disorders, heart disease, and cancer. Since its founding in 2010, the research institute has experienced unprecedented growth: doubling its enterprise and lab facilities in Roanoke, while also investing in brand-new laboratories on the Children’s National Research & Innovation Campus in Washington, D.C.

In the News

• --> Redirect Item Washington Business Journal: Exclusive: Virginia Tech taps D.C. incubator leader for new role , redirect Date: Aug 21, 2024 -->
• --> Redirect Item Forbes: COVID-19 Is Widespread In ‘Common Backyard Wildlife’ In US , redirect Date: Jul 29, 2024 -->
• --> Redirect Item Science Daily: Virus that causes COVID-19 is widespread in wildlife, scientists find , redirect Date: Jul 29, 2024 -->
• --> Redirect Item United Press International: Study finds COVID-19 virus widespread in U.S. wildlife , redirect Date: Jul 29, 2024 -->

Your browser does not support iframes. Link to iframe content: https://www.youtube.com/embed/NLcf9peMgx4?si=PBE0hid8kcuDUNm_

Your browser does not support iframes. Link to iframe content: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pe35lySV16s?si=mLVasCYliaSsfllR

Your browser does not support iframes. Link to iframe content: https://www.youtube.com/embed/tS1TgAcvxhA?si=48EIUIcy0ZyiHvBQ

SEMINARS & EVENTS  

Aug. 23-24, 2024 | Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC

Aug. 26-27, 2024 | Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC | 4 Riverside Circle, Roanoke, Virginia

Aug. 30, 2024, 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. | Center for Neurobiology Research Welcome Symposium

Sept. 6, 2024, 11:00 a.m. | Susan Carnell, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine | Co-Sponsored by the Center for Health Behaviors Research and the Addiction Recovery Research Center, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute

Sept. 12, 2024, 5:30 p.m. (Reception at 5 p.m.) | Warren Bickel, Ph.D., Virginia Tech Carilion Behavioral Health Research Professor, Director, Addiction Recovery Research Center and Center for Health Behaviors Research, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC | Maury Strauss Distinguished Public Lecture

Sept. 13, 2024, 11:00 a.m. | Mark J. Zylka, Ph.D., W.R. Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Director, UNC Neuroscience Center | Co-Sponsored by the Center for Neurobiology Research, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute

Giving to the Research Institute

Your generous support of the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute's rigorous biomedical research enterprise makes a difference for our faculty, students, and patients. Every donation helps accelerate the pace of new discoveries to help patients with cancer, neurological disorders, heart disease, and even rare genetic disorders. Private donations fast-track our progress. 

• Our Mission and Values
• Annual Reports
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Director's Dialogues
• Message from the Director
• Public Programs
• Careers, Culture and Benefits
• Whitehead Fellows Program
• Innovation Centers
• Cell Renewal
• Regeneration, Rejuvenation and Aging
• Genes and Genomes
• Infectious Disease
• Nervous System
• Plant Biology
• Members and Fellows
• Postdoctoral Scholars
• For Journalists

Whitehead Institute is a world-renowned non-profit research institution dedicated to improving human health through basic biomedical research.

Whitehead Institute Founding Member Rudolf Jaenisch and colleagues developed an approach to isolate and analyze phagosomes, which are an important organelle in microglia, a type of immune cell found in the brain. Microglia are involved in brain development, as well as neurodegeneration, brain cancer, and more so understanding their biology has many potential implications.

Whitehead Institute Member David Page and colleagues measured the effects of the sex chromosomes on two types of immune cells, gaining insights into the cell-type-specific effects of gene regulation by sex chromosome genes. Their work also explores the biological underpinnings of sex biases in immunity and autoimmune disease.

Whitehead Institute seeks applicants for tenure-track faculty position Awards + Announcements August 12, 2024

Two Whitehead Institute graduate researchers awarded the 2024 Regeneron Prize for Creative Innovation Awards + Announcements July 30, 2024

Whitehead Institute Member Mary Gehring appointed as an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Awards + Announcements July 23, 2024

Unusual Labmates: Meet tardigrades, the crafters of nature's ultimate survival kit Evolution + Development July 23, 2024

Whitehead Institute specializes in foundational research — solving deep scientific mysteries that unlock the mechanisms underlying many diseases, leading to new approaches in medicine.

Foundational research — as opposed to applied research — is research conducted not to solve a specific problem, but to satisfy a driving curiosity about the unknown. Seemingly simple queries, such as ‘How do cells divide?’ or ‘How can plants control how their genes are expressed?’ can pave the way for more applied research in therapeutics, cancer biology and genetics, and open up vast new fields of study that reshape the way we understand biology.

Scroll Down

Through basic research, Robert Weinberg discovered the first gene known to cause cancer in humans. 

Robert Weinberg

Ruth Lehmann

Ruth Lehmann has made key discoveries on the biogenesis of piRNAs and their potential role in maintaining germ cell genomic integrity while allowing for genetic variation.

Since its beginnings in 1982, Whitehead Institute has explored the core questions that underlie our basic understanding of biology. And while our mission remains the same, much has changed in the intervening decades; new research tools allow our scientists to look deeper and design better experiments than ever before. The more we understand about how biological systems work, the better we can design informed and effective therapies and treatments to meet the challenges of modern society.

Brit d’Arbeloff and David Page (both seated) with Page lab postdoctoral fellow Adrianna San Roman (left) and Sahin Naqvi (rear), then a Page lab graduate student and now a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University.

Research in David Page’s lab explores how sex chromosomes affect women’s health and diseases.

Researchers in Jonathan Weissman's lab are developing new technologies to understand and treat diseases.

Researchers at Whitehead Institute are world-renowned for their contributions to cancer biology, genomics and more, and the impact of our publications positions us as the top research institution in the world for molecular biology and genetics. The Institute's location in Kendall Square creates an exciting and collaborative scientific environment where our scientists often team up with researchers at Harvard, the Koch Institute, and MIT on cross-disciplinary studies. Whitehead Institute also prioritizes giving back to the community, hosting summer programs, lecture series, and other events for scientists and aspiring scientists.

Whitehead Institute’s faculty has received awards from the Genetic Society of America, and National Academy of Medicine, and more, and several PIs are members of the National Academy of Sciences. Six faculty members are investigators for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and four have won the National Medal of Science.

Whitehead’s public programs, for example the Expedition Bio program for middle school students, merge curiosity with real world science through hands-on activities, laboratory modules and discussions with researchers.

Unusual Labmates is a series that explores some of the more unusual models used for research at Whitehead Institute. From rare plants to luminescent beetles to regenerative starfish and worms, these organisms and their unusual traits provide insights into the underlying biology and incredible diversity of living things.

Gain a broader perspective on environmental research, epigenetics, COVID-19 and more through these collections of multimedia stories. 

Whitehead Institute is dedicated to training the next generation of scientists, especially postdocs. Get to know a few of these remarkable scientists through these profiles. 

Whitehead Institute researchers are making important insights into the biology of the brain, from how it develops to what goes awry in neurodegenerative diseases and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Our researchers seek to understand how our cells and tissues renew and replenish themselves. They investigate how the molecules and specialized structures inside of our cells work in concert with each other, in a precisely choreographed dance, to ensure that biological processes happen when and how they should.

Cancer is a disease, or set of diseases, in which abnormal cells in the body experience uncontrolled growth. Cancer biology is complex, with many potential factors contributing to a given cancer’s development and outcome. Researchers at Whitehead Institute are investigating the fundamental biology of cancer cells and have helped drive steady advances in biomedicine’s understanding of cancer, contributing to innovative strategies in both diagnosis and therapy.

Our researchers are investigating important questions about how organisms develop —How does one generation beget the next? How does a single cell give rise to a complex organism?—and, with the help of new tools and innovative approaches, revealing answers that give us a better understanding of the fundamental aspects of life.

Whitehead Institute researchers are shedding light on the intricacies of plant biology in order to provide insights into plant development that could contribute to improved crop yield and global food security; discover plant-derived medicines and other valuable natural products; and improve our fundamental understanding of biological processes, including gene regulation and protein folding.

Our researchers are working to understand the biology underlying infectious diseases and the microbes and viruses behind them, using innovative genetic approaches and  new tools and methods.

Whitehead Institute has been a trailblazer in the fields of genomics and genetics since it became the single largest contributor to the Human Genome Project —and the Institute continues to be a world leader in genetics and genomics research.

Whitehead Institute’s core facilities set it apart. The cores, staffed by experts and providing state-of-the-art instrumentation and tools, allow our scientists to pursue more ambitious investigations.

Located in the biotech and biomedical research hub of Kendall Square, the Whitehead Institute campus features five floors of laboratory space, as well as state-of-the-art facilities for genomics, computing, microscopy and more.

Whitehead Institute's scientists hail from around the world, bringing a multitude of perspectives and ideas. Although our faculty is smaller than many of our peer institutions, the Institute’s contributions to bioscience have long been second to none, and our scientists, administration, and support staff work together to push the boundaries of biology forward.

Whitehead Institute’s collaborative culture encourages researchers at every level to share new ideas and benefit from the experience of their colleagues. Gatherings such as weekly coffee hours and annual scientific retreats facilitate this exchange. The Institute is also active in the Boston-Cambridge community, hosting educational programs for local teachers and students. 

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 19 February 2024

Genomic data in the All of Us Research Program

The all of us research program genomics investigators.

Nature volume  627 ,  pages 340–346 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

131k Accesses

28 Citations

1106 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Genetic variation
• Genome-wide association studies

Comprehensively mapping the genetic basis of human disease across diverse individuals is a long-standing goal for the field of human genetics 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . The All of Us Research Program is a longitudinal cohort study aiming to enrol a diverse group of at least one million individuals across the USA to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health 5 , 6 . Here we describe the programme’s genomics data release of 245,388 clinical-grade genome sequences. This resource is unique in its diversity as 77% of participants are from communities that are historically under-represented in biomedical research and 46% are individuals from under-represented racial and ethnic minorities. All of Us identified more than 1 billion genetic variants, including more than 275 million previously unreported genetic variants, more than 3.9 million of which had coding consequences. Leveraging linkage between genomic data and the longitudinal electronic health record, we evaluated 3,724 genetic variants associated with 117 diseases and found high replication rates across both participants of European ancestry and participants of African ancestry. Summary-level data are publicly available, and individual-level data can be accessed by researchers through the All of Us Researcher Workbench using a unique data passport model with a median time from initial researcher registration to data access of 29 hours. We anticipate that this diverse dataset will advance the promise of genomic medicine for all.

Similar content being viewed by others

The GenomeAsia 100K Project enables genetic discoveries across Asia

Advancing human genetics research and drug discovery through exome sequencing of the UK Biobank

Sequencing of 53,831 diverse genomes from the NHLBI TOPMed Program

Comprehensively identifying genetic variation and cataloguing its contribution to health and disease, in conjunction with environmental and lifestyle factors, is a central goal of human health research 1 , 2 . A key limitation in efforts to build this catalogue has been the historic under-representation of large subsets of individuals in biomedical research including individuals from diverse ancestries, individuals with disabilities and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds 3 , 4 . The All of Us Research Program (All of Us) aims to address this gap by enrolling and collecting comprehensive health data on at least one million individuals who reflect the diversity across the USA 5 , 6 . An essential component of All of Us is the generation of whole-genome sequence (WGS) and genotyping data on one million participants. All of Us is committed to making this dataset broadly useful—not only by democratizing access to this dataset across the scientific community but also to return value to the participants themselves by returning individual DNA results, such as genetic ancestry, hereditary disease risk and pharmacogenetics according to clinical standards, to those who wish to receive these research results.

Here we describe the release of WGS data from 245,388 All of Us participants and demonstrate the impact of this high-quality data in genetic and health studies. We carried out a series of data harmonization and quality control (QC) procedures and conducted analyses characterizing the properties of the dataset including genetic ancestry and relatedness. We validated the data by replicating well-established genotype–phenotype associations including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and 117 additional diseases. These data are available through the All of Us Researcher Workbench, a cloud platform that embodies and enables programme priorities, facilitating equitable data and compute access while ensuring responsible conduct of research and protecting participant privacy through a passport data access model.

The All of Us Research Program

To accelerate health research, All of Us is committed to curating and releasing research data early and often 6 . Less than five years after national enrolment began in 2018, this fifth data release includes data from more than 413,000 All of Us participants. Summary data are made available through a public Data Browser, and individual-level participant data are made available to researchers through the Researcher Workbench (Fig. 1a and Data availability).

a , The All of Us Research Hub contains a publicly accessible Data Browser for exploration of summary phenotypic and genomic data. The Researcher Workbench is a secure cloud-based environment of participant-level data in a Controlled Tier that is widely accessible to researchers. b , All of Us participants have rich phenotype data from a combination of physical measurements, survey responses, EHRs, wearables and genomic data. Dots indicate the presence of the specific data type for the given number of participants. c , Overall summary of participants under-represented in biomedical research (UBR) with data available in the Controlled Tier. The All of Us logo in a is reproduced with permission of the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program.

Participant data include a rich combination of phenotypic and genomic data (Fig. 1b ). Participants are asked to complete consent for research use of data, sharing of electronic health records (EHRs), donation of biospecimens (blood or saliva, and urine), in-person provision of physical measurements (height, weight and blood pressure) and surveys initially covering demographics, lifestyle and overall health 7 . Participants are also consented for recontact. EHR data, harmonized using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model 8 ( Methods ), are available for more than 287,000 participants (69.42%) from more than 50 health care provider organizations. The EHR dataset is longitudinal, with a quarter of participants having 10 years of EHR data (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). Data include 245,388 WGSs and genome-wide genotyping on 312,925 participants. Sequenced and genotyped individuals in this data release were not prioritized on the basis of any clinical or phenotypic feature. Notably, 99% of participants with WGS data also have survey data and physical measurements, and 84% also have EHR data. In this data release, 77% of individuals with genomic data identify with groups historically under-represented in biomedical research, including 46% who self-identify with a racial or ethnic minority group (Fig. 1c , Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Note ).

Scaling the All of Us infrastructure

The genomic dataset generated from All of Us participants is a resource for research and discovery and serves as the basis for return of individual health-related DNA results to participants. Consequently, the US Food and Drug Administration determined that All of Us met the criteria for a significant risk device study. As such, the entire All of Us genomics effort from sample acquisition to sequencing meets clinical laboratory standards 9 .

All of Us participants were recruited through a national network of partners, starting in 2018, as previously described 5 . Participants may enrol through All of Us - funded health care provider organizations or direct volunteer pathways and all biospecimens, including blood and saliva, are sent to the central All of Us Biobank for processing and storage. Genomics data for this release were generated from blood-derived DNA. The programme began return of actionable genomic results in December 2022. As of April 2023, approximately 51,000 individuals were sent notifications asking whether they wanted to view their results, and approximately half have accepted. Return continues on an ongoing basis.

The All of Us Data and Research Center maintains all participant information and biospecimen ID linkage to ensure that participant confidentiality and coded identifiers (participant and aliquot level) are used to track each sample through the All of Us genomics workflow. This workflow facilitates weekly automated aliquot and plating requests to the Biobank, supplies relevant metadata for the sample shipments to the Genome Centers, and contains a feedback loop to inform action on samples that fail QC at any stage. Further, the consent status of each participant is checked before sample shipment to confirm that they are still active. Although all participants with genomic data are consented for the same general research use category, the programme accommodates different preferences for the return of genomic data to participants and only data for those individuals who have consented for return of individual health-related DNA results are distributed to the All of Us Clinical Validation Labs for further evaluation and health-related clinical reporting. All participants in All of Us that choose to get health-related DNA results have the option to schedule a genetic counselling appointment to discuss their results. Individuals with positive findings who choose to obtain results are required to schedule an appointment with a genetic counsellor to receive those findings.

Genome sequencing

To satisfy the requirements for clinical accuracy, precision and consistency across DNA sample extraction and sequencing, the All of Us Genome Centers and Biobank harmonized laboratory protocols, established standard QC methodologies and metrics, and conducted a series of validation experiments using previously characterized clinical samples and commercially available reference standards 9 . Briefly, PCR-free barcoded WGS libraries were constructed with the Illumina Kapa HyperPrep kit. Libraries were pooled and sequenced on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 instrument. After demultiplexing, initial QC analysis is performed with the Illumina DRAGEN pipeline (Supplementary Table 2 ) leveraging lane, library, flow cell, barcode and sample level metrics as well as assessing contamination, mapping quality and concordance to genotyping array data independently processed from a different aliquot of DNA. The Genome Centers use these metrics to determine whether each sample meets programme specifications and then submits sequencing data to the Data and Research Center for further QC, joint calling and distribution to the research community ( Methods ).

This effort to harmonize sequencing methods, multi-level QC and use of identical data processing protocols mitigated the variability in sequencing location and protocols that often leads to batch effects in large genomic datasets 9 . As a result, the data are not only of clinical-grade quality, but also consistent in coverage (≥30× mean) and uniformity across Genome Centers (Supplementary Figs. 1 – 5 ).

Joint calling and variant discovery

We carried out joint calling across the entire All of Us WGS dataset (Extended Data Fig. 2 ). Joint calling leverages information across samples to prune artefact variants, which increases sensitivity, and enables flagging samples with potential issues that were missed during single-sample QC 10 (Supplementary Table 3 ). Scaling conventional approaches to whole-genome joint calling beyond 50,000 individuals is a notable computational challenge 11 , 12 . To address this, we developed a new cloud variant storage solution, the Genomic Variant Store (GVS), which is based on a schema designed for querying and rendering variants in which the variants are stored in GVS and rendered to an analysable variant file, as opposed to the variant file being the primary storage mechanism (Code availability). We carried out QC on the joint call set on the basis of the approach developed for gnomAD 3.1 (ref.  13 ). This included flagging samples with outlying values in eight metrics (Supplementary Table 4 , Supplementary Fig. 2 and Methods ).

To calculate the sensitivity and precision of the joint call dataset, we included four well-characterized samples. We sequenced the National Institute of Standards and Technology reference materials (DNA samples) from the Genome in a Bottle consortium 13 and carried out variant calling as described above. We used the corresponding published set of variant calls for each sample as the ground truth in our sensitivity and precision calculations 14 . The overall sensitivity for single-nucleotide variants was over 98.7% and precision was more than 99.9%. For short insertions or deletions, the sensitivity was over 97% and precision was more than 99.6% (Supplementary Table 5 and Methods ).

The joint call set included more than 1 billion genetic variants. We annotated the joint call dataset on the basis of functional annotation (for example, gene symbol and protein change) using Illumina Nirvana 15 . We defined coding variants as those inducing an amino acid change on a canonical ENSEMBL transcript and found 272,051,104 non-coding and 3,913,722 coding variants that have not been described previously in dbSNP 16 v153 (Extended Data Table 1 ). A total of 3,912,832 (99.98%) of the coding variants are rare (allelic frequency < 0.01) and the remaining 883 (0.02%) are common (allelic frequency > 0.01). Of the coding variants, 454 (0.01%) are common in one or more of the non-European computed ancestries in All of Us, rare among participants of European ancestry, and have an allelic number greater than 1,000 (Extended Data Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 3 ). The distributions of pathogenic, or likely pathogenic, ClinVar variant counts per participant, stratified by computed ancestry, filtered to only those variants that are found in individuals with an allele count of <40 are shown in Extended Data Fig. 4 . The potential medical implications of these known and new variants with respect to variant pathogenicity by ancestry are highlighted in a companion paper 17 . In particular, we find that the European ancestry subset has the highest rate of pathogenic variation (2.1%), which was twice the rate of pathogenic variation in individuals of East Asian ancestry 17 .The lower frequency of variants in East Asian individuals may be partially explained by the fact the sample size in that group is small and there may be knowledge bias in the variant databases that is reducing the number of findings in some of the less-studied ancestry groups.

Genetic ancestry and relatedness

Genetic ancestry inference confirmed that 51.1% of the All of Us WGS dataset is derived from individuals of non-European ancestry. Briefly, the ancestry categories are based on the same labels used in gnomAD 18 . We trained a classifier on a 16-dimensional principal component analysis (PCA) space of a diverse reference based on 3,202 samples and 151,159 autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphisms. We projected the All of Us samples into the PCA space of the training data, based on the same single-nucleotide polymorphisms from the WGS data, and generated categorical ancestry predictions from the trained classifier ( Methods ). Continuous genetic ancestry fractions for All of Us samples were inferred using the same PCA data, and participants’ patterns of ancestry and admixture were compared to their self-identified race and ethnicity (Fig. 2 and Methods ). Continuous ancestry inference carried out using genome-wide genotypes yields highly concordant estimates.

a , b , Uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) representations of All of Us WGS PCA data with self-described race ( a ) and ethnicity ( b ) labels. c , Proportion of genetic ancestry per individual in six distinct and coherent ancestry groups defined by Human Genome Diversity Project and 1000 Genomes samples.

Kinship estimation confirmed that All of Us WGS data consist largely of unrelated individuals with about 85% (215,107) having no first- or second-degree relatives in the dataset (Supplementary Fig. 6 ). As many genomic analyses leverage unrelated individuals, we identified the smallest set of samples that are required to be removed from the remaining individuals that had first- or second-degree relatives and retained one individual from each kindred. This procedure yielded a maximal independent set of 231,442 individuals (about 94%) with genome sequence data in the current release ( Methods ).

Genetic determinants of LDL-C

As a measure of data quality and utility, we carried out a single-variant genome-wide association study (GWAS) for LDL-C, a trait with well-established genomic architecture ( Methods ). Of the 245,388 WGS participants, 91,749 had one or more LDL-C measurements. The All of Us LDL-C GWAS identified 20 well-established genome-wide significant loci, with minimal genomic inflation (Fig. 3 , Extended Data Table 3 and Supplementary Fig. 7 ). We compared the results to those of a recent multi-ethnic LDL-C GWAS in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) TOPMed study that included 66,329 ancestrally diverse (56% non-European ancestry) individuals 19 . We found a strong correlation between the effect estimates for NHLBI TOPMed genome-wide significant loci and those of All of Us ( R 2  = 0.98, P  < 1.61 × 10 −45 ; Fig. 3 , inset). Notably, the per-locus effect sizes observed in All of Us are decreased compared to those in TOPMed, which is in part due to differences in the underlying statistical model, differences in the ancestral composition of these datasets and differences in laboratory value ascertainment between EHR-derived data and epidemiology studies. A companion manuscript extended this work to identify common and rare genetic associations for three diseases (atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes) and two quantitative traits (height and LDL-C) in the All of Us dataset and identified very high concordance with previous efforts across all of these diseases and traits 20 .

Manhattan plot demonstrating robust replication of 20 well-established LDL-C genetic loci among 91,749 individuals with 1 or more LDL-C measurements. The red horizontal line denotes the genome wide significance threshold of P = 5 × 10 –8 . Inset, effect estimate ( β ) comparison between NHLBI TOPMed LDL-C GWAS ( x  axis) and All of Us LDL-C GWAS ( y  axis) for the subset of 194 independent variants clumped (window 250 kb, r2 0.5) that reached genome-wide significance in NHLBI TOPMed.

Genotype-by-phenotype associations

As another measure of data quality and utility, we tested replication rates of previously reported phenotype–genotype associations in the five predicted genetic ancestry populations present in the Phenotype/Genotype Reference Map (PGRM): AFR, African ancestry; AMR, Latino/admixed American ancestry; EAS, East Asian ancestry; EUR, European ancestry; SAS, South Asian ancestry. The PGRM contains published associations in the GWAS catalogue in these ancestry populations that map to International Classification of Diseases-based phenotype codes 21 . This replication study specifically looked across 4,947 variants, calculating replication rates for powered associations in each ancestry population. The overall replication rates for associations powered at 80% were: 72.0% (18/25) in AFR, 100% (13/13) in AMR, 46.6% (7/15) in EAS, 74.9% (1,064/1,421) in EUR, and 100% (1/1) in SAS. With the exception of the EAS ancestry results, these powered replication rates are comparable to those of the published PGRM analysis where the replication rates of several single-site EHR-linked biobanks ranges from 76% to 85%. These results demonstrate the utility of the data and also highlight opportunities for further work understanding the specifics of the All of Us population and the potential contribution of gene–environment interactions to genotype–phenotype mapping and motivates the development of methods for multi-site EHR phenotype data extraction, harmonization and genetic association studies.

More broadly, the All of Us resource highlights the opportunities to identify genotype–phenotype associations that differ across diverse populations 22 . For example, the Duffy blood group locus ( ACKR1 ) is more prevalent in individuals of AFR ancestry and individuals of AMR ancestry than in individuals of EUR ancestry. Although the phenome-wide association study of this locus highlights the well-established association of the Duffy blood group with lower white blood cell counts both in individuals of AFR and AMR ancestry 23 , 24 , it also revealed genetic-ancestry-specific phenotype patterns, with minimal phenotypic associations in individuals of EAS ancestry and individuals of EUR ancestry (Fig. 4 and Extended Data Table 4 ). Conversely, rs9273363 in the HLA-DQB1 locus is associated with increased risk of type 1 diabetes 25 , 26 and diabetic complications across ancestries, but only associates with increased risk of coeliac disease in individuals of EUR ancestry (Extended Data Fig. 5 ). Similarly, the TCF7L2 locus 27 strongly associates with increased risk of type 2 diabetes and associated complications across several ancestries (Extended Data Fig. 6 ). Association testing results are available in Supplementary Dataset 1 .

Results of genetic-ancestry-stratified phenome-wide association analysis among unrelated individuals highlighting ancestry-specific disease associations across the four most common genetic ancestries of participant. Bonferroni-adjusted phenome-wide significance threshold (<2.88 × 10 −5 ) is plotted as a red horizontal line. AFR ( n  = 34,037, minor allele fraction (MAF) 0.82); AMR ( n  = 28,901, MAF 0.10); EAS ( n  = 32,55, MAF 0.003); EUR ( n  = 101,613, MAF 0.007).

The cloud-based Researcher Workbench

All of Us genomic data are available in a secure, access-controlled cloud-based analysis environment: the All of Us Researcher Workbench. Unlike traditional data access models that require per-project approval, access in the Researcher Workbench is governed by a data passport model based on a researcher’s authenticated identity, institutional affiliation, and completion of self-service training and compliance attestation 28 . After gaining access, a researcher may create a new workspace at any time to conduct a study, provided that they comply with all Data Use Policies and self-declare their research purpose. This information is regularly audited and made accessible publicly on the All of Us Research Projects Directory. This streamlined access model is guided by the principles that: participants are research partners and maintaining their privacy and data security is paramount; their data should be made as accessible as possible for authorized researchers; and we should continually seek to remove unnecessary barriers to accessing and using All of Us data.

For researchers at institutions with an existing institutional data use agreement, access can be gained as soon as they complete the required verification and compliance steps. As of August 2023, 556 institutions have agreements in place, allowing more than 5,000 approved researchers to actively work on more than 4,400 projects. The median time for a researcher from initial registration to completion of these requirements is 28.6 h (10th percentile: 48 min, 90th percentile: 14.9 days), a fraction of the weeks to months it can take to assemble a project-specific application and have it reviewed by an access board with conventional access models.

Given that the size of the project’s phenotypic and genomic dataset is expected to reach 4.75 PB in 2023, the use of a central data store and cloud analysis tools will save funders an estimated US$16.5 million per year when compared to the typical approach of allowing researchers to download genomic data. Storing one copy per institution of this data at 556 registered institutions would cost about US$1.16 billion per year. By contrast, storing a central cloud copy costs about US$1.14 million per year, a 99.9% saving. Importantly, cloud infrastructure also democratizes data access particularly for researchers who do not have high-performance local compute resources.

Here we present the All of Us Research Program’s approach to generating diverse clinical-grade genomic data at an unprecedented scale. We present the data release of about 245,000 genome sequences as part of a scalable framework that will grow to include genetic information and health data for one million or more people living across the USA. Our observations permit several conclusions.

First, the All of Us programme is making a notable contribution to improving the study of human biology through purposeful inclusion of under-represented individuals at scale 29 , 30 . Of the participants with genomic data in All of Us, 45.92% self-identified as a non-European race or ethnicity. This diversity enabled identification of more than 275 million new genetic variants across the dataset not previously captured by other large-scale genome aggregation efforts with diverse participants that have submitted variation to dbSNP v153, such as NHLBI TOPMed 31 freeze 8 (Extended Data Table 1 ). In contrast to gnomAD, All of Us permits individual-level genotype access with detailed phenotype data for all participants. Furthermore, unlike many genomics resources, All of Us is uniformly consented for general research use and enables researchers to go from initial account creation to individual-level data access in as little as a few hours. The All of Us cohort is significantly more diverse than those of other large contemporary research studies generating WGS data 32 , 33 . This enables a more equitable future for precision medicine (for example, through constructing polygenic risk scores that are appropriately calibrated to diverse populations 34 , 35 as the eMERGE programme has done leveraging All of Us data 36 , 37 ). Developing new tools and regulatory frameworks to enable analyses across multiple biobanks in the cloud to harness the unique strengths of each is an active area of investigation addressed in a companion paper to this work 38 .

Second, the All of Us Researcher Workbench embodies the programme’s design philosophy of open science, reproducible research, equitable access and transparency to researchers and to research participants 26 . Importantly, for research studies, no group of data users should have privileged access to All of Us resources based on anything other than data protection criteria. Although the All of Us Researcher Workbench initially targeted onboarding US academic, health care and non-profit organizations, it has recently expanded to international researchers. We anticipate further genomic and phenotypic data releases at regular intervals with data available to all researcher communities. We also anticipate additional derived data and functionality to be made available, such as reference data, structural variants and a service for array imputation using the All of Us genomic data.

Third, All of Us enables studying human biology at an unprecedented scale. The programmatic goal of sequencing one million or more genomes has required harnessing the output of multiple sequencing centres. Previous work has focused on achieving functional equivalence in data processing and joint calling pipelines 39 . To achieve clinical-grade data equivalence, All of Us required protocol equivalence at both sequencing production level and data processing across the sequencing centres. Furthermore, previous work has demonstrated the value of joint calling at scale 10 , 18 . The new GVS framework developed by the All of Us programme enables joint calling at extreme scales (Code availability). Finally, the provision of data access through cloud-native tools enables scalable and secure access and analysis to researchers while simultaneously enabling the trust of research participants and transparency underlying the All of Us data passport access model.

The clinical-grade sequencing carried out by All of Us enables not only research, but also the return of value to participants through clinically relevant genetic results and health-related traits to those who opt-in to receiving this information. In the years ahead, we anticipate that this partnership with All of Us participants will enable researchers to move beyond large-scale genomic discovery to understanding the consequences of implementing genomic medicine at scale.

The All of Us cohort

All of Us aims to engage a longitudinal cohort of one million or more US participants, with a focus on including populations that have historically been under-represented in biomedical research. Details of the All of Us cohort have been described previously 5 . Briefly, the primary objective is to build a robust research resource that can facilitate the exploration of biological, clinical, social and environmental determinants of health and disease. The programme will collect and curate health-related data and biospecimens, and these data and biospecimens will be made broadly available for research uses. Health data are obtained through the electronic medical record and through participant surveys. Survey templates can be found on our public website: https://www.researchallofus.org/data-tools/survey-explorer/ . Adults 18 years and older who have the capacity to consent and reside in the USA or a US territory at present are eligible. Informed consent for all participants is conducted in person or through an eConsent platform that includes primary consent, HIPAA Authorization for Research use of EHRs and other external health data, and Consent for Return of Genomic Results. The protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the All of Us Research Program. The All of Us IRB follows the regulations and guidance of the NIH Office for Human Research Protections for all studies, ensuring that the rights and welfare of research participants are overseen and protected uniformly.

Data accessibility through a ‘data passport’

Authorization for access to participant-level data in All of Us is based on a ‘data passport’ model, through which authorized researchers do not need IRB review for each research project. The data passport is required for gaining data access to the Researcher Workbench and for creating workspaces to carry out research projects using All of Us data. At present, data passports are authorized through a six-step process that includes affiliation with an institution that has signed a Data Use and Registration Agreement, account creation, identity verification, completion of ethics training, and attestation to a data user code of conduct. Results reported follow the All of Us Data and Statistics Dissemination Policy disallowing disclosure of group counts under 20 to protect participant privacy without seeking prior approval 40 .

At present, All of Us gathers EHR data from about 50 health care organizations that are funded to recruit and enrol participants as well as transfer EHR data for those participants who have consented to provide them. Data stewards at each provider organization harmonize their local data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model, and then submit it to the All of Us Data and Research Center (DRC) so that it can be linked with other participant data and further curated for research use. OMOP is a common data model standardizing health information from disparate EHRs to common vocabularies and organized into tables according to data domains. EHR data are updated from the recruitment sites and sent to the DRC quarterly. Updated data releases to the research community occur approximately once a year. Supplementary Table 6 outlines the OMOP concepts collected by the DRC quarterly from the recruitment sites.

Biospecimen collection and processing

Participants who consented to participate in All of Us donated fresh whole blood (4 ml EDTA and 10 ml EDTA) as a primary source of DNA. The All of Us Biobank managed by the Mayo Clinic extracted DNA from 4 ml EDTA whole blood, and DNA was stored at −80 °C at an average concentration of 150 ng µl −1 . The buffy coat isolated from 10 ml EDTA whole blood has been used for extracting DNA in the case of initial extraction failure or absence of 4 ml EDTA whole blood. The Biobank plated 2.4 µg DNA with a concentration of 60 ng µl −1 in duplicate for array and WGS samples. The samples are distributed to All of Us Genome Centers weekly, and a negative (empty well) control and National Institute of Standards and Technology controls are incorporated every two months for QC purposes.

Genome Center sample receipt, accession and QC

On receipt of DNA sample shipments, the All of Us Genome Centers carry out an inspection of the packaging and sample containers to ensure that sample integrity has not been compromised during transport and to verify that the sample containers correspond to the shipping manifest. QC of the submitted samples also includes DNA quantification, using routine procedures to confirm volume and concentration (Supplementary Table 7 ). Any issues or discrepancies are recorded, and affected samples are put on hold until resolved. Samples that meet quality thresholds are accessioned in the Laboratory Information Management System, and sample aliquots are prepared for library construction processing (for example, normalized with respect to concentration and volume).

WGS library construction, sequencing and primary data QC

The DNA sample is first sheared using a Covaris sonicator and is then size-selected using AMPure XP beads to restrict the range of library insert sizes. Using the PCR Free Kapa HyperPrep library construction kit, enzymatic steps are completed to repair the jagged ends of DNA fragments, add proper A-base segments, and ligate indexed adapter barcode sequences onto samples. Excess adaptors are removed using AMPure XP beads for a final clean-up. Libraries are quantified using quantitative PCR with the Illumina Kapa DNA Quantification Kit and then normalized and pooled for sequencing (Supplementary Table 7 ).

Pooled libraries are loaded on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 instrument. The data from the initial sequencing run are used to QC individual libraries and to remove non-conforming samples from the pipeline. The data are also used to calibrate the pooling volume of each individual library and re-pool the libraries for additional NovaSeq sequencing to reach an average coverage of 30×.

After demultiplexing, WGS analysis occurs on the Illumina DRAGEN platform. The DRAGEN pipeline consists of highly optimized algorithms for mapping, aligning, sorting, duplicate marking and haplotype variant calling and makes use of platform features such as compression and BCL conversion. Alignment uses the GRCh38dh reference genome. QC data are collected at every stage of the analysis protocol, providing high-resolution metrics required to ensure data consistency for large-scale multiplexing. The DRAGEN pipeline produces a large number of metrics that cover lane, library, flow cell, barcode and sample-level metrics for all runs as well as assessing contamination and mapping quality. The All of Us Genome Centers use these metrics to determine pass or fail for each sample before submitting the CRAM files to the All of Us DRC. For mapping and variant calling, all Genome Centers have harmonized on a set of DRAGEN parameters, which ensures consistency in processing (Supplementary Table 2 ).

Every step through the WGS procedure is rigorously controlled by predefined QC measures. Various control mechanisms and acceptance criteria were established during WGS assay validation. Specific metrics for reviewing and releasing genome data are: mean coverage (threshold of ≥30×), genome coverage (threshold of ≥90% at 20×), coverage of hereditary disease risk genes (threshold of ≥95% at 20×), aligned Q30 bases (threshold of ≥8 × 10 10 ), contamination (threshold of ≤1%) and concordance to independently processed array data.

Array genotyping

Samples are processed for genotyping at three All of Us Genome Centers (Broad, Johns Hopkins University and University of Washington). DNA samples are received from the Biobank and the process is facilitated by the All of Us genomics workflow described above. All three centres used an identical array product, scanners, resource files and genotype calling software for array processing to reduce batch effects. Each centre has its own Laboratory Information Management System that manages workflow control, sample and reagent tracking, and centre-specific liquid handling robotics.

Samples are processed using the Illumina Global Diversity Array (GDA) with Illumina Infinium LCG chemistry using the automated protocol and scanned on Illumina iSCANs with Automated Array Loaders. Illumina IAAP software converts raw data (IDAT files; 2 per sample) into a single GTC file per sample using the BPM file (defines strand, probe sequences and illumicode address) and the EGT file (defines the relationship between intensities and genotype calls). Files used for this data release are: GDA-8v1-0_A5.bpm, GDA-8v1-0_A1_ClusterFile.egt, gentrain v3, reference hg19 and gencall cutoff 0.15. The GDA array assays a total of 1,914,935 variant positions including 1,790,654 single-nucleotide variants, 44,172 indels, 9,935 intensity-only probes for CNV calling, and 70,174 duplicates (same position, different probes). Picard GtcToVcf is used to convert the GTC files to VCF format. Resulting VCF and IDAT files are submitted to the DRC for ingestion and further processing. The VCF file contains assay name, chromosome, position, genotype calls, quality score, raw and normalized intensities, B allele frequency and log R ratio values. Each genome centre is running the GDA array under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-compliant protocols. The GTC files are parsed and metrics are uploaded to in-house Laboratory Information Management System systems for QC review.

At batch level (each set of 96-well plates run together in the laboratory at one time), each genome centre includes positive control samples that are required to have >98% call rate and >99% concordance to existing data to approve release of the batch of data. At the sample level, the call rate and sex are the key QC determinants 41 . Contamination is also measured using BAFRegress 42 and reported out as metadata. Any sample with a call rate below 98% is repeated one time in the laboratory. Genotyped sex is determined by plotting normalized x versus normalized y intensity values for a batch of samples. Any sample discordant with ‘sex at birth’ reported by the All of Us participant is flagged for further detailed review and repeated one time in the laboratory. If several sex-discordant samples are clustered on an array or on a 96-well plate, the entire array or plate will have data production repeated. Samples identified with sex chromosome aneuploidies are also reported back as metadata (XXX, XXY, XYY and so on). A final processing status of ‘pass’, ‘fail’ or ‘abandon’ is determined before release of data to the All of Us DRC. An array sample will pass if the call rate is >98% and the genotyped sex and sex at birth are concordant (or the sex at birth is not applicable). An array sample will fail if the genotyped sex and the sex at birth are discordant. An array sample will have the status of abandon if the call rate is <98% after at least two attempts at the genome centre.

Data from the arrays are used for participant return of genetic ancestry and non-health-related traits for those who consent, and they are also used to facilitate additional QC of the matched WGS data. Contamination is assessed in the array data to determine whether DNA re-extraction is required before WGS. Re-extraction is prompted by level of contamination combined with consent status for return of results. The arrays are also used to confirm sample identity between the WGS data and the matched array data by assessing concordance at 100 unique sites. To establish concordance, a fingerprint file of these 100 sites is provided to the Genome Centers to assess concordance with the same sites in the WGS data before CRAM submission.

Genomic data curation

As seen in Extended Data Fig. 2 , we generate a joint call set for all WGS samples and make these data available in their entirety and by sample subsets to researchers. A breakdown of the frequencies, stratified by computed ancestries for which we had more than 10,000 participants can be found in Extended Data Fig. 3 . The joint call set process allows us to leverage information across samples to improve QC and increase accuracy.

Single-sample QC

If a sample fails single-sample QC, it is excluded from the release and is not reported in this document. These tests detect sample swaps, cross-individual contamination and sample preparation errors. In some cases, we carry out these tests twice (at both the Genome Center and the DRC), for two reasons: to confirm internal consistency between sites; and to mark samples as passing (or failing) QC on the basis of the research pipeline criteria. The single-sample QC process accepts a higher contamination rate than the clinical pipeline (0.03 for the research pipeline versus 0.01 for the clinical pipeline), but otherwise uses identical thresholds. The list of specific QC processes, passing criteria, error modes addressed and an overview of the results can be found in Supplementary Table 3 .

Joint call set QC

During joint calling, we carry out additional QC steps using information that is available across samples including hard thresholds, population outliers, allele-specific filters, and sensitivity and precision evaluation. Supplementary Table 4 summarizes both the steps that we took and the results obtained for the WGS data. More detailed information about the methods and specific parameters can be found in the All of Us Genomic Research Data Quality Report 36 .

Batch effect analysis

We analysed cross-sequencing centre batch effects in the joint call set. To quantify the batch effect, we calculated Cohen’s d (ref.  43 ) for four metrics (insertion/deletion ratio, single-nucleotide polymorphism count, indel count and single-nucleotide polymorphism transition/transversion ratio) across the three genome sequencing centres (Baylor College of Medicine, Broad Institute and University of Washington), stratified by computed ancestry and seven regions of the genome (whole genome, high-confidence calling, repetitive, GC content of >0.85, GC content of <0.15, low mappability, the ACMG59 genes and regions of large duplications (>1 kb)). Using random batches as a control set, all comparisons had a Cohen’s d of <0.35. Here we report any Cohen’s d results >0.5, which we chose before this analysis and is conventionally the threshold of a medium effect size 44 .

We found that there was an effect size in indel counts (Cohen’s d of 0.53) in the entire genome, between Broad Institute and University of Washington, but this was being driven by repetitive and low-mappability regions. We found no batch effects with Cohen’s d of >0.5 in the ratio metrics or in any metrics in the high-confidence calling, low or high GC content, or ACMG59 regions. A complete list of the batch effects with Cohen’s d of >0.5 are found in Supplementary Table 8 .

Sensitivity and precision evaluation

To determine sensitivity and precision, we included four well-characterized control samples (four National Institute of Standards and Technology Genome in a Bottle samples (HG-001, HG-003, HG-004 and HG-005). The samples were sequenced with the same protocol as All of Us. Of note, these samples were not included in data released to researchers. We used the corresponding published set of variant calls for each sample as the ground truth in our sensitivity and precision calculations. We use the high-confidence calling region, defined by Genome in a Bottle v4.2.1, as the source of ground truth. To be called a true positive, a variant must match the chromosome, position, reference allele, alternate allele and zygosity. In cases of sites with multiple alternative alleles, each alternative allele is considered separately. Sensitivity and precision results are reported in Supplementary Table 5 .

Genetic ancestry inference

We computed categorical ancestry for all WGS samples in All of Us and made these available to researchers. These predictions are also the basis for population allele frequency calculations in the Genomic Variants section of the public Data Browser. We used the high-quality set of sites to determine an ancestry label for each sample. The ancestry categories are based on the same labels used in gnomAD 18 , the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) 45 and 1000 Genomes 1 : African (AFR); Latino/admixed American (AMR); East Asian (EAS); Middle Eastern (MID); European (EUR), composed of Finnish (FIN) and Non-Finnish European (NFE); Other (OTH), not belonging to one of the other ancestries or is an admixture; South Asian (SAS).

We trained a random forest classifier 46 on a training set of the HGDP and 1000 Genomes samples variants on the autosome, obtained from gnomAD 11 . We generated the first 16 principal components (PCs) of the training sample genotypes (using the hwe_normalized_pca in Hail) at the high-quality variant sites for use as the feature vector for each training sample. We used the truth labels from the sample metadata, which can be found alongside the VCFs. Note that we do not train the classifier on the samples labelled as Other. We use the label probabilities (‘confidence’) of the classifier on the other ancestries to determine ancestry of Other.

To determine the ancestry of All of Us samples, we project the All of Us samples into the PCA space of the training data and apply the classifier. As a proxy for the accuracy of our All of Us predictions, we look at the concordance between the survey results and the predicted ancestry. The concordance between self-reported ethnicity and the ancestry predictions was 87.7%.

PC data from All of Us samples and the HGDP and 1000 Genomes samples were used to compute individual participant genetic ancestry fractions for All of Us samples using the Rye program. Rye uses PC data to carry out rapid and accurate genetic ancestry inference on biobank-scale datasets 47 . HGDP and 1000 Genomes reference samples were used to define a set of six distinct and coherent ancestry groups—African, East Asian, European, Middle Eastern, Latino/admixed American and South Asian—corresponding to participant self-identified race and ethnicity groups. Rye was run on the first 16 PCs, using the defined reference ancestry groups to assign ancestry group fractions to individual All of Us participant samples.

Relatedness

We calculated the kinship score using the Hail pc_relate function and reported any pairs with a kinship score above 0.1. The kinship score is half of the fraction of the genetic material shared (ranges from 0.0 to 0.5). We determined the maximal independent set 41 for related samples. We identified a maximally unrelated set of 231,442 samples (94%) for kinship scored greater than 0.1.

LDL-C common variant GWAS

The phenotypic data were extracted from the Curated Data Repository (CDR, Control Tier Dataset v7) in the All of Us Researcher Workbench. The All of Us Cohort Builder and Dataset Builder were used to extract all LDL cholesterol measurements from the Lab and Measurements criteria in EHR data for all participants who have WGS data. The most recent measurements were selected as the phenotype and adjusted for statin use 19 , age and sex. A rank-based inverse normal transformation was applied for this continuous trait to increase power and deflate type I error. Analysis was carried out on the Hail MatrixTable representation of the All of Us WGS joint-called data including removing monomorphic variants, variants with a call rate of <95% and variants with extreme Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium values ( P  < 10 −15 ). A linear regression was carried out with REGENIE 48 on variants with a minor allele frequency >5%, further adjusting for relatedness to the first five ancestry PCs. The final analysis included 34,924 participants and 8,589,520 variants.

Genotype-by-phenotype replication

We tested replication rates of known phenotype–genotype associations in three of the four largest populations: EUR, AFR and EAS. The AMR population was not included because they have no registered GWAS. This method is a conceptual extension of the original GWAS × phenome-wide association study, which replicated 66% of powered associations in a single EHR-linked biobank 49 . The PGRM is an expansion of this work by Bastarache et al., based on associations in the GWAS catalogue 50 in June 2020 (ref.  51 ). After directly matching the Experimental Factor Ontology terms to phecodes, the authors identified 8,085 unique loci and 170 unique phecodes that compose the PGRM. They showed replication rates in several EHR-linked biobanks ranging from 76% to 85%. For this analysis, we used the EUR-, and AFR-based maps, considering only catalogue associations that were P  < 5 × 10 −8 significant.

The main tools used were the Python package Hail for data extraction, plink for genomic associations, and the R packages PheWAS and pgrm for further analysis and visualization. The phenotypes, participant-reported sex at birth, and year of birth were extracted from the All of Us CDR (Controlled Tier Dataset v7). These phenotypes were then loaded into a plink-compatible format using the PheWAS package, and related samples were removed by sub-setting to the maximally unrelated dataset ( n  = 231,442). Only samples with EHR data were kept, filtered by selected loci, annotated with demographic and phenotypic information extracted from the CDR and ancestry prediction information provided by All of Us, ultimately resulting in 181,345 participants for downstream analysis. The variants in the PGRM were filtered by a minimum population-specific allele frequency of >1% or population-specific allele count of >100, leaving 4,986 variants. Results for which there were at least 20 cases in the ancestry group were included. Then, a series of Firth logistic regression tests with phecodes as the outcome and variants as the predictor were carried out, adjusting for age, sex (for non-sex-specific phenotypes) and the first three genomic PC features as covariates. The PGRM was annotated with power calculations based on the case counts and reported allele frequencies. Power of 80% or greater was considered powered for this analysis.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The All of Us Research Hub has a tiered data access data passport model with three data access tiers. The Public Tier dataset contains only aggregate data with identifiers removed. These data are available to the public through Data Snapshots ( https://www.researchallofus.org/data-tools/data-snapshots/ ) and the public Data Browser ( https://databrowser.researchallofus.org/ ). The Registered Tier curated dataset contains individual-level data, available only to approved researchers on the Researcher Workbench. At present, the Registered Tier includes data from EHRs, wearables and surveys, as well as physical measurements taken at the time of participant enrolment. The Controlled Tier dataset contains all data in the Registered Tier and additionally genomic data in the form of WGS and genotyping arrays, previously suppressed demographic data fields from EHRs and surveys, and unshifted dates of events. At present, Registered Tier and Controlled Tier data are available to researchers at academic institutions, non-profit institutions, and both non-profit and for-profit health care institutions. Work is underway to begin extending access to additional audiences, including industry-affiliated researchers. Researchers have the option to register for Registered Tier and/or Controlled Tier access by completing the All of Us Researcher Workbench access process, which includes identity verification and All of Us-specific training in research involving human participants ( https://www.researchallofus.org/register/ ). Researchers may create a new workspace at any time to conduct any research study, provided that they comply with all Data Use Policies and self-declare their research purpose. This information is made accessible publicly on the All of Us Research Projects Directory at https://allofus.nih.gov/protecting-data-and-privacy/research-projects-all-us-data .

Code availability

The GVS code is available at https://github.com/broadinstitute/gatk/tree/ah_var_store/scripts/variantstore . The LDL GWAS pipeline is available as a demonstration project in the Featured Workspace Library on the Researcher Workbench ( https://workbench.researchallofus.org/workspaces/aou-rw-5981f9dc/aouldlgwasregeniedsubctv6duplicate/notebooks ).

The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 526 , 68–74 (2015).

Article   Google Scholar  

Claussnitzer, M. et al. A brief history of human disease genetics. Nature 577 , 179–189 (2020).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   ADS   Google Scholar  

Wojcik, G. L. et al. Genetic analyses of diverse populations improves discovery for complex traits. Nature 570 , 514–518 (2019).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lewis, A. C. F. et al. Getting genetic ancestry right for science and society. Science 376 , 250–252 (2022).

All of Us Program Investigators. The “All of Us” Research Program. N. Engl. J. Med. 381 , 668–676 (2019).

Ramirez, A. H., Gebo, K. A. & Harris, P. A. Progress with the All of Us Research Program: opening access for researchers. JAMA 325 , 2441–2442 (2021).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ramirez, A. H. et al. The All of Us Research Program: data quality, utility, and diversity. Patterns 3 , 100570 (2022).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Overhage, J. M., Ryan, P. B., Reich, C. G., Hartzema, A. G. & Stang, P. E. Validation of a common data model for active safety surveillance research. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 19 , 54–60 (2012).

Venner, E. et al. Whole-genome sequencing as an investigational device for return of hereditary disease risk and pharmacogenomic results as part of the All of Us Research Program. Genome Med. 14 , 34 (2022).

Lek, M. et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature 536 , 285–291 (2016).

Tiao, G. & Goodrich, J. gnomAD v3.1 New Content, Methods, Annotations, and Data Availability ; https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org/news/2020-10-gnomad-v3-1-new-content-methods-annotations-and-data-availability/ .

Chen, S. et al. A genomic mutational constraint map using variation in 76,156 human genomes. Nature 625 , 92–100 (2022).

Zook, J. M. et al. An open resource for accurately benchmarking small variant and reference calls. Nat. Biotechnol. 37 , 561–566 (2019).

Krusche, P. et al. Best practices for benchmarking germline small-variant calls in human genomes. Nat. Biotechnol. 37 , 555–560 (2019).

Stromberg, M. et al. Nirvana: clinical grade variant annotator. In Proc. 8th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics 596 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2017).

Sherry, S. T. et al. dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 29 , 308–311 (2001).

Venner, E. et al. The frequency of pathogenic variation in the All of Us cohort reveals ancestry-driven disparities. Commun. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05708-y (2024).

Karczewski, S. et al. The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans. Nature 581 , 434–443 (2020).

Selvaraj, M. S. et al. Whole genome sequence analysis of blood lipid levels in >66,000 individuals. Nat. Commun. 13 , 5995 (2022).

Wang, X. et al. Common and rare variants associated with cardiometabolic traits across 98,622 whole-genome sequences in the All of Us research program. J. Hum. Genet. 68 , 565–570 (2023).

Bastarache, L. et al. The phenotype-genotype reference map: improving biobank data science through replication. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 110 , 1522–1533 (2023).

Bianchi, D. W. et al. The All of Us Research Program is an opportunity to enhance the diversity of US biomedical research. Nat. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02744-3 (2024).

Van Driest, S. L. et al. Association between a common, benign genotype and unnecessary bone marrow biopsies among African American patients. JAMA Intern. Med. 181 , 1100–1105 (2021).

Chen, M.-H. et al. Trans-ethnic and ancestry-specific blood-cell genetics in 746,667 individuals from 5 global populations. Cell 182 , 1198–1213 (2020).

Chiou, J. et al. Interpreting type 1 diabetes risk with genetics and single-cell epigenomics. Nature 594 , 398–402 (2021).

Hu, X. et al. Additive and interaction effects at three amino acid positions in HLA-DQ and HLA-DR molecules drive type 1 diabetes risk. Nat. Genet. 47 , 898–905 (2015).

Grant, S. F. A. et al. Variant of transcription factor 7-like 2 (TCF7L2) gene confers risk of type 2 diabetes. Nat. Genet. 38 , 320–323 (2006).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

All of Us Research Program. Framework for Access to All of Us Data Resources v1.1 (2021); https://www.researchallofus.org/wp-content/themes/research-hub-wordpress-theme/media/data&tools/data-access-use/AoU_Data_Access_Framework_508.pdf .

Abul-Husn, N. S. & Kenny, E. E. Personalized medicine and the power of electronic health records. Cell 177 , 58–69 (2019).

Mapes, B. M. et al. Diversity and inclusion for the All of Us research program: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 15 , e0234962 (2020).

Taliun, D. et al. Sequencing of 53,831 diverse genomes from the NHLBI TOPMed Program. Nature 590 , 290–299 (2021).

Bycroft, C. et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 562 , 203–209 (2018).

Halldorsson, B. V. et al. The sequences of 150,119 genomes in the UK Biobank. Nature 607 , 732–740 (2022).

Kurniansyah, N. et al. Evaluating the use of blood pressure polygenic risk scores across race/ethnic background groups. Nat. Commun. 14 , 3202 (2023).

Hou, K. et al. Causal effects on complex traits are similar for common variants across segments of different continental ancestries within admixed individuals. Nat. Genet. 55 , 549– 558 (2022).

Linder, J. E. et al. Returning integrated genomic risk and clinical recommendations: the eMERGE study. Genet. Med. 25 , 100006 (2023).

Lennon, N. J. et al. Selection, optimization and validation of ten chronic disease polygenic risk scores for clinical implementation in diverse US populations. Nat. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02796-z (2024).

Deflaux, N. et al. Demonstrating paths for unlocking the value of cloud genomics through cross cohort analysis. Nat. Commun. 14 , 5419 (2023).

Regier, A. A. et al. Functional equivalence of genome sequencing analysis pipelines enables harmonized variant calling across human genetics projects. Nat. Commun. 9 , 4038 (2018).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   ADS   Google Scholar  

All of Us Research Program. Data and Statistics Dissemination Policy (2020); https://www.researchallofus.org/wp-content/themes/research-hub-wordpress-theme/media/2020/05/AoU_Policy_Data_and_Statistics_Dissemination_508.pdf .

Laurie, C. C. et al. Quality control and quality assurance in genotypic data for genome-wide association studies. Genet. Epidemiol. 34 , 591–602 (2010).

Jun, G. et al. Detecting and estimating contamination of human DNA samples in sequencing and array-based genotype data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 91 , 839–848 (2012).

Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Routledge, 2013).

Andrade, C. Mean difference, standardized mean difference (SMD), and their use in meta-analysis. J. Clin. Psychiatry 81 , 20f13681 (2020).

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. The Human Genome Diversity Project: past, present and future. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 , 333–340 (2005).

Ho, T. K. Random decision forests. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (IEEE Computer Society Press, 2002).

Conley, A. B. et al. Rye: genetic ancestry inference at biobank scale. Nucleic Acids Res. 51 , e44 (2023).

Mbatchou, J. et al. Computationally efficient whole-genome regression for quantitative and binary traits. Nat. Genet. 53 , 1097–1103 (2021).

Denny, J. C. Systematic comparison of phenome-wide association study of electronic medical record data and genome-wide association study data. Nat. Biotech. 31 , 1102–1111 (2013).

Buniello, A. et al. The NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog of published genome-wide association studies, targeted arrays and summary statistics 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 47 , D1005–D1012 (2019).

Bastarache, L. et al. The Phenotype-Genotype Reference Map: improving biobank data science through replication. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 10 , 1522–1533 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The All of Us Research Program is supported by the National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director: Regional Medical Centers (OT2 OD026549; OT2 OD026554; OT2 OD026557; OT2 OD026556; OT2 OD026550; OT2 OD 026552; OT2 OD026553; OT2 OD026548; OT2 OD026551; OT2 OD026555); Inter agency agreement AOD 16037; Federally Qualified Health Centers HHSN 263201600085U; Data and Research Center: U2C OD023196; Genome Centers (OT2 OD002748; OT2 OD002750; OT2 OD002751); Biobank: U24 OD023121; The Participant Center: U24 OD023176; Participant Technology Systems Center: U24 OD023163; Communications and Engagement: OT2 OD023205; OT2 OD023206; and Community Partners (OT2 OD025277; OT2 OD025315; OT2 OD025337; OT2 OD025276). In addition, the All of Us Research Program would not be possible without the partnership of its participants. All of Us and the All of Us logo are service marks of the US Department of Health and Human Services. E.E.E. is an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. We acknowledge the foundational contributions of our friend and colleague, the late Deborah A. Nickerson. Debbie’s years of insightful contributions throughout the formation of the All of Us genomics programme are permanently imprinted, and she shares credit for all of the successes of this programme.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Genetic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

Alexander G. Bick & Henry R. Condon

Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

Ginger A. Metcalf, Eric Boerwinkle, Richard A. Gibbs, Donna M. Muzny, Eric Venner, Kimberly Walker, Jianhong Hu, Harsha Doddapaneni, Christie L. Kovar, Mullai Murugan, Shannon Dugan, Ziad Khan & Eric Boerwinkle

Vanderbilt Institute of Clinical and Translational Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

Kelsey R. Mayo, Jodell E. Linder, Melissa Basford, Ashley Able, Ashley E. Green, Robert J. Carroll, Jennifer Zhang & Yuanyuan Wang

Data Sciences Platform, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA

Lee Lichtenstein, Anthony Philippakis, Sophie Schwartz, M. Morgan T. Aster, Kristian Cibulskis, Andrea Haessly, Rebecca Asch, Aurora Cremer, Kylee Degatano, Akum Shergill, Laura D. Gauthier, Samuel K. Lee, Aaron Hatcher, George B. Grant, Genevieve R. Brandt, Miguel Covarrubias, Eric Banks & Wail Baalawi

Verily, South San Francisco, CA, USA

Shimon Rura, David Glazer, Moira K. Dillon & C. H. Albach

Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

Robert J. Carroll, Paul A. Harris & Dan M. Roden

All of Us Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

Anjene Musick, Andrea H. Ramirez, Sokny Lim, Siddhartha Nambiar, Bradley Ozenberger, Anastasia L. Wise, Chris Lunt, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg & Joshua C. Denny

School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

I. King Jordan, Shashwat Deepali Nagar & Shivam Sharma

Neuroscience Institute, Institute of Translational Genomic Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

Robert Meller

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Mine S. Cicek, Stephen N. Thibodeau & Mine S. Cicek

Department of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Kimberly F. Doheny, Michelle Z. Mawhinney, Sean M. L. Griffith, Elvin Hsu, Hua Ling & Marcia K. Adams

Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

Evan E. Eichler, Joshua D. Smith, Christian D. Frazar, Colleen P. Davis, Karynne E. Patterson, Marsha M. Wheeler, Sean McGee, Mitzi L. Murray, Valeria Vasta, Dru Leistritz, Matthew A. Richardson, Aparna Radhakrishnan & Brenna W. Ehmen

Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Evan E. Eichler

Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA

Stacey Gabriel, Heidi L. Rehm, Niall J. Lennon, Christina Austin-Tse, Eric Banks, Michael Gatzen, Namrata Gupta, Katie Larsson, Sheli McDonough, Steven M. Harrison, Christopher Kachulis, Matthew S. Lebo, Seung Hoan Choi & Xin Wang

Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

Gail P. Jarvik & Elisabeth A. Rosenthal

Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

Dan M. Roden

Department of Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

Center for Individualized Medicine, Biorepository Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Stephen N. Thibodeau, Ashley L. Blegen, Samantha J. Wirkus, Victoria A. Wagner, Jeffrey G. Meyer & Mine S. Cicek

Color Health, Burlingame, CA, USA

Scott Topper, Cynthia L. Neben, Marcie Steeves & Alicia Y. Zhou

School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

Eric Boerwinkle

Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, Massachusetts General Brigham Personalized Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA

Christina Austin-Tse, Emma Henricks & Matthew S. Lebo

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

Christina M. Lockwood, Brian H. Shirts, Colin C. Pritchard, Jillian G. Buchan & Niklas Krumm

Manuscript Writing Group

• Alexander G. Bick
• , Ginger A. Metcalf
• , Kelsey R. Mayo
• , Lee Lichtenstein
• , Shimon Rura
• , Robert J. Carroll
• , Anjene Musick
• , Jodell E. Linder
• , I. King Jordan
• , Shashwat Deepali Nagar
• , Shivam Sharma
•  & Robert Meller

All of Us Research Program Genomics Principal Investigators

• Melissa Basford
• , Eric Boerwinkle
• , Mine S. Cicek
• , Kimberly F. Doheny
• , Evan E. Eichler
• , Stacey Gabriel
• , Richard A. Gibbs
• , David Glazer
• , Paul A. Harris
• , Gail P. Jarvik
• , Anthony Philippakis
• , Heidi L. Rehm
• , Dan M. Roden
• , Stephen N. Thibodeau
•  & Scott Topper

Biobank, Mayo

• Ashley L. Blegen
• , Samantha J. Wirkus
• , Victoria A. Wagner
• , Jeffrey G. Meyer
•  & Stephen N. Thibodeau

Genome Center: Baylor-Hopkins Clinical Genome Center

• Donna M. Muzny
• , Eric Venner
• , Michelle Z. Mawhinney
• , Sean M. L. Griffith
• , Elvin Hsu
• , Marcia K. Adams
• , Kimberly Walker
• , Jianhong Hu
• , Harsha Doddapaneni
• , Christie L. Kovar
• , Mullai Murugan
• , Shannon Dugan
• , Ziad Khan
•  & Richard A. Gibbs

Genome Center: Broad, Color, and Mass General Brigham Laboratory for Molecular Medicine

• Niall J. Lennon
• , Christina Austin-Tse
• , Eric Banks
• , Michael Gatzen
• , Namrata Gupta
• , Emma Henricks
• , Katie Larsson
• , Sheli McDonough
• , Steven M. Harrison
• , Christopher Kachulis
• , Matthew S. Lebo
• , Cynthia L. Neben
• , Marcie Steeves
• , Alicia Y. Zhou
• , Scott Topper
•  & Stacey Gabriel

Genome Center: University of Washington

• Gail P. Jarvik
• , Joshua D. Smith
• , Christian D. Frazar
• , Colleen P. Davis
• , Karynne E. Patterson
• , Marsha M. Wheeler
• , Sean McGee
• , Christina M. Lockwood
• , Brian H. Shirts
• , Colin C. Pritchard
• , Mitzi L. Murray
• , Valeria Vasta
• , Dru Leistritz
• , Matthew A. Richardson
• , Jillian G. Buchan
• , Aparna Radhakrishnan
• , Niklas Krumm
•  & Brenna W. Ehmen

Data and Research Center

• Lee Lichtenstein
• , Sophie Schwartz
• , M. Morgan T. Aster
• , Kristian Cibulskis
• , Andrea Haessly
• , Rebecca Asch
• , Aurora Cremer
• , Kylee Degatano
• , Akum Shergill
• , Laura D. Gauthier
• , Samuel K. Lee
• , Aaron Hatcher
• , George B. Grant
• , Genevieve R. Brandt
• , Miguel Covarrubias
• , Melissa Basford
• , Alexander G. Bick
• , Ashley Able
• , Ashley E. Green
• , Jennifer Zhang
• , Henry R. Condon
• , Yuanyuan Wang
• , Moira K. Dillon
• , C. H. Albach
• , Wail Baalawi
•  & Dan M. Roden

All of Us Research Demonstration Project Teams

• Seung Hoan Choi
• , Elisabeth A. Rosenthal

NIH All of Us Research Program Staff

• Andrea H. Ramirez
• , Sokny Lim
• , Siddhartha Nambiar
• , Bradley Ozenberger
• , Anastasia L. Wise
• , Chris Lunt
• , Geoffrey S. Ginsburg
•  & Joshua C. Denny

Contributions

The All of Us Biobank (Mayo Clinic) collected, stored and plated participant biospecimens. The All of Us Genome Centers (Baylor-Hopkins Clinical Genome Center; Broad, Color, and Mass General Brigham Laboratory for Molecular Medicine; and University of Washington School of Medicine) generated and QCed the whole-genomic data. The All of Us Data and Research Center (Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and Verily) generated the WGS joint call set, carried out quality assurance and QC analyses and developed the Researcher Workbench. All of Us Research Demonstration Project Teams contributed analyses. The other All of Us Genomics Investigators and NIH All of Us Research Program Staff provided crucial programmatic support. Members of the manuscript writing group (A.G.B., G.A.M., K.R.M., L.L., S.R., R.J.C. and A.M.) wrote the first draft of this manuscript, which was revised with contributions and feedback from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander G. Bick .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

D.M.M., G.A.M., E.V., K.W., J.H., H.D., C.L.K., M.M., S.D., Z.K., E. Boerwinkle and R.A.G. declare that Baylor Genetics is a Baylor College of Medicine affiliate that derives revenue from genetic testing. Eric Venner is affiliated with Codified Genomics, a provider of genetic interpretation. E.E.E. is a scientific advisory board member of Variant Bio, Inc. A.G.B. is a scientific advisory board member of TenSixteen Bio. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks Timothy Frayling and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 historic availability of ehr records in all of us v7 controlled tier curated data repository (n = 413,457)..

For better visibility, the plot shows growth starting in 2010.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Overview of the Genomic Data Curation Pipeline for WGS samples.

The Data and Research Center (DRC) performs additional single sample quality control (QC) on the data as it arrives from the Genome Centers. The variants from samples that pass this QC are loaded into the Genomic Variant Store (GVS), where we jointly call the variants and apply additional QC. We apply a joint call set QC process, which is stored with the call set. The entire joint call set is rendered as a Hail Variant Dataset (VDS), which can be accessed from the analysis notebooks in the Researcher Workbench. Subsections of the genome are extracted from the VDS and rendered in different formats with all participants. Auxiliary data can also be accessed through the Researcher Workbench. This includes variant functional annotations, joint call set QC results, predicted ancestry, and relatedness. Auxiliary data are derived from GVS (arrow not shown) and the VDS. The Cohort Builder directly queries GVS when researchers request genomic data for subsets of samples. Aligned reads, as cram files, are available in the Researcher Workbench (not shown). The graphics of the dish, gene and computer and the All of Us logo are reproduced with permission of the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Proportion of allelic frequencies (AF), stratified by computed ancestry with over 10,000 participants.

Bar counts are not cumulative (eg, “pop AF < 0.01” does not include “pop AF < 0.001”).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Distribution of pathogenic, and likely pathogenic ClinVar variants.

Stratified by ancestry filtered to only those variants that are found in allele count (AC) < 40 individuals for 245,388 short read WGS samples.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Ancestry specific HLA-DQB1 ( rs9273363 ) locus associations in 231,442 unrelated individuals.

Phenome-wide (PheWAS) associations highlight ancestry specific consequences across ancestries.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Ancestry specific TCF7L2 ( rs7903146 ) locus associations in 231,442 unrelated individuals.

Phenome-wide (PheWAS) associations highlight diabetic consequences across ancestries.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Figs. 1–7, Tables 1–8 and Note.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary dataset 1.

Associations of ACKR1, HLA-DQB1 and TCF7L2 loci with all Phecodes stratified by genetic ancestry.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

The All of Us Research Program Genomics Investigators. Genomic data in the All of Us Research Program. Nature 627 , 340–346 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06957-x

Download citation

Received : 22 July 2022

Accepted : 08 December 2023

Published : 19 February 2024

Issue Date : 14 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06957-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

• Student/Faculty Portal
• Learning Hub (Brightspace)
• Continuous Professional Development
• Admissions and Benefits
• Choosing Mayo Clinic Overview
• Accreditation
• Meet Our Students

Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences

Biomedical research training, studying life. improving health..

Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences offers unique training experiences that develop biomedical scientists, educators, and innovators whose leadership will change the world.

Embedded in a top academic medical center, you’ll experience research opportunities unlike anywhere else — generating new knowledge and forever changing the face of science and medicine.

Ph.D. Program

Find an environment of academic inquiry and scientific discovery, combined with intellectual and technological resources designed to help you achieve your highest scientific career goals. Choose from eight specialty tracks.

M.D.-Ph.D. Program

Train as a physician-scientist who excels both at the bedside and in the laboratory. Collaborate with our 270+ scientific faculty on basic, translational, clinical, and epidemiological research.

Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF)

Immerse yourself in a research lab and work alongside established scientists to build your skills in this summer-long program for college students considering biomedical research careers.

See all our programs

Explore all the educational opportunities at Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences.

Admissions and benefits

Find admissions requirements, application processes, and benefit details for our programs.

of students participate in invention disclosures

years of continuous NIH funding recognition as a national destination for research training of students from backgrounds underrepresented in science

international students in our incoming classes on average since 2010

underrepresented students, including first-generation college students, in our incoming classes on average since 2010

Explore our campuses and communities

Three world-class locations with diverse patient populations and research opportunities. Pick sunny, snowy, or both.

Rochester, Minnesota

Rochester offers four seasons of recreation and is full of energy and advancement. Students enjoy the green space, variety of activities, family-friendly quality of life, and the nearby Twin Cities.

Phoenix, Arizona

Under sunny skies for 300+ days a year, students take advantage of a great foodie scene, nightlife, live music, and extensive outdoor activities within a major metro area.

Jacksonville, Florida

Jacksonville is the largest city in Florida. When students aren’t studying, they’re enjoying the vibrant art scene, jazz festivals, sports and recreation options, and 20+ miles of beaches.

What's happening at our school

Welcome new 2024 class of Ph.D. candidates in Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences

This summmer, Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences welcomed its latest class of Ph.D. candidates. The students — from across the country and the world — are now beginning their training on Mayo's campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota.

Mayo Clinic graduate student's story: Demystifying my diagnosis of autism

After learning about her condition, Mayo Clinic graduate student Lizz Cervantes addressed her educational needs — and chose her research focus. Here is her story.

Inspired by a father’s experience: Four sisters pursue healthcare careers at Mayo Clinic

Growing up, the Bardwell sisters — Hannah, Lydia, Abby, and Birdie — had front-row seats to the healthcare system. Their father was paralyzed in a construction accident. After witnessing the important role his care teams played in his life, each of the sisters decided to pursue a career in healthcare.

Ph.D. graduates share experience tackling heart disease research in Mayo Clinic laboratories

Damian Di Florio, Ph.D. and Danielle Beetler, Ph.D., 2024 graduates of Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, share their experiences in translational research as members of a cardiovascular disease lab at Mayo Clinic.

The future is now: Graduates awarded M.D., master’s, Ph.D. degrees at Mayo Clinic commencement

Over the past week, Mayo Clinic celebrated the achievements of new physicians and scientists at graduation ceremonies in Florida, Arizona and Minnesota.

Zack Aibaidula: Reflecting on the journey from shepherd to neurosurgeon-scientist

When Abudumijiti (Zack) Aibaidula walks across the stage to receive his Ph.D. at Mayo Clinic's commencement ceremony, he will mark the next stage in a remarkable educational journey. He shares his story and deep gratitude to Mayo Clinic and the mentors who have helped shape his career.

Joanina Gicobi, Ph.D.: Making discoveries in immunology and cancer

As Joanina Gicobi, Ph.D., nears the end of her research education and graduates this May, she shares her research journey, lessons she learned along the way, and hopes for the future.

2024 Commencement announced: Dates, speakers, and more

Commencement ceremonies are quickly approaching for M.D. and Ph.D. students across our three Mayo Clinic campuses. Learn more about event dates, times, speakers, and more.

Women's History Month: Graduate school leader shares perspective on women in science

During Women's History Month this March and in honor of the International Day of Women and Girls in Science on February 11, we share the perspective of women leaders at Mayo Clinic on the challenges some women face in scientific careers. Evette Radisky, Ph.D., associate dean of Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences in Florida, and professor of cancer biology and pharmacology, gives her experiences.

Black History Month: Ph.D. student shares story of belonging at Mayo Clinic

During Black History Month, Black learners share their experiences of empathy, support, and belonging at Mayo Clinic. This story features Taylor Andrews, a predoctoral student at Mayo Clinic in Florida.

Phase Transitions: Exploring a new approach to treating heart disease

"Phase Transitions" is a series in which students who are near the end of their Ph.D. training at Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences talk about their research journeys, lessons learned and hopes for the future.

Ph.D. candidate shares a passion for biomedical engineering with young students

Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Ph.D. candidate Katy Lydon recently won a $5,000 prize through a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering contest aimed at introducing biomedical engineering concepts to middle schoolers.

Graduate Student Research Symposium celebrates research at Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, in collaboration with the Graduate Student Association, held the 2023 Student Research Symposium on September 8 to recognize ongoing research at Mayo Clinic.

Phase transitions: Ph.D. students advance cancer research

In this article series, students who are near the end of their Ph.D. training at Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences talk about their research journeys, lessons learned, and hopes for the future.

The origins of Mayo Clinic’s M.D.-Ph.D. program in the words of our early leaders, students

Leaders and students from the early years of Mayo's M.D.-Ph.D. program share their recollections on the program in its infancy and how it grew to become a respected program despite some early and unexpected roadblocks.

High school and college students engage with Mayo Clinic through summer programs

Summertime is ideal for exploring possible life paths. During the summer, Mayo Clinic offers multiple pathway programs for high school and college students interested in various types of careers in biomedical research, medicine, and health sciences.

Phase transitions: Ph.D. students advance research through community engagement and DNA-based tools

Musical written by Ph.D. student sings the praises of nurses

"Broadway Nurse: A Musical Reading," written and composed by Ph.D. student Sam Buchl, traces the story of two people who have followed their dreams while being of service to others.

Phase transitions: Ph.D. students explore real-time seizure detection and antibiotic resistance

Commencement 2023 comes to a close with ceremonies in Arizona and Minnesota

Mayo Clinic's commencement celebrations came to a close this May with the final ceremony in Rochester after ceremonies in Arizona and Florida were held earlier in the month. We wish congratulations and best of luck to all of the graduates.

As commencement approaches, Ph.D. graduates share the path to their degree

This article series features the work of graduate students as they near the end of their Ph.D. training at Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. Students share their research journeys, lessons they learned along the way, and their hopes for the future.

Details announced for Mayo Clinic class of 2023 commencement ceremonies

Commencement 2023 at Mayo Clinic celebrates graduating medical students from Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota) and graduating Ph.D. students from Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (Minnesota). Learn more about ceremony details, speakers, and how you can tune in live.

Women's History Month: Recognizing women leaders and mentors at Mayo Clinic

Women pioneers of medicine helped shape Mayo Clinic in its early years and today, women leaders across departments and specialties are shaping Mayo Clinic's future and the future of medicine. Learn more about these amazing women as we end Women's History Month this March.

Physician scientist-in-training studies the route from well-being to being well

Throughout her training to become an M.D.-Ph.D. physician-scientist, Catherine “Kit” Knier has been interested in wide-ranging approaches that improve health. But during the Ph.D. component of her education in Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, her research turned to an unexpected topic: a scientific study of happiness and resilience.

Graduate students celebrate journey to becoming a scientist at Mayo Clinic Student Research Symposium

Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences brought together more than 300 students from across the organization in early September for its annual Student Research Symposium.

Student researcher teaches biomedical community about blindness – and life

Charlotte Brown has been visually impaired since birth and blind since age 14. As a scientist-in-training, she faces her research goals with the same approach as all the other activities she loves to do. "I run on a full tank of stubbornness, always," she says.

Mayo Clinic Summer Research Fellowship: A summer of exploration and lifelong takeaways

Curious about what it's like to work in a basic science lab, Yak Nak, a first-year medical student at the University of Missouri-Columbia, signed on to be part of Mayo Clinic's Summer Research Fellowship.

Discovery science contest winners in Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences

Across Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, discovery science thrives. To showcase this rich ecosystem of labs, clinical collaborations, technologies, and classes, the Center for Biomedical Discovery invited students, postdoctoral fellows, and research associates to share their enthusiasm for discovery science in words and images. Learn about the contest winners.

Mayo Clinic students help take research beyond the lab and into space

On Friday, April 8, the first all-civilian flight to the International Space Station lifted off from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Mayo Clinic research was on board this historic mission to space. Larry Connor, a Mayo Clinic benefactor and CEO of The Connor Group, made history as he piloted the flight. He and his crew took part in research projects for Mayo Clinic during the 10-day Axiom Space flight.

Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science to celebrate historic commencement with joint ceremony

Mayo Clinic is celebrating the next generation of physicians and scientists. In a joint ceremony on Sunday, May 22, students will receive degrees conferred by Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine and Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences.

2022 Ph.D. graduate looks ahead to a promising research career

Lee Peyton, Ph.D., wanted to become a scientist since he was a kid watching Bill Nye the Science Guy conduct experiments on TV. But when he first set foot on a Mayo Clinic campus, fresh from college with a microbiology degree, Dr. Peyton had no vision of the type of research career he wanted. Read his story as he prepares to graduate from Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences on Sunday, May 22.

Pathway programs bridge the gap for underrepresented students in health care

Mayo Clinic is making it possible for people from underrepresented communities to pursue careers in medicine, research and science, technology, engineering, and math, often referred to as STEM, through a number of programs. The Office for Education Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has designed 24 pathway programs for students from diverse backgrounds to explore and prepare for clinical and nonclinical health care careers.

From pediatric patient to promising researcher: Ph.D. student in regenerative sciences

When Delaney Liskey was 11, a mysterious temporary loss of eyesight triggered what would become a vision for patient-driven research that integrates personal experience and scientific inquiry. Thirteen years later, Liskey is part of the inaugural class of the Regenerative Sciences Ph.D. track in Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences.

Mayo Clinic graduate students tackle research on obesity and fatty liver disease

Destiny Schultz earned her undergraduate degree in biochemistry at the University of Minnesota. Scott Johnson earned his in biology and chemistry at Concordia University in Nebraska. Now, as students in Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences both are benefiting from a training grant that directly links research to patient care.

Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences celebrates students at 2021 commencement

On Saturday, Sept. 11, Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences held its first independent commencement in honor of 2020 and 2021 graduates. Until this year, its Ph.D. students shared a commencement with M.D. graduates from Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine. This year's event was held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recent Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences alumni led to public service

As students prepare to graduate from Mayo Clinic School of Biomedical Sciences on Saturday, Sept., 11, 2021, we share the experiences of recent graduates as they reflect on the impact that medical research has on society and how their training led them to public service.

Speakers announced for Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences commencement on Sept. 11, 2021

Anthony Fauci, M.D., and Franklyn Prendergast, M.D., Ph.D., are to be keynote speakers at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences commencement, which will be held virtually on Saturday, Sept. 11, 2021.

College of Medicine and Science recognizes outstanding educators, students, and fellows

See who won Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science's 2021 awards for outstanding educators, students, residents, and fellows.

Mayo Clinic M.D.-Ph.D. Program graduate charts a career path blending science with patient care

It was a day 10 years in the making for Jacqueline Zayas. On a Sunday afternoon in late May, surrounded by classmates and a contingent of her loved ones, Dr. Zayas officially earned her medical degree as part of Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine’s class of 2021.

Meet my research: Lindy Pence

The 'Meet My Research' series aims to showcase the research our students are involved with and the labs where they work. Join us as we go into the lab, introduce you to some of our learners, and interview them about what they're up to with their research and experience at Mayo Clinic!

Mayo Clinic student named one of thirty 2021 Paul and Daisy Soros Fellows

Nazanin Yeganeh Kazemi, an M.D./Ph.D. student in the Immunology track at Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, was named a 2021 Paul & Daisy Soros Fellow. This prestigious award is given to just 30 immigrants and children of immigrants who are pursuing graduate education in the U.S.

Awards recognize outstanding fellows, residents in Mayo Clinic School of Graduate Medical Education

Mayo Clinic School of Graduate Medical Education has announced the 2020 recipients of the Mayo Brothers Distinguished Fellowship Award and the Barbara Bush Distinguished Fellowship Award.

Meet my research: Joana Efua Aggrey Fynn

Meet my research: Ismail Can

Meet my research: Luz Milbeth Cumba Garcia

Meet my research: Taylor Weiskittel

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences to hold virtual information sessions

Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences will host virtual information sessions from now through April for prospective students interested in pursuing a career in the biomedical sciences.

Alumni story: Heba Abseh, HTL(ASCP)

Meet the alumni of Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science. This series aims to showcase where our students go after graduation, their accomplishments, and how they use their education to make an impact in their communities!

Regenerative sciences students show resilience despite research disruptions due to COVID-19

Adjusting to the many challenges of a global pandemic is one lesson regenerative sciences students didn’t expect to learn while training at Mayo Clinic this year. However, as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted plans and made classes transition to an online format, our students developed patience, persistence, flexibility, and, most of all, resilience. Three regenerative sciences students share how they were able to turn adversity into opportunity.

Reflecting back and looking forward: Mayo Clinic graduates are ready to shape the future of medicine

Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science graduates Dr. Somaira Nowsheen, Dr. Rosalie Sterner, and Sinibaldo Rafael Romero Arocha are poised to succeed among the next generation of biomedical researchers.

Federal funding for diversity training program renewed

Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences announced this month that the competitive grant renewal proposal for its Post-baccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP) will receive five years of funding through the National Institute of Health (NIH)

"I have a vision of working at a global scale"

Essa Mohamed, Ph.D., plays a dual role as scientist and advocate trying to uncover and overcome the factors behind the disparity in liver disease in the United States and elsewhere.

Graduate student spreads happiness to future classmates

Emma Goddery now participates in the interview process for Ph.D. candidates. She has come full circle, becoming one of the students who made such an impact on her three years ago.

Breaking barriers for LGBTI students across Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic students are leading the charge to break barriers for other LGBTI students, and to make sure they feel accepted and included while pursuing their studies at Mayo Clinic.

Associate deans named for MCGSBS in Arizona and Florida

John Fryer, Ph.D., and Evette Radisky, Ph.D., have been named to the new associate dean positions for Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (MCGSBS) in Arizona and Florida respectively.

MCGSBS names teachers of the year

Dr. Lewis Roberts and Dr. Martin Fernandez-Zapico were recognized as 2019 Clinical and Translational Science Teachers of the Year.

A Ph.D. thesis in a 3-minute nutshell

The Three Minute Thesis (3MT®) competition challenges Ph.D. students to describe their research within three minutes to a general audience.

Florida doctoral student receives Sage Bionetworks’ Young Investigator Award

Sierra Walker has received the Sage Bionetworks’ 2019 Young Investigator Award. This award is given to early career individuals making an impact in their fields.

Alumna slated to be next president of American Medical Women's Association

Congratulations to alumna Nicole P. Sandhu, M.D., Ph.D., who was installed as president-elect of the American Medical Women's Association (AMWA).

SURF fellows kick off 10 weeks of research

Today marks the day 157 college students begin a 10-week research program known as the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF). Fellows will spend the summer immersed in a research lab where they conduct a small research project or work on part of an ongoing research investigation.

Stephen Ekker, Ph.D., named new dean of Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences

Stephen Ekker, Ph.D., professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, has been chosen as the dean of Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences.

Brainwaves: Getting elementary kids psyched for science

You may expect to see Ph.D. and M.D. students working in the lab, studying from behemoth-sized textbooks, or working with patients, and not in local elementary schools, but that’s where several Ph.D. and M.D. students have been spending their time as part of the neuroscience education outreach program, Brainwaves.

Peep this: Stephanie Anguiano-Zarate’s science-themed Peeps diorama

Stephanie Anguiano-Zarate, a Clinical and Translational Science track student, created an entry for the Open Notebook’s science-themed Peeps diorama contest depicting her thesis project and won.

Florida students share a pick-me-up at first wellness event

Jannifer Lee and Lindy Pence, Florida Graduate Student Association (GSA) reps, had been considering how to prevent burnout and to address poor mental health among grad students. With that goal in mind, they sought to plan an event that would give students a break from their lab and school activities for an afternoon during the workweek.

How PREP can prep you for graduate school

We took a few moments to talk with Luz Cumba-Garcia, a third-year Immunology Ph.D. student, who is an alumna of our Post-baccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP). We wanted to hear what she learned from PREP and how it prepared her for earning her Ph.D. at Mayo Clinic.

Mayo Clinic Doctoral Students Awarded Competitive Career Development Internship to AAAS Workshop

Three doctoral students from Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tyler Bussian, Nazanin Yeganeh Kazemi, and Lindy Pence, are the recipients of a highly competitive Career Development Internship (CDI).

Choosing Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences

Why grad students love training at Mayo Clinic

Get in touch

• Fierce Pharma
• Fierce Biotech
• Fierce Healthcare
• Fierce Life Sciences Events
• Cell & Gene Therapy
• Clinical Data
• Venture Capital
• Diagnostics
• AI and Machine Learning
• Special Reports
• Clinical Development
• Special Report
• Awards Gala
• Fierce Events
• Industry Events
• Whitepapers

Advancing Biomedical Research in the United States

By many accounts, there has never been a better time than now to do biomedical research.

Scientists can take advantage of the multiple technologies that came of age across multiple fields around the turn of the 21st century — from the advent of fast and inexpensive DNA sequencing to the leaping bounds in data science and computing power to the explosion of imaging tools. Such sweeping advances, combined with decades of painstaking molecular breakthroughs, have made it possible to determine the structure of proteins within cells for the first time, to develop possible cures for sickle cell and related diseases using CRISPR genome editing, and to build on a long record of molecular biology and vaccine research to produce COVID-19 vaccines in less than a year.

“At this point in time, you are really only limited by your creativity and your boldness,”

says Kit Pogliano, dean of biological sciences at University of California, San Diego. “You can answer just about any biological question, and the tools are developing so rapidly, especially if you love to collaborate across different disciplines,” she adds. Collaborations across different sectors — academia, the biotech and pharmaceutical industry, philanthropic organizations, and communities of patients — are also more compelling than ever before.

NIH Building One under construction, 1938 The first building constructed at the newly formed National Institutes of Health, Building One began to take shape in 1938. President Franklin Roosevelt dedicated the National Institutes of Health in 1940 at the top of the stairs leading to the entrance. Building One, later named the James H. Shannon building in honor of NIH’s director from 1955 to 1968, now houses the Office of the Director among other administrative offices. Courtesy of National Institutes of Health

Biomedical research has arrived at this moment globally in no small part because of the ongoing federal funding and fierce advocacy in the United States. “We are seeing the fruits of 75 years of steady investment at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that the Lasker Foundation has been promoting,” says Elias Zerhouni, who directed the NIH from 2002 to 2008 and currently serves on the Lasker Foundation Board of Directors.

In some ways, the dream of Mary Lasker, who founded the Lasker Foundation with her husband Albert in 1942 as a medical research advocacy group, has been realized. Lasker’s dedicated lobbying of Congress to prioritize medical research put the NIH budget on a mostly upward trajectory starting in the late 1950s. The agency became a model for countries around the world setting up their own national systems for funding science. Prior to World War II, biomedical researchers had to rely primarily on funding from state governments or private philanthropic groups, such as the Rockefeller Foundation.

But many warn that the US is now in danger of losing its edge — not just in biomedical science but in all science and technology (S&T). The nation’s investment in research and development has been hovering around 2.5% of its GDP (gross domestic product) for the last few decades, whereas the amount of GDP invested into S&T by other countries, particularly China and Korea, has been on the rise, as outlined in a 2020 report, The Perils of Complacency, by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (AAAS) and Rice University. The report cautions that the United States is at a tipping point for becoming less competitive with countries such as China in its S&T research enterprise, and thus in its ability to create jobs and improve healthcare and overall quality of life.

According to Zerhouni, who was part of the committee that created the AAAS report, the most pressing need is to increase federal funding of physical sciences, especially federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF). Although the NSF does not fund biomedical research directly, it supports all other S&T disciplines, including other biological sciences. These fields have made enormous contributions to biomedical science and are critical to interdisciplinary or convergent research.

There is no question that the stakes are high. “We are in two global competitions right now — one is a competition against China and India and Europe,” says Sudip Parikh, chief executive officer (CEO) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “The second competition that we are in is against time, against the economic tidal wave that is coming from Alzheimer’s, cancer, and aging [diseases],” he adds.

Same Mission, Updated Strategies

The mission of the NIH, NSF, and other federal agencies has remained steadfast since the middle of the 20th century, when the US government committed to continuing its wartime support of scientific research. These agencies aim to promote scientific progress and support advances and discoveries that improve health and prosperity. That may sound ambitious, but the NIH can point to many examples of how it has fulfilled its mission over the decades — the most poignant of all may be its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Three NIH directors, Elias A. Zerhouni (left), Francis Collins (middle), Harold E. Varmus (right) led the last 28 years of the federal agency. Courtesy of Chia-Chi Charlie Chang

The good news in recent years is that the NIH budget for funding extramural (not conducted on NIH campuses) biomedical research has been rebounding — growing 2% to 5% annually since 2014, following a 10-year stagnation — allowing the agency to diversify the types of research programs and teams it supports. However, these increases still do not allow the agency to award as many research grants as in the past — the success rate of NIH grants in 2020 was 21%, compared with 31% in 2003. ACT for NIH, a biomedical research advocacy organization, recommends that the NIH budget increases 10% in 2022, which would finally make up for inflationary loss since the early 2000s. In the longer term, ACT for NIH is trying to make the case to members of Congress to fund another NIH budget doubling (as Congress did from 1998 to 2003), arguing that the agency would then be able to support research at the scale needed to turn the many recent technological advances into medicines, such as immunotherapy for cancer and mRNA-based vaccines for infectious disease.

Despite its unwavering mission, the NIH has made some tweaks in how it operates over the years. A recent change was inspired by the rapid progress that NIH-funded sciences made during the pandemic, dissecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus and paving the way for diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines. “Never before have we seen research move to practice at this fast a clip,” says Marina L. Volkov, director of the NIH Office of Evaluation, Performance, and Reporting. “What can we learn from the pandemic; what were the active ingredients?” she says.

There will be a stepped-up focus on self-assessment of the NIH’s impact in the upcoming NIH Strategic Plan (2021–2025). There will also be greater emphasis than in the previous plan (2016–2020) on supporting the scientific workforce and physical infrastructure such as research facilities.

Undergraduate Angela Jimenez (foreground right) and PhD student Joscelyn Mejias (foreground left) conduct National Science Foundation-supported research at Georgia Tech to develop therapeutic cells. The lab is one of four NSF Engineering Research Centers working to develop new technologies that support health and energy research. Courtesy of Rob Felt, Georgia Tech

Similar to the NIH, the NSF has been making adjustments in how it strives to achieve its mission. The agency, which accounts for about 2% of the federal investment in health and medicine research and development, compared with the NIH’s 82%, has been working to bolster funding for convergence research since the 1990s, through mechanisms such as Big Ideas and RAISE grants. “I think you’ll see more and more of that coming,” says Theresa Good, a program director in the NSF Biological Sciences Directorate.

Divvying Up the Pie: How to Make Research Support Fairer?

Many have sounded the alarm in recent years that the NIH needs to combat the growing disparity in research funding. Recent reports have found that 40% of NIH research dollars go to only about 10% of academic investigators, and they tend to be senior investigators at prestigious research institutions. One idea floated in 2017 and quickly thrown out, was to cap the number of R01s — the NIH’s most common type of grant — that any one investigator could have to free up money for other investigators.

However, some point out that ambitious research costs more than ever, and investigators need more grant money than ever. Many projects today aim to synthesize the myriad molecular discoveries of previous decades about individual components of a biological system, such as single genes or proteins. “We’ve gone from a reductionist phase to integrationist [approaches] where we integrate all the knowledge,” Zerhouni says. This kind of research can be expensive because it involves big groups, often coming together from different disciplines, such as computer scientists and engineers working with biologists.

The rising cost of doing biomedical research can make things even more stressful for academic scientists, who generally have to apply every few years for new or renewed grants. The philosophy of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), a US-based philanthropic medical research organization, which provides long-term support to over 250 US-based investigators, is to invest in “people, not just projects” and to do so based on the investigators’ track records. This type of support frees scientists from the pressure of regularly applying for grants, says David Clapham, vice president and chief scientific officer. As a result, they can pursue fundamental, less application-focused questions, which must nevertheless be answered before we can find disease treatments. Centers such as the Stowers Institute in Kansas City, MO, and the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, CA, and Jupiter, FL, can also accomplish this goal, Clapham says, because they have large endowments and let scientists loose to explore basic biological processes.

One of the newer types of NIH grant mechanisms, MIRA (short for Maximizing Investigators’ Research Awards), which was launched by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) five years ago, seems to take a page out of the HHMI playbook: It provides longer-term funding, and thus more stability and research freedom. Each NIH institute has leeway to decide how to spend its congressionally determined piece of the NIH budget pie. Although other Institutes have created HHMI-like mechanisms, MIRA is special because it limits the amount of NIGMS funding that an investigator can receive, similar to the NIH-wide quota idea in 2017.

Following the Money: Funding from Industry and Philanthropy

For scientists pursuing biomedical research with possible clinical applications, there are increasing opportunities to get funding from industry and philanthropic groups and move discoveries beyond the walls of academic labs. The biggest gains in spending on health and medical research in the United States in recent years have come from industry, namely pharmaceutical and biotech companies, according to a recent report by Research!America, a science advocacy organization.

Following the money Top left: R&D investment as a percentage of overall US health spending (2018) Top right: US medical and health R&D expenditures by funding source (2018) Middle: Academic and research institution investment in medical and health R&D, by funding sector (2018) Bottom: Federal investment in medical and health R&D, by funding sector (2018) Courtesy of Research!America

This sector actually accounted for 67% of spending in 2018, most of it supporting clinical and applied research, while 22% came from federal agencies, overwhelmingly from the NIH. Part of the reason for the rising investment from industry is that “larger [pharmaceutical] companies aren’t doing as much of the research themselves internally as they used to and so… they are looking more to academia to fuel the very earliest part of the research cycle,” says Paul Roben, associate vice chancellor of innovation and commercialization at University of California, San Diego. A company might fund an academic investigator’s entire research program in an area, such as immuno-oncology therapies, for a set period of time with clear milestones, which might be the discovery of a novel compound with certain characteristics, and then create a biotech or startup company to take the compound into early-stage clinical trials.

To help bolster the biotech stage of the academia-biotech-pharma life cycle, President Joe Biden has proposed creating a new NIH organization called ARPA-H (Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health).

“For small companies, the biggest and riskiest part is when they transition from a lab concept into product development, and that involves a lot of technology development and bioengineering that is really critical,”

as was the case for the development of COVID-19 vaccines, says Gary Nabel, president and CEO of the biotech company, ModeX Therapeutics, and former director of the NIH Vaccine Research Center. ARPA-H aims to fund the most ambitious of these types of projects, which private investors tend to shy away from. The agency’s success will depend on the budget that Congress allocates and how it decides to award grants. Nabel thinks that a model similar to that of the Department of Defense’s DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) could work well, in which federal and industry stakeholders agree on business plans that include a set of milestones.

The philanthropic sector contributes a much smaller piece of the pie of health and medicine investment in the United States, only about 2%, but as many point out, it is growing. And it can have outsized influence, particularly for large private foundations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and Simons Foundation. Philanthropy is once again providing critical support for science research, just as it did before the United States began committing federal funding in the mid-20th century, says France A. Cordova, president of the Science Philanthropy Alliance.

Overall, the interests of philanthropic individuals and groups run the gamut from basic to translational to clinical research, but one generality holds true:

“there’s a higher tolerance for risk”

says Melissa Stevens, executive director of the Milken Institute Center for Strategic Philanthropy. Stevens co-founded the Center in 2015 to help private foundations, as well as individuals, families, advocacy groups, and public charities, decide how to strategically invest in research on health, medicine, education, and the environment. Philanthropists may want to support basic research to tease out the biological underpinnings of a poorly understood disease to de-risk that field of study, she explains. Or they may want to support otherwise underfunded preclinical or early clinical research in academic labs and biotech companies, with the hope of generating data to entice pharmaceutical or venture capital investment, she explains. As Cara Altimus, Stevens’s colleague at the Milken Center, notes, philanthropy can be particularly successful in this so-called Valley of Death space, often by infusing a small biotech company with research support to advance a discovery along the development pipeline.

What Does the Future Hold for US Biomedical Research?

Despite concerns that the United States is not doing enough to maintain its S&T powerhouse status or to maintain its competitive edge with China and Korea, there may be some reasons for optimism. “I am actually pretty bullish that we are going to see much larger increases for NIH this year,” says Parikh. That is because budget sequestration is over, and Congress appreciates more than ever the need to support science to stay competitive with other countries and be positioned to find the next big thing — whether it is a new genome-editing technology or a platform for rapid vaccine development for the next pandemic.

Alondra Nelson, Harold F. Linder Professor in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study and President of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), has been appointed to the position of Deputy Director for Science and Society in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Nelson will be the first person in this role, which brings social science expertise explicitly into the work of federal science and technology strategy and policy. Courtesy of Ragesoss

In another positive sign that the US government is prioritizing science, President Biden elevated the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Eric Lander, to a Cabinet position, a first for the White House. One of the major goals of the OSTP is to improve the diversity of the scientific workforce. As Lander explained in an interview after he was sworn in, he and Alondra Nelson, who is creating a science and society division within the OSTP, will talk with various groups about solutions to “have everybody at the lab bench.”

It will be important, according to Parikh, to put more emphasis on how the next generation of scientists will be trained to communicate their work with the public.“We are going to have 100,000 scientists who are 35 and younger who are going to be participating in their communities and building bridges with policymakers,” Parikh says.

The importance of advocacy is one of the many legacies of Mary Lasker. Starting in the late 1940s, she and her partners recruited researchers and clinicians and prepared them to make their case at congressional budget hearings for research funding. “Doctors aren’t used to selling anything,” Lasker explained, but as she emphasized, they need to step into the role because the future of biomedical research is at stake.

by Carina Storrs

Biomedical Research

• Meet the Team

The goal of biomedical research is to harness scientific discovery to improve human health.

These explorations have provided a springboard for medical advances including vaccines for measles and polio, insulin for diabetes, antibiotics for infections, medications for high blood pressure, and new strategies to treat and prevent cancer.

Pew has a decades-long commitment to support groundbreaking research by promising early-career biomedical scientists in the United States and Latin America. Our multiyear grants encourage informed risk-taking and collaboration among researchers.

From Lab to Life: How Science Improves the World

Scientific discovery is essential to advancing society and improving people’s lives. While 73% of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interest, many scientists recognize the need to better communicate about their work and how it serves humanity.

What Is the Pew Latin American Fellows Program?

The Pew Latin American Fellows Program in the Biomedical Sciences provides funding for scientists to receive postdoctoral training at leading research institutions in the United States and to return to Latin America if they choose to start labs in their home countries. Through the program, The Pew Charitable Trusts has supported more than 300 outstanding young researchers, strengthening scientific communities across borders.

Grant Programs and Criteria

Craig Mello Reflects on the Unifying Force of Science

We all have questions. Where did we come from? Why are we here? Although the “whys” are generally left to philosophers, the “wheres” and “hows” are fodder for scientific exploration.

• About Our Founder
• Mission, Vision and Values
• 2028 Vision
• Board of Trustees
• Host-Pathogen Interactions (HPI)
• Disease Intervention & Prevention (DIP)
• Population Health (PH)
• International Center for the Advancement of Research and Education
• Southwest National Primate Research Center (SNPRC)
• High Containment
• Data Analysis Unit
• Cellular Biology Unit
• Microscopy Unit
• Molecular Unit
• Vivarium Unit
• Our Partners
• Our Technology
• Our Expertise
• Begin Discussion
• Disease Models
• Virus Request Form
• Reverse Genetics Plasmids Request Form
• Community Outreach Programs
• Education Program Leadership
• Curricular Units
• Internship Program Structure
• Teacher Professional Development
• High School Tours
• Valero Young Scientist Program
• American Cancer Society Post-Baccalaureate Fellows Program at Texas Biomed
• Media Contacts
• Media Inquiries
• Fact Sheets
• TxBiomed Magazine Summer 2022
• Media Library
• Experts Available for Comment
• Funding Priorities
• How To Give
• Connect With Us
• Giving Partners
• Make a Contribution
• Request Information
• Planned Giving
• Capital & Endowment Giving
• Honor & Memorial Giving
• The Argyle Membership Donation
• Texas Biomedical Forum
• Founder’s Council Board Members
• Founder’s Council Events
• Founder’s Council Membership
• Initiate / Renew Membership
• (X) Twitter

HEALTH STARTS WITH SCIENCE

Science that inspires. science that delivers. science that heals..

Texas Biomedical Research Institute studies Alzheimers to Zika

#stand4science.

Texas Biomedical Research Institute is pioneering and sharing scientific breakthroughs to protect you, your families and our global community from the threat of infectious diseases. The Institute has an 80-year history of success that includes work on the first COVID-19 vaccine and therapies, the first Ebola treatment, the first Hepatitis-C therapy, and thousands of developmental discoveries. Texas Biomed helps create healthier communities with science that inspires new generations through STEM education programs, delivers jobs and economic impact in our community and heals through innovative research. Learn more about how you can #Stand4Science .

Research Areas

Texas Biomedical Research Institute is dedicated to the advancement of human health through basic and translational research into the nature, causes, prevention and eradication of disease. Our scientific programs and research resources are focused in the following areas.

Scientific Programs

Research resources.

• Scientific Cores
• Southwest National Primate Research Center

News & Press

Antibody expert greg ippolito, ph.d., joins texas biomed faculty, h-e-b president craig boyan assumes chairmanship of texas biomed board of trustees amid unprecedented, post-pandemic growth, texas biomed offers students the opportunity to explore their future, texas biomed and snprc welcome colony administrator stanton gray, featured articles, bird flu: a race against evolution, san antonio helps secure $2.5 billion national biotech hub in texas, prospecting for pathogens in museum vaults, meet sandy smith – high-performance computing center site engineer.

Working together, we can reimagine medicine to improve and extend people’s lives.

Research and development

Researchers in Biomedical Research work across several diseases areas to uncover insights into the origins and pathogenesis of disease to drive drug discovery and early development, while the Development organization leads the advanced clinical development of those medicines, running large clinical trials and steering the way to regulatory approval and access for patients.

This work is powered by technology platforms that help us innovate across our core therapeutic areas: Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolic, Oncology, Immunology, and Neuroscience. We focus on two established platforms – chemistry and biotherapeutics – as well as three advanced platforms – xRNA, radioligand therapy, and gene and cell therapy – we believe will continue to play an increasingly important role in delivering new medicines for patients.

"By building on our strengths, including our long history of scientific innovation and technological leadership, we aim to discover the next generation of medicines that will make a real difference to people’s lives"

Fiona H. Marshall , President, Biomedical Research

"Our greatest impact comes from collaborating with those who share our purpose to develop new medicines that enable physicians to change their practice and ultimately reach all people who can benefit from them."

Shreeram Aradhye , President, Development and Chief Medical Officer

Our Research Areas

We discover and advance innovative treatments for diseases with high unmet need

Our Pipeline

We maintain a focused portfolio of investigational medicines intended to alleviate society’s greatest disease burdens

Our Technology Platforms

We’re pursuing platforms that offer more targeted approaches to treat patients

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are at the heart of our work to bring innovative medicines to people with a particular disease or condition. These studies ensure that an investigative medicine is effective and safe, and rely entirely on patients and healthy volunteers. Learn more about clinical trials at Novartis including opportunities to get involved. 

Postdoc Program

This program grants appointments to postdocs at Novartis for up to four years under dual mentorship from a Novartis mentor and an academic mentor.

Collaborations

Our science is deeply interconnected and nimble, open and accepting of criticism, prioritized to win in a competitive landscape, and – most importantly –  impatient in its delivery to patients.

Our research benefits from an external network of more than 300 academic and 100 industry alliances focused on areas of mutual scientific interest.

A legacy of blood cancer innovation

Building on more than two decades of chronic myeloid leukemia research, the R&D teams at Novartis pursued an investigational treatment unlike any other.

Drug delivery, service delivery, and the future of cancer care

State-of-the-art Novartis manufacturing facility in Indianapolis fortifies the foundation of an entirely new paradigm in pharmaceutical drug delivery.

From black holes to AI driven drug discovery – collaboration wins the day

Dr Bülent Kızıltan, Global Head of AI & Computational Sciences

More stories

Recent Jobs in Research

Novartis looks for dedicated team members to join its research efforts around the world. We recruit the best and brightest at all levels of expertise.

Translational medicine research at Novartis

Too often, new therapies fail to bridge the treacherous gap that lies between research and entry into human clinical testing. Our team of translational medicine researchers work to bridge this gap and ensure that safe, effective and innovative treatments reach patients as quickly as possible.

MS in Biomedical Research

Choose your discipline and prepare for a career in biotech or phd training.

The MS in Biomedical Research (MBR) is a two-year, research-intensive program leading to completion of a Master's thesis. The program provides students with significant research experience and fundamental biomedical science knowledge that will prepare them for a career in academia or the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry or for further study at the PhD level. Students can choose to pursue their MS degree in one of four disciplines: Genetics, Molecular & Cellular Biology; Immunology; Molecular Microbiology; or Neuroscience.

Key Program Features

• Rigorous graduate coursework that prepares students to enter competitive PhD programs or the biotechnology or pharmaceutical industry
• Independent research experience while working on a Master's thesis 
• Individualized academic advising and mentoring including advice on applying to PhD programs
• Career guidance tailored to each student's interests and career goals 
• Ability to train in one of four broad biomedical disciplines

Explore our Disciplines

Training Opportunities

Students in the MS in Biomedical Research program will train alongside PhD students enrolled one of the four GSBS PhD programs. In this way, our MS students have access to the wide array of research laboratories available across GSBS. Students can explore molecular and cellular immunology, host defense to microbial disease, fundamental and applied genetics, cell and molecular biology and neuroscience as well as mechanisms of microbial disease.

Over 100 highly experienced faculty with dynamic research programs are available to our students. Laboratories are located on the Boston Health Science campus that is home to GSBS, Tufts School of Medicine, the USDA Human Nutrition Research Institute on Aging, The Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy, Tufts Medical Center, and Tufts School of Dental Medicine. Some laboratories are located on the Tufts Medford campus, which is home to the College of Arts & Sciences and the School of Engineering.   

Our program welcomes applications from US citizens, permanent residents, and international students.  

Learn more about the admissions process .

Our curriculum combines foundational and advanced courses with rigorous research training in a laboratory of the student's choice. 

Learn more about our curriculum .

Tuition & Financing

Learn more about financing your education in the MS in Biomedical Research.

Visit the Basic Science MS Programs Finances Page .

Contact Information

Peter Juo Program Director

Jaharis 701D [email protected]

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, secrets and sacrifices: cia, benghazi, and motherhood, weapons in space: a virtual book talk with dr. aaron bateman, u.s.-australia-japan trilateral cooperation on strategic stability in the taiwan strait report launch.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

Understanding the U.S. Biopharmaceutical Innovation Ecosystem

Photo: Love Employee via Adobe Stock

Table of Contents

Report by Sujai Shivakumar , Tisyaketu Sirkar, and Jeffrey Depp

Published August 15, 2024

Available Downloads

• Download the Full Report 257kb

Introduction

The biopharmaceutical innovation system—which brings novel, life-improving, and life-saving therapies from the researcher’s bench to a patient’s bedside—is a major engine powering health improvements, economic output, and wealth creation in the United States. But while the commercial and national security competition with China has brought policy attention to securing the semiconductor industry, the importance of sustaining a world-leading U.S. biopharmaceutical industry remains underappreciated.

In the United States, the pace of biopharmaceutical innovation has enjoyed remarkable growth over the last decade. New drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration increased from 209 between 2000–2008 to 302 between 2009–2017—a 44.5 percent surge. Furthermore, U.S. firms filed nearly 38 percent of global biotechnology patents from 2015–2020, bolstering the U.S. biotech industry’s position over those of competitors such as China, the European Union, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

Yet, despite its growth and notable recent successes—such as the development of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines; new treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and sickle cell anemia; and medications for weight loss—the U.S. biopharmaceutical ecosystem is under pressure from a number of directions.

Notably, U.S. policymakers, responding to concerns by some consumer advocates over the high prices of particular drugs, have sought to lower prices by weakening the patent system. A well-functioning patent system secures property rights in inventions so that innovators can share and collaborate safely with others to bring new ideas to the marketplace. Patents also incentivize this effort by allowing patent holders to gain financially from their innovation for a limited period. It is this second feature of patents that is at issue with advocates seeking to lower drug prices. But a broad assault on patents may well damage the very features of the innovation system that make possible the collaboration needed to produce innovative drugs, medical devices, and other therapies that improve well-being.

A broad assault on patents may well damage the very features of the innovation system that make possible the collaboration needed to produce innovative drugs, medical devices, and other therapies that improve well-being.

This endangerment of to the patent system places the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry at a competitive disadvantage globally, at the same time that sweeping regulatory reforms and injections of capital are propelling China’s biopharmaceutical industry forward at an unprecedented pace. This presents a long-term challenge to U.S. dominance in the industry.

It is therefore important to understand the nature of the innovation ecosystem on which this leading U.S. industry is based. The first section of this paper gives a brief overview of the drug development and approval process in the United States. The second section explores the core components that comprise and drive the U.S. biopharmaceutical innovation system. Later sections address the threats to this ecosystem, including the growth of the Chinese biopharmaceutical industry and new concerns around march-in rights.

The Drug Development Process: From Bench to Bedside

Pharmaceutical innovation is a complex process involving multiple actors across different stages that work together to bring new drugs and therapies to market.

Basic Research: Basic research explores the underlying biological pathways and the pathophysiology behind a disease. This process often identifies potential targets for treatments and includes the search for new molecular entities that can modulate such targets.

• Key Actors: Universities and other not-for-profit research institutions, various federal agencies, and certain large, research-intensive pharmaceutical companies perform the overwhelming majority of basic research in the United States. The Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are the leading agencies conducting basic research in biomedicine. Within the DHHS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s largest biomedical research institution, with a 2023 budget of some $49 billion . In addition to its intramural research, the NIH’s extramural program provides 83 percent of its funding to universities, allowing them to carry out the bulk of U.S. basic biomedical research. It makes available some 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers annually.

Pre-Clinical Research: The pre-clinical phase uses in vitro laboratory and animal testing to hone the discoveries in basic research and identify molecular entities that favorably modulate the target. Preclinical research can also identify negative safety signals of potential therapies—an important prerequisite for initiating clinical trials in humans.   

• Key Actors: Private sector companies—startups, small-to-medium biopharmaceutical companies, specialized clinical or contract research organizations (CROs), and, on occasion, large pharmaceutical companies—drive the process of preclinical research. They often work closely with universities and medical institutions in carrying out this next phase of the process.

Clinical Research: Successful preclinical research is followed by three phases of human clinical trials. Phase I applies the drug to a small sample of healthy participants to test the safety and tolerability of the drug at various doses. Phase II enlists a larger number of volunteers affected with the condition of interest to check the efficacy of the drug at the dose found to be tolerable during phase I. Phase III of testing uses a large set of affected volunteers to comprehensively test the safety and efficacy of the drug compared to a placebo , while phase IV trials study effects over time after the drug has reached the market. Successful completion of phase III allows pharmaceutical companies to apply for regulatory approval. The expertise and infrastructure requirements for clinical research are quite high, with the bulk of the estimated $2.6 billion necessary to bring a new drug to market going toward clinical research. Cumulatively, the clinical research takes around six to seven years, with only 13.8 percent of new drugs making it through the process .

• Key Actors: Clinical trials are predominantly conducted by private sector companies. In many cases, smaller firms partner with CROs, or larger firms that have the expertise and the resources (e.g., site locations, recruitment network, and reporting capabilities) to conduct clinical trials. The process operates on a continuum. Phases I and II are typically carried out by small-to-medium enterprises (including startups) with the help of CROs. Phase III and IV, on the other hand, are almost always carried out by the larger, more established companies (often under sublicense from the original licensee).

Manufacturing: The ability to manufacture a consistently high-quality product in sufficient quantities to meet global demand is no less important than other steps in the process. This capability is often taken for granted, as biopharmaceutical manufacturing tends to be lumped in with other less sophisticated manufacturing. The Covid-19 vaccines and emerging personalized cell-based therapies, however, illustrate the high-degree of complexity and know-how required for some of today’s therapies.

• Key Actors: Larger pharmaceutical companies with existing manufacturing expertise and facilities, including established supply chains, predominate. Depending on the size and business model of the firm, however, manufacturing may be outsourced to specialized companies known as contract manufacturing organizations . They typically work with smaller firms or startups that lack the capital and know-how for manufacturing at scale.

Sales, Marketing, and Distribution: Once the new drug is approved for sale and capable of being manufactured and distributed in sufficient quantities, it is ready to be marketed to physicians for prescribing to their patients.

• Key Actors: Well-established pharmaceutical companies with existing sales forces do the bulk of the sales and marketing of today’s new products. A sophisticated and highly trained sales force is necessary to engage with the complex therapies being developed in the twenty-first century and to navigate the contemporary healthcare marketplace. Smaller companies are unlikely to have the resources necessary to deploy such a sales force. For distribution, retail pharmacy chains and mail-order pharmacies dispense most of the medication in the United States. Additionally, specialty pharmacies are playing an increasing role, as more and more of the newest treatments are not in pill form (e.g., injections or infusions).

Health Insurance Coverage: After the new drug becomes available for prescription, health insurance coverage is essential for patient access and widespread uptake. Pharmaceutical companies work closely with payors to negotiate formulary status and actual prices paid (via rebates and discounts) based on a variety of pharmacoeconomic and market factors.

• Key Actors: Payors include government insurance programs for select groups (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE), along with private insurance plans and their associated pharmacy benefit managers (e.g., Cigna/Express Scripts, CVS Health/Caremark, and United Healthcare/Optum).

Drivers of U.S. Biopharmaceutical Innovation

There are four pivotal drivers behind the United States’ position as the world’s leader in biopharmaceutical innovation:

• Strong enforceable intellectual property rights to enable small and large firms to partner with each other and with research institutions and government at all levels. These rights are also essential to attract the investment needed to develop and bring new products to the market.
• Steady and significant public investments for basic medical research at the NIH and other relevant agencies, as well as at U.S. universities and research centers.
• A robust U.S. startup environment, including a vibrant venture capital sector that can provide the early-stage funding small companies need to further develop novel medical technologies and a support system of specialized vendors and service providers.
• Large biopharmaceutical companies, with the expertise and resources to support clinical trials, obtain regulatory approval, and manufacture and market the products that result from these innovations.

Intellectual Property Rights: As noted earlier, strong intellectual property (IP) protections are a key component driving U.S. biopharmaceutical innovation. As President Abraham Lincoln once famously remarked , intellectual property rights add “the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.” In this context, by securing the inventor’s exclusive right to their invention, strong patent rights incentivize the creation of new molecular entities (“compositions of matter,” in patent parlance) and their clinical development that may result in the next breakthrough treatment. It is important to note that many initially promising products fail in trials, whether on efficacy or safety grounds, and that they can also fail late in the process—thereby incurring significant losses. Given that only a few novel compositions become approved treatments and given that the cost of those that do is high, drug companies rely on the exclusive right to sell their product to recover the development costs and, ideally, to fund the creation of the next breakthrough treatment.

Public Investment in Universities and Basic Research: The Bayh-Dole Act, passed in 1980, transformed the role of universities in biopharmaceutical innovation. It allowed universities to retain ownership of and patent inventions derived from government-funded research, while providing them the ability to enter exclusive licensing arrangements with private firms. Before Bayh-Dole, the results of publicly funded research were considered to be government property and licensing was complex and cumbersome, resulting in limited commercialization of the results of federally funded research. The Bayh-Dole Act incentivized universities and professors to move innovation to the marketplace, providing a pathway for biomedical research to be translated into new therapies. While exact estimates are difficult to find, the Association of University Technology Managers reports that, from 1996 until 2020, over 200 new drugs and vaccines were developed through university-industry partnerships made possible by the Bayh-Dole Act.

The Bayh-Dole Act incentivized universities and professors to move innovation to the marketplace, providing a pathway for biomedical research to be translated into new therapies.

The changing role of universities in the biopharmaceutical ecosystem occurred at a time when public investment in medical research was increasing. As noted, between 1998 to 2003, the NIH budget increased from $13.6 billion to $27.1 billion. At the same time, the number of research grants awarded increased from an average of 7,000 grants each year from 1990–1999 to 9,500 grants each year from 2000–2010. In addition to the Bayh-Dole improvements, this increase in funding and the number of grants have been major drivers of the surge in pharmaceutical innovation since the 1990s.

Startups and Venture Capital: Startups are another vital component of biopharmaceutical innovation. Recent estimates find that startups and small pharmaceutical companies were responsible for the introduction of 64 percent of new molecular entities in 2018. In terms of research and development (R&D) expenditure, according to one report, small biopharmaceutical firms spent $637,735 per employee in 2021, compared with $82,515 per employee in large biopharmaceutical firms during the same year. Notably, among the 260 small biopharmaceutical companies listed as the largest global R&D investors, 193 were based in the United States. With access to outstanding universities as well as a skilled workforce and extensive capital—especially in the nation’s biotech hubs such as Boston and San Francisco—these firms work at the cutting edge of biopharmaceutical research, often taking a chance on novel products that are too risky for the larger, more established players in the market. This may include pursuing abandoned projects or investing in areas of pharmaceutical research known for higher-than-normal failure rates . Usually, such firms concentrate their energy on a single drug or a very small set of drugs before expanding their portfolio.

Startups in the biopharmaceutical industry rely on venture capital (VC) firms and other early-stage funders (e.g., angel investors or those through the Small Business Innovation Research or Small Business Technology Transfer programs) as critical sources of capital. VCs play a particularly important role in the early stages of drug development, providing the resources to demonstrate proof of concept (preclinical and early clinical trials) before a drug reaches phase III of clinical trials. Venture financing opportunities in the U.S. biopharmaceutical space outmatch every other country by a significant margin. One study of new venture investments in the industry between 2010–2015 found that the number of investments in the United States was 2.7 times Europe’s total. Similarly, according to McKinsey’s China Drug Innovation Index (2020), industry experts in the life sciences scored China’s access to venture capital in the biopharmaceutical sector a 6 out of 10 , while the United States came in higher with a score of 8 out of 10 .

Given the lengthy and exorbitantly expensive clinical research and regulatory approval process coupled with the complexities of manufacturing at scale, the short investment horizons faced by investors make it so that VCs typically do not deliver a new biopharmaceutical product to the market themselves. The average length of a VC-funded deal, from early-stage funding to acquisition, is 6.3 years. Yet, most biopharmaceutical firms are unable to secure drug approval within this timeframe. VCs therefore tend to seek early exit opportunities through mergers, acquisitions, and initial public offerings (IPOs) and forego longer-term value creation . However, the short time horizon does allow them to focus on seeking the next potential breakthrough to shepherd through that critical early phase of development.

Upon VC exit, startups often look to partner with larger companies via sublicensing or through mergers and acquisitions to obtain the resources needed to scale their activities. Building out these operational capabilities poses risks in terms of delay in time to market and high capital costs. Compared to large pharmaceutical companies, startups have relatively limited institutional knowledge and experience with navigating regulatory approvals, supply chain logistics, and late-stage commercialization .

Large Pharmaceutical Companies: Large pharmaceutical companies can help startups address the challenges associated with scaling up operations and bringing products to market by offering a wide array of resources and expertise. These range from conducting quality clinical research, navigating the regulatory approval process, manufacturing at scale, and marketing (including product distribution ). Here, large pharmaceutical companies can leverage their clinical research infrastructure and decades-long experience with medical supply chains and access to capital—along with their manufacturing, sales, and marketing expertise—to perform tasks startups cannot do with their limited resources and networks.

Notably, during the Covid-19 pandemic, BioNTech used this model, partnering with Pfizer to release its mRNA vaccine. In recent years, large pharmaceutical companies have also been playing a bigger role in funding the later stages of a startup’s development. In a bit of symbiosis, the rapid pace of technological change leading to more complex therapeutics and personalized medicine has prompted these large firms to increasingly turn to startups , as opposed to in-house R&D, as the source of new drug development. This shift has contributed to larger players increasingly acquiring smaller ones.

Addressing Biopharmaceutical Competition from China

U.S. leadership in biopharmaceuticals, built on this complex system, is being challenged today by reforms and industrial policies undertaken by China.

Easing Regulations: Since 2015, China has introduced several sweeping reforms aimed at overhauling its pharmaceutical regulations to bring it in line with international standards. Beijing streamlined the Center for Drug Evaluation, reducing the time required to approve clinical trials while enabling faster approval of new drug applications. Alongside this change, Chinese regulators included innovative drugs in the National Drug Reimbursement List (NDRL)—the system that decides which drugs are covered by government’s Basic Medical Insurance schemes. As more than 95 percent of China relies on government-provided health insurance, this change makes Chinese biopharmaceutical companies producing innovative drugs eligible for lucrative government contracts.

Reforming Patents: Reforms in biopharmaceutical regulations have been accompanied by similar changes to China’s patent system and increased access to capital. In 2021, Beijing instituted stricter intellectual property laws, making it easier to enforce patents, including an increased ability for patent owners to recover enhanced damages. In terms of funding, private equity and venture capital are important resources enabling biopharmaceutical innovation. China is the second-largest destination in terms of VC investments, amounting to $50 billion in 2023. In addition, it adds to the liquidity of China’s capital markets by channeling government funds into its private equity firms.

Rapid Industrial Growth: Taken together, these expansive reforms and favorable market conditions have positioned China as a major source of research and product development in the biopharmaceutical industry. China’s share of the global biopharmaceutical innovation pipeline increased from 4.1 percent in 2015 to 13.9 percent in 2020. In addition, according to the 2024 Global Startup Innovation Report , Chinese cities such as Beijing and Shanghai dominated the world in the number of patents produced in the life sciences, outpacing U.S. biopharmaceutical clusters. In 2023, the Chinese biopharmaceutical industry crossed an important milestone when outbound pharmaceutical deals surpassed inbound deals. According to news site Caixin, these deals were collectively valued at $45 billion . These positive developments point to a larger trend where the Chinese biopharmaceutical industry is transitioning to developing innovative first-in-class drugs as opposed to building on breakthroughs from other countries. This transition has encouraged continued Western investment in China’s biopharmaceutical industry, despite U.S.-China geopolitical tensions and restrictive domestic laws preventing the use of medical data gathered in China outside of its borders.

Avoiding “Own Goals” and Reinforcing Strengths: U.S. policy measures, such as the new guidelines on march-in rights, could cause self-inflicted harm to the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry, thus growing China’s presence in this space. Specifically, the federal government has recently proposed the invocation of march-in rights to take away patent ownership in order to lower the price of drugs developed in part with federal funding. Expropriating private property—based on an arbitrary claim that the price is “too high”—weakens the U.S. innovation system, inhibiting long-term investment in drug development based on early-stage university research.

Securing the Future of the U.S. Biopharmaceutical Sector

Underpinning the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry is a diverse and interconnected innovation system that is brought together with sustained funding for basic research at universities and national laboratories as well as through partnerships among innovative startups and large pharmaceutical companies. The system also encompasses public and private research centers, philanthropic foundations, a variety of small and medium enterprises, contract research organizations, contract manufacturing organizations, and pharmacies.

This distributed and interconnected structure—a hallmark of the U.S. biopharmaceutical innovation system—is unprecedented in its capacity to bring life-saving and health-enhancing drugs and medical devices to market.

This distributed and interconnected structure—a hallmark of the U.S. biopharmaceutical innovation system—is unprecedented in its capacity to bring life-saving and health-enhancing drugs and medical devices to market. Renewing this system, and in turn sustaining the U.S. global competitive lead in biopharmaceuticals, requires policies supporting and streamlining the incentives to cooperate across its different components. Equally, it is vital to avoid measures that would weaken patent protections, as that would damage the foundations of this remarkable innovation system. With China rapidly increasing its competitive presence in the space, the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry needs a strategy that invests in and renews its ecosystem while defending against counterproductive policy ideas at home.

Sujai Shivakumar is director and senior fellow of Renewing American Innovation (RAI) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Jeffrey Depp is a consultant with RAI. Tisyaketu Sirkar is a former research intern with RAI.

This report is made possible by general support to CSIS. No direct sponsorship contributed to this report.

This report is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2024 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Sujai Shivakumar

Tisyaketu sirkar, jeffrey depp, programs & projects.

• Register for Orientation
• Interactive
• JagTran Tracker
• JagMail Login
• Faculty & Staff
• Directories
• Faculty/Staff

• Departments
• Biomedical Library

Charles M. Baugh Biomedical Library

Search pubmed, selected article resources, search the journal list, selected journals, search ebooks by title, selected ebook resources, search uptodate, selected clinical resources, quick resources.

Remote Access Issues Interlibrary Loan Tutorials PubMed CINAHL UpToDate Journal/Ebook List Southcat Catalog JagWorks@USA View All Resources

Subject Guides

Medicine Resources Nursing Resources Nursing Theory MSN/DNP Orientation Managing Research Data Clinical Evidence Updates Systematic Reviews Finding Systematic Reviews REDCap Mobile Resources Writing & Citation Help View All BL Subject Guides

Masks Strongly Recommended but Not Required in Maryland, Starting Immediately

Due to the downward trend in respiratory viruses in Maryland, masking is no longer required but remains strongly recommended in Johns Hopkins Medicine clinical locations in Maryland. Read more .

• Vaccines  
• Masking Guidelines
• Visitor Guidelines  

Pathway Programs

Summer internship program.

Applications for the 2024 cohort of the Summer Internship Program (SIP) are closed. We will open to accept applications for the 2025 cohort on November 1, 2024 .

2025 SIP will take place from Sunday, May 25 th – Saturday, August 2 nd .

Program Overview

The Summer Internship Program (SIP) provides experience in biomedical and/or public health research to current undergraduate students from all backgrounds -  including  students from racial/ethnic groups underrepresented in science and medicine, students from low-income/underserved backgrounds, and students with disabilities. The program provides research exposure for those interested in potential careers in science, medicine, and public health.

Participants gain both theoretical knowledge and practical skills in research, scientific experimentation, and other scholarly investigations under the close guidance of faculty or research mentors. SIP students take part in a range of professional and career development activities, networking events, and research discussions. Students also can present their work in oral or poster format at the conclusion of the program. In addition, SIP students often go on to present their summer research at national conferences throughout the year.

The program runs approximately ten weeks and student stipends range from $3,000 - $5,500. Housing is provided at no cost to participants.

Overall, SIP interns can expect an experience similar to that of a first-year graduate student who does a three-month rotation in a laboratory. SIP interns become acquainted with their lab’s scope exploration and investigative techniques. Before arrival, each SIP intern receives several papers related to their specific research project. Interns are assigned their own lab project, and the goal of the project and its relationship to other work in the area will be discussed. Participants also receive training in the techniques necessary to conduct their research activity. The projects that SIP students take on provide students a sense of ownership of their work. Besides daily interactions with others at the lab or project site, most teams have a more formal meeting once or twice a week to discuss research problems, work progress and developments reported in the scientific literature. While the focus of each research site varies, all are composed of highly dedicated mentors who are fully devoted to the professional development, advancement, and success of our SIP scholars.

This summer internship program requires a full-time commitment. It is not permissible to take academic classes or hold other employment during the internship. Students are required to participate for the full period of the program.

The Complete Application

There are multiple divisions of SIP, each providing a unique experience. Applying is free, there is no cost to the applicant. To apply to a SIP division, you will need:

• Two letters of recommendation (faculty and/or research mentors preferred)
• Transcripts for each undergraduate institution attended (transcripts can be unofficial)
• Current CV or resume
• Personal Statement*
• ( CSM-SIP applicants only ) Proof of family income

*The personal statement should be no longer than 1.5 pages, single-spaced using at least an 11-point font. There is no particular prompt for personal statements, but we encourage you to tell us more about yourself. For example: why you want or need to do summer research; the career goal(s) you have in mind; why you're motivated or interested in this type of career; what traits make you a good fit for a potential career in research; any past research experience (hypothesis? what you did/did it work? what you learned about this topic or yourself); and what kind of mentoring you would most benefit from during this experience at Hopkins.

The deadline to apply is 11:59pm on  February 1, 2024 . SIP divisions will inform applicants of admissions decisions by March 15th of the year that they are applying, though some divisions release decisions earlier than that date. For more information, contact us at  [email protected] .

webinar Information Session

A Live Webinar event was held Saturday December 9th, 2023 from 2:00 - 3:30 PM EST on information about our Undergraduate STEMM programs at Johns Hopkins, for Summer 2024.

Summer Internship Program Opportunities

There are 15 distinct research opportunities available under the SIP umbrella. Each branch of the Summer Internship Program is administered separately and supports different stipend levels, with some additional tailoring of program content to fit each division’s focus.  You may apply to up to three divisions.

Basic Science Institute (BSI-SIP)

BSIP-SIP  in the Dean-funded “umbrella program” of the Summer Internship Program divisions, incorporating opportunities research in all our basic science departments: Biological Chemistry; Biomedical Engineering; Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry; Chemistry/Biology interface; Cell Biology; Molecular Biology and Genetics; Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology; Neuroscience; Pharmacology and Molecular Sciences; and Physiology. 

Past BSI-SIP Scholars have participated in a broad array of projects from molecular and cellular analysis of the aquaporin water channels, molecular genetic basis of Down syndrome, genomics, neurobiology of disease, applications of polymeric biomaterials to drug delivery, gene therapy, and tissue engineering. 

On top of an experience filled with substantive hands-on research, program activities include one-on-one mentorship from current graduate student mentors, journal club participation, and a range of professional development workshops and seminars on topics that include preparation for graduate studies and navigation of scientific careers. The program concludes with presentations by BSI-SIP scholars at a closing research symposium.

In addition to the opportunities mentioned above, BSI-SIP has affiliated sub-programs focused on neuroscience and/or translational research. Students participating in these programs will be invited to BSI-SIP programming and housed with BSI-SIP students, while also enjoying some additional field-specific programming:

NeuroSIP and KavliSIP

Summer interns in the  NeuroSIP  program are hosted in laboratories of the  primary faculty  of the Department of Neuroscience.  Please see the departmental website  for brief descriptions of the projects of previous NeuroSIP interns.  KavliSIP  summer interns are hosted in the laboratories of the Kavli Neuroscience Discovery Institute at Johns Hopkins (Kavli NDI). Kavli NDI bridges neuroscience, physics, data science, computational neuroscience and engineering to solve the mysteries of the brain. KavliSIP supports summer internships for undergraduate students considering graduate studies in neuroscience, engineering, data science and related areas. In addition to general SIP programming, KavliSIP and NeuroSIP students enjoy neuroscience-focused programming and other content designed to help them delve deeper into this exciting field of study.

Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE)

Summer interns in the SURE program will join labs at the Brady Urological Institute at Johns Hopkins to perform research in prostate cancer, bladder cancer, and kidney cancer. As basic research labs within a clinical department, students will be involved in research that can directly impact how patients are treated, known as “translational research.” In addition to their research experience and SIP programming, interns will also have the option to interact with clinicians, including opportunities to shadow Urologists in the operating room, Medical Oncologists in clinic, and explore other basic, translational, and clinical research careers and observe how clinical observations can influence research being done at the bench. The SURE program was founded to provide research opportunities to undergraduate researchers in an academic environment that would not typically be available to them with the hope to provide an avenue to achieve their goals or dreams. The program strongly encourages applications from students who are first-generation college students, come from disadvantaged economical statuses, and students from racial and ethnic groups historically underrepresented in science.

BSI-SIP, SURE, NeuroSIP and KavliSIP eligibility

All  BSI-SIP  applicants must have a demonstrated interest in the pursuit of graduate study toward a PhD or MD-PhD degree. BSI-SIP applicants must have completed at least two years of college by the start of the summer program. BSI-SIP is open to US citizens, permanent residents, and international students currently enrolled in college in the United States.

SURE scholars should have an interest in cancer and/or urology-related research, and have some curiosity about in the intersection of clinical care and benchwork (commonly referred to as translational research). SURE applicants must have completed at least two years of college by the start of the summer program and must be US citizens or permanent residents to apply.

The  NeuroSIP  and KavliSIP  programs prefer candidates on the PhD track, without an interest in pursuing clinical medicine. Students applying to NeuroSIP or KavliSIP must have completed at least one year of college by the start of the program and must be US citizens or permanent residents to apply.

Students interested in being considered for SURE, NeuroSIP or KavliSIP must choose BSI-SIP on their application and then select the SURE, NeuroSIP and/or KavliSIP options when they appear. You will still be considered for the BSI-SIP parent program as well.

Careers in Science and Medicine (CSM-SIP)

The  Careers in Science and Medicine Summer Internship Program  is the undergraduate component of the Johns Hopkins  Initiative for Careers in Science and Medicine . The CSM Initiative seeks to partner with scholars from low-income and educationally under-resourced backgrounds to help them build the accomplishments, skills, network, and support necessary to achieve advanced careers in biomedical research, clinical medicine, public health, nursing, and/or STEM professions. Scholars spend 10 weeks conducting high level research with a faculty mentor, and receiving guidance on financial planning, graduate school applications, and career exploration while enjoying lunches and other events with faculty specializing in a wide variety of science and health related areas of study.

In addition  to the opportunities described above in the parent program, CSM-SIP has an affiliated sub-program that allows students to do research in labs affiliated with the Molecular Microbiology and Immunology (MMI) department in the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Summer Interns in CSM-SIP-MMI can expect to work on projects ranging from characterizing mechanisms of host-pathogen responses, to examining malarial life-stages for therapeutic development, including analysis of viral evolution leading to epidemics and pandemics, and therapeutic development exploiting antibodies and conjugate vaccines. Centering around immunology, immunological responses to pathogens, and the basic characterization of microbes, research in the MMI department bridges many disciplines and aims to prepare students for futures as physicians, clinical researchers, and other STEM public health and research professions. CSM-SIP-MMI interns work with MMI faculty, post-docs, and graduate students and receive additional mentoring from MMI faculty.

CSM-SIP and CSM-SIP-MMI Eligibility To be considered low-income for our program,  your household or family income must be under 200% of the federal poverty limit ,  which is defined in part by the number of members in the household . We require applicants upload the first 2 pages of their family’s 2021 or 2022 tax return in order to verify you meet income guidelines (feel free to remove social security numbers when you upload) or two consecutive pay stubs. If providing tax returns or pay stubs is prohibitive, please contact us at  [email protected] .

Eligible scholars must also be educationally under-resourced , and can meet this eligibility requirement by fitting any ONE of the following criteria: (a) first-generation college student, or (b) from a single-parent household, or (c) attended (or would have attended, based on where you lived) a high school where the majority of students are from low-income households, or (d) have a diagnosed physical, mental, or learning-related disability. There are additional ways to meet this eligibility; to discuss, please contact the SIP team at  [email protected] . 

Students also must have completed at least one year of college by the start of the summer program and be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to qualify.

Students interested in being considered for the CM-SIP-MMI sub-program must choose CSM-SIP on their application and then select the MMI option when it appears. 

Diversity Summer Internship Program at the Bloomberg School of Public Health (DSIP)

This program , through the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a leading international authority on public health, is dedicated to protecting health and saving lives. Every day, the School works to keep millions around the world safe from illness and injury by pioneering new research, deploying its knowledge and expertise in the field, and educating tomorrow’s scientists and practitioners in the global defense of human life. At the Bloomberg School of Public Health, you will be mentored by some of the world’s leading authorities on public health issues. Some of our major research initiatives are in these areas: improving the health of women and children; identifying determinants of behavior and developing communication programs to promote healthy lifestyles; protecting our nation from bioterrorism; preventing and controlling AIDS; reducing the incidence and severity of injuries; elucidating the causes and treatment for mental disorders; preventing chronic diseases (heart diseases, stroke, cancer, diabetes); improving the health of adolescents; preventing and treating substance abuse; assessing the effect of environmental toxins on human health; making water safe and available for the world’s population; assessing the health needs of disadvantaged populations (rural, urban, refugees, US ethnic groups); and developing methods to better understand, manage and finance health care. Your research opportunity may take place in a laboratory, health department, clinic, office, or in a community setting.

DSIP Eligibility

Students must have completed two years of college by the start of the summer program and be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to apply. Preference is given to students who have one or two years of undergraduate study remaining and seniors who have applied to a graduate program in the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Generation Tomorrow: Summer Health Disparity Scholars (GT-SIP)

Generation Tomorrow and the Johns Hopkins Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) are pleased to host  Generation Tomorrow: Summer Health Disparity Scholars . The program is intended for undergraduate students interested in HIV and/or hepatitis C virus (HCV) health disparities and their intersection with substance use (addiction and overdose), violence, mental health, and the social determinants of health. The program will offer mentorship and training in HIV/HCV education, testing, and counseling; health disparities, cultural competence, and harm reduction. Through a lecture series, the program will also explore the intersection of HIV and/or HCV health disparities with the areas defined above. This program will have a special focus on undergraduate students interested in nursing, public health, science, and medicine. The program will consist of the following components:

• Intensive HIV and HCV testing and counseling training
• Biweekly lecture series
• Health disparities related research (clinical, health services, biomedical) with a designated faculty mentor
• Community-based outreach

GT-SIP Eligibility

The Generation Tomorrow division has a special focus on undergraduate students interested in nursing, public health, science, and medicine. Students must have completed at least one year of college by the start of the summer program and be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to apply.

Genomics & Society Mentorship Program (GMSP)

Established in 1995, the mission of the Berman Institute of Bioethics is to “identify and address key ethical issues in science, clinical care, and public health, locally and globally.” The Berman Institute trains and mentors future leaders in bioethics through programs such as the undergraduate minor in bioethics, the Master of Bioethics Program, the Ph.D. concentration in bioethics and health policy, and the Johns Hopkins-Fogarty African Bioethics Training Program. The goal of the Genomics and Society Mentorship Program (GSMP) is to broaden the diversity of Ethical, Legal and Social Implication (ELSI) researchers in the interest of equity, ultimately enriching ELSI scholarship by giving trainees opportunities to learn skills, be exposed to the range of possible training and career options in ELSI research, and with the guidance of a faculty mentor, work on issues in genomics and society. Summer trainees will be offered two types of formal, didactic research education opportunities: the first is a workshop/seminar designed specifically for them and their cohort; and the second is the opportunity to take foundational courses in the Berman Institute’s existing Summer Institute. These are in addition to those activities available to all SIP students, such as weekly journal club and the bimonthly seminars and professional development sessions. By the end of summer, students will be expected to be able to identify morally relevant issues in science, medicine, research and public health, and to engage in sound reasoning about those issues. Participants will develop these core skills through exposure to foundational bioethics methodologies, the application of those skills and methodologies to important historical and contemporary cases, and to participants’ own interests. Following the summer internship, the program will continue, remotely, until the following summer, with quarterly cohort meetings and mentorship and career development opportunities.

GSMP Eligibility

Applicants must be full-time college students, who will have completed at least one full year of collegiate study by the start of the program. Recent college graduates are not eligible to apply. Applicants must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

Institute for Cell Engineering (ICE)- The Foundation for Advanced Research in the Medical Services Internships (FARMS)

Opportunities in the Institute for Cell Engineering (ICE) on one of our four program areas: Vascular Biology, Stem Cell Biology, Immunology or Neuroregeneration. Program participants may participate in a broad array of projects from computational biology, gene regulatory networks, immune system development, lymphoid malignancies, molecular and cellular mechanisms of oxygen regulation, molecular and cellular signals controlling neurodegeneration, neurogenesis, single cell biology, stem cell modeling, gene and stem cell therapies, MRI cell tracking techniques, or stem cell engineering. The rich environment and guidance by our faculty helps prepare students for successful careers as independent research scientists. Interns are expected to participate in all student related activities in ICE, conduct research and write a small progress report at the end of their internship or present their work in a poster session at the end of the program. This is a ten-week program that includes housing and a stipend.

FARMS Eligibility

Students must have completed two years of college by the start of the summer program and be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to apply. The FARMS program is looking for at least a 3.8 GPA and focusing on students that do not have access to in-depth research at their current institution.

Institute for Computational Medicine (ICM)

Founded in 2005, the mission of the Institute for Computational Medicine is to develop mechanistic computational models of disease, personalize these models using data from individual patients, and apply them to improve disease diagnosis and treatment. ICM researchers work in four different application areas. Computational Molecular Medicine seeks to understand the function of highly interconnected molecular networks in health and disease. This knowledge is applied to enhance discovery of molecular disease networks, detection of disease, discrimination among disease subtypes, prediction of clinical outcomes, and characterization of disease progression. Computational Physiological Medicine seeks to develop highly integrative mechanistic models of biological systems in disease, spanning from the levels of cells to tissues and organs. These models are personalized using patient data and apply them to improve disease diagnosis and treatment. Computational Anatomy is an interdisciplinary area of research focused on quantitative analysis of variability in biological shapes in health and disease. It is applied to imaging data to develop anatomic biomarkers for disease diagnosis. Computational Healthcare analyzes large-scale data sets from the electronic health record to discover new ways of improving individualized patient care. 

The twenty ICM core faculty are appointed in departments of the Whiting School of Engineering, School of Medicine, and the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Our interdisciplinary labs offer students the opportunity to work with faculty in these four different research areas. Opportunities exist to work on computational, as well as combined computational and experimental/clinical studies. At the end of the summer, the student will present their work at a university-wide poster session. This internship provides a unique opportunity to gain research experience in the emerging discipline of computational medicine and would be of great benefit to those interested in pursuing graduate research in this area or in attending medical school.

ICM Eligibility

The Institute for Computational Medicine is dedicated to providing opportunities to students that are underrepresented in STEM. This internship is in partnership with the Johns Hopkins Vivien Thomas Scholars Initiative and will have a special focus on students currently attending an HBCU or MSI. Please  click here  to see the complete list of eligible universities and colleges.

Students must have completed at least one year of college by the start of the summer program and be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to apply. Students majoring in computer science, engineering, mathematics, chemistry, biology and/or biophysics are eligible. While not required, we seek candidates with some combination of experiences in scientific or academic research (C++/Python/*nix/databases, software engineering, object-oriented programming, and/or collaborative development).

Institute for NanoBioTechnology - Nanotechnology for Biology and Bioengineering Research Experience for Undergraduates (INBT-REU)

The INBT  has a unique model for training researchers at the interface of nanoscience, engineering, biology, and medicine to uncover new knowledge and create innovative technologies. Our laboratories are interdisciplinary and offer students research opportunities in both the physical sciences/engineering and biological sciences/medicine. We recruit students from many undergraduate majors including biology, bioengineering, biomedical engineering, biophysics, cell biology, chemistry, chemical engineering, material science and engineering, and physics. Students in the program are co-advised by faculty and senior lab personnel, and work on current graduate level projects in various research areas such as nanotechnology, biomaterials, nanoparticles, microfabrication, tissue engineering, stem cells, drug delivery, particle synthesis, lab-on-chip devices, and cancer research.

During the program, students conduct research, attend educational and professional development seminars, and participate in social activities. At the end of the summer participants create a PowerPoint and poster of their research to present to the INBT community and at a university-wide symposium. The program’s goal is to give undergraduates a true perspective of graduate research with the hope that the experience will inspire pursuits of a PhD. The sponsor, National Science Foundation, provides housing, travel, and a stipend. 

INBT-REU Eligibility

Students must have completed one year of college (i.e., freshman) and be a U.S. citizen or Permanent Resident to apply.

The Johns Hopkins NeuroHIV Comorbidities Scholars Program (JHNeurophytes)

The  Johns Hopkins NeuroHIV Comorbidities Scholars Program (JHNeurophytes)  aims to recruit and train highly qualified first or second year undergraduate students in STEM degree programs from across the nation with special emphasis on those who reside in regions where the incidence/prevalence of HIV/AIDS infection is high or has newly appeared. 

For 10 weeks during the summer, on a multi-year basis, trainees will have the opportunity at JHU to learn about and/or engage in leading edge hands-on basic, translational, clinical or computational research in a vast array of specialties including: HIV-neuropathogenesis; stress/inflammation and HIV cognition, neuroHIV and CNS reservoir, neuroHIV and drug abuse, neuroHIV and comorbidities of aging, analytical concepts in Big Data, bioinformatics, and computational neuroscience. By program completion, successful undergraduate trainees will have completed several oral podium and poster presentations at scientific conferences on and off of campus, and made contributions toward scientific publications. Combined with a program of professional development and mentorship sessions, our trainees will have gained, developed and strengthened their science: -skills, -identity, and -self-efficacy to succeed in an academic research or clinician-research career pathway. Our long-term goal is to strengthen pathways to the biomedical workforce focused on research and clinical care at the interface of HIV-neurologic dysfunction and associated comorbidities. Additionally, alumni will have developed competencies to address ongoing and emerging threats to human health and well-being.

JHNeurophytes Eligibility: Students eligible for the program must be U.S. citizens or legal residents who will be accepted into or are enrolled in a nationally accredited college or university by the beginning of the program (graduating high school seniors, 1 st or 2 nd year undergraduates). To promote a diverse pool of applicants and selected scholars, we strongly encourage individuals from the following groups to apply: students who are underrepresented in STEM, female students, students who identify as LGBTQ+, first-generation college students, students with a disability, or students from an economically disadvantaged background, as described in  Notice of NIH's Interest in Diversity.

Johns Hopkins Neuroscience Scholars Program (JHNSP)

The  Neuroscience Scholars Program  focuses on providing mentorship along with a high quality research experience for undergraduates from underrepresented and/or deaf or hard-of-hearing (D/HH) backgrounds that are interested in pursuing research-based PhD or MD/PhD programs in the neurosciences. JHNSP will help students navigate two critical transition periods: from high school to college, and from college to graduate school. Participants also enjoy yearlong contact with our community of mentors and colleagues. 

For 10 weeks during the summer, trainees will have the opportunity at JHU to learn about and/or engage in leading edge hands-on basic, translational, clinical or computational research in a vast array of specialties including: neuropathogenesis of disease; neuroinflammation, neurological basis of mental health, drug abuse and cognitive impairments, CNS biochemistry, analytical concepts in Big Data, bioinformatics, and computational neuroscience, and more. By program completion, successful undergraduate trainees will have completed several oral podium and poster presentations at scientific conferences on and off of campus, and made contributions toward scientific publications. Combined with a program of professional development and mentorship sessions, our trainees will have gained, developed and strengthened their science: -skills, -identity, and -self-efficacy to succeed in an academic research or clinician-research career pathway. Our long-term goal is to strengthen pathways to the biomedical workforce to increase diversity of thought and insight, as well as support our scholars’ long-term engagement in neuroscience research. Additionally, alumni will have developed competencies to address ongoing and emerging threats to human health and well-being.

JHNSP Eligibility: Students eligible for the program must be U.S. citizens or legal residents who will be accepted into or are enrolled in a nationally accredited college or university by the beginning of the program (graduating high school seniors, 1 st or 2 nd year undergraduates). To promote a diverse pool of applicants and selected scholars, we strongly encourage individuals from the following groups to apply: students who are underrepresented in STEM, female students, students who identify as LGBTQ+, first-generation college students, students who are deaf/hard of hearing or with another disability, or students from an economically disadvantaged background, as described in  Notice of NIH's Interest in Diversity.

Johns Hopkins Summer Undergraduate Program in Kidney Science (SUPerKS)

Kidney researchers and physicians are critically needed to address the skyrocketing burden of kidney disease, and the racial disparities that are associated with it, with African American persons developing severe forms at rates 3-4 times higher than those in other racial groups. The S ummer U ndergraduate P rogram in K idney S cience (SUPerKS) provides talented students the unique opportunity to explore research and physician-scientist careers in the kidney field with exposure to the practice of medicine. During the summer internship, students will work under the mentorship of esteemed faculty on cutting-edge research projects to unravel how the kidney functions in health and goes awry in kidney disease. Research projects span from the basic science of kidney genes to studying kidney function in genetically engineered mice, or cell models; clinical and epidemiological studies of kidney disease; studying biomarkers in human cohorts; tissue engineering; to developing biosensors or nanotechnologies that specifically interrogate kidney physiology and disease mechanisms. As a key aspect of the program that helps demonstrate translation of the research work, a clinical experience is provided, where students round with kidney doctors (nephrologists), meet patients, and discuss diagnoses and treatment plans. In addition to the research and clinical experiences, students participate in a weekly journal club, presenting research articles to their peers and members of the faculty. Students also attend a seminar series featuring faculty members from Johns Hopkins, providing time to interact with faculty members and hear different perspectives about research, clinical practice, and career development. At the end of the summer, students present their work in a poster session with other kidney programs around the country. We hope that through these activities students will gain first-hand knowledge of research and academic medicine, and ultimately pursue careers in the kidney sciences.

SUPerks Eligibility: 

• At least one year of college
• 1 semester of general chemistry and biology (or AP equivalents) 
• At least 18 years old
• official college transcripts, GPA should be greater than 3.0
• 2 letters of recommendation, 
• a personal statement describing career goals, specific research interests, prior research experiences, and biographical and demographic information.

To apply, please email Paul Welling [email protected] to request an application.

Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM)

Students in the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) division work on specific research projects under the supervision of an assigned mentor. Projects span a broad range of research, from the basic science of endothelial or epithelial cell biology to asthma epidemiology. In addition to the research experience, students participate in a weekly journal club during which they present primary research articles to their peers and members of the faculty. Students also attend a seminar series featuring faculty members from Johns Hopkins and the NIH. This forum provides students with the opportunity to interact with faculty members and hear different perspectives on issues related to career development. Students interested in clinical medicine are given the opportunity to “round” with the Johns Hopkins Medicine residents, providing a glimpse of life in clinical medicine as a resident at an academic institution. At the end of the summer, students present their work in a poster session. We hope that through these activities students will gain first-hand knowledge of research and academic medicine, and ultimately pursue careers in the biomedical sciences.

PCCM Eligibility

Students must have completed one year of college by the start of the summer program (i.e., freshman) and be a U.S. citizen or Permanent Resident to apply.

Rosetta Commons Research Experience for Undergraduates (Rosetta REU)

The Rosetta Commons REU program  is a cyberlinked program in computational biomolecular structure and design. The Rosetta Commons software library includes algorithms for computational modeling and analysis of protein structures, which has enabled notable scientific advances in computational biology, including de novo protein design, enzyme design, ligand docking and structure prediction of biological macromolecules and macromolecular complexes. Participants in this program are placed in laboratories around the United States and even abroad. The program begins with students spending one week together at Rosetta Code School where they learn the inner details of the Rosetta code and community coding environment. Students spend the next eight weeks at their host laboratory conducting hands-on research in a molecular modeling and design project, developing new algorithms and discovering new science. In the final week students present their research in a poster and connect with Rosetta developers from around the world at the Rosetta Conference.

The sponsor, National Science Foundation, provides housing, travel, a sustenance allowance, and a stipend. 

Rosetta REU Eligibility

Current sophomores or juniors majoring in computer science, engineering, mathematics, chemistry, biology and/or biophysics are eligible. While not required, we seek candidates with some combination of experiences in scientific or academic research, C++/Python/*nix/databases, software engineering, object-oriented programming, and/or collaborative development. 

Partner Programs

As summer research programs are increasingly competitive, it is advisable to apply to several summer opportunities. We have partnerships with the following non-JHU summer programs that permit you to do your summer research at Johns Hopkins:

• The Leadership Alliance Leadership Alliance is consortium of 20+ leading research institution around the country. Their Summer Research – Early Identification Program (SR-EIP) is geared towards students who want to pursue PhDs or MD-PhDs.
• EntryPoint! EntryPoint! identifies and recruits students with apparent and non-apparent disabilities studying in science, engineering, mathematics or computer science for outstanding internship and co-op opportunities.
• NIDDK STEP-UP This program funds students for summer research internships at the institution of their choice.
• MCHC/RISE-UP Though not directly under the SIP umbrella, the Maternal Child Health Careers/Research Initiatives for Student Enhancement - Undergraduate Program (MCHC/RISE-UP) allows students with an interest in public health and to do research at Johns Hopkins through the Kennedy Krieger Institute.

Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) in Gynecology & Obstetrics (GYN/OB) Program (returning in 2025)

The SURF GYN/OB Program at Johns Hopkins offers rising junior and senior undergraduate students from across the country with interest in pursuing a career as a physician-scientist, the opportunity to work closely with faculty and leadership in the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital. This program is designed for students to gain the valuable, necessary skillsets in preparation for a career as a physician-scientist by: 1) shadowing in the clinic, wards, and operating rooms and 2) conducting research on a project that focuses on a subspeciality of Women’s Health. Additionally, SURF fellows will attend lectures and workshops aimed at enhancing preparedness for medical school.

SURF GYN/OB Eligibility:

Rising juniors and seniors in good academic standing with interest in OBGYN career as a physician-scientist. 

For more information, contact  [email protected]  

Looking for a year-round opportunity for clinical research?

Clinical trials core internship program (oto-ctc ip).

Program Overview:

The Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery: Clinical Trials Core Internship Program (OTO-CTC IP) provides experience in everything related to clinical research/trials including regulatory, data management and patient-facing clinical experience. There are also opportunities for limited work in the lab. This role is available year-round, and flexible to student schedules.

Students in this role will gain experience in clinical trials design and execution from start-up to close out. Under the guidance of faculty and staff, students will be able to take an active role in data input, patient screening, patient observation, reporting outcomes to the IRB and FDA, and basic laboratory responsibilities. In addition, students can meet with the director of the clinical trials core for professional development and/or Pre-med mentoring.

Complete application:

Applying is free, there is no cost to the applicant. To apply, email Internship Program Coordinator Jordan Smith using [email protected] or [email protected] with the following information:

-a CV or resume

- your ideal timeline for the internship

-the school where you are currently enrolled

Alert Banner

Japan-based nipro medical corp. will invest $397.8m to develop a new manufacturing facility in greenville, creating more than 232 jobs. full story here ..

The 2024 Biomedical Sciences Symposium

UNC Charlotte, in collaboration with NCBiotech, is hosting “The Biomedical Sciences Symposium: Advancing Frontiers: Exploring New Horizons in Biomedical Sciences” in Uptown Charlotte. This full-day event will bring together University and Industry to highlight the innovation and translational research in Biomedical Sciences in the region.

The symposium will catalyze driving forward transformative solutions to pressing health challenges, reinforcing UNC Charlotte’s commitment to excellence in biomedical education and research. Come learn about breakthrough discoveries, enjoy interactive panel discussions, network, and more.

8:00 a.m.                                     Registration and Coffee

8:45 - 9:00 a.m.                          Welcome and Opening Remarks - Dr. Bernadette Donovan-Merkert, Dean, UNC Charlotte College of Science

9:00 - 9:30 a.m.                          The Biomedical Landscape in 2024 - Charlotte and North Carolina - Doug Edgeton, CEO, NCBiotech

9:30 - 10:15 a.m.                        UNC Charlotte Presentation - Becoming an R1 Research University.  Leveraging the University as a Hub for Charlotte Region Ecosystem Collaboration. How to Engage with the University. - Dr. Deb Thomas, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research. Dr. Bojan Cukic, Dean, UNC Charlotte College of Computing and Informatics, Dr. Bernadette Donovan-Merkert, Dean, UNC Charlotte College of Science, Catrine Tudor-Locke, Dean, UNC Charlotte College of Health and Human Services, and Dr. Robert Keynton, Dean, UNC Charlotte College of Engineering.

10:15 - 10:45 a.m.                        Break

10:45 - 11:30 a.m.                         Dr. Jai Patel, VP of Research, Atrium Levine Cancer Center & Dr. Anthony Atala, Director, WFIRM  Update on Innovation and Research across Advocate Health

11:30 a.m.  - 12:15 p.m.                Dr. Steve Kearney, Chief Medical Officer, SAS

12:15 - 1:00  p.m.                          Lunch

1:00 - 3:30 p.m.                             Breakout Sessions    Theme: Research in Biomedical. These breakout sessions are proposed by attendees and the selection process is currently underway.  Topics include:

• Diagnostic Imaging
• Cancer Research
• Regen Medicine
• AI in Biomedical Sciences
• Infectious Diseases and Global Health
• Nano-materials and Structure-Based Drug Design
• Medical Device 

3:30 - 5:00 p.m.                                 Poster Competition and Reception

4:45 p.m.                                           Poster Competition Awards Presentation

The Dubois Center at UNC Charlotte Center City 320 E. 9th Street Charlotte, NC 28202

Claradele Pharmaceuticals, a Greenville startup developing a unique immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, is the 2024 NCBiotech Venture Challenge winner. 

The Claradele selection marked the pinnacle of a months-long grooming process for North Carolina’s freshest life sciences startups. It was the culmination of the statewide Venture Pitch Showcase at the Grandover Resort in Greensboro, announced Thursday evening at the sold-out Triad BioNight, also at the Grandover.

Milestone Pharmaceuticals, a Canadian company with a U.S. subsidiary in Charlotte, is back on track with a potential drug to treat rapid heart rates in certain cardiovascular disorders.

The company in late March re-submitted a New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking approval of etripamil for the management of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT), a type of arrhythmia or abnormal heart rhythm. 

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

August 21, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

Researchers explore potential for AI in biomedical science

by Rutgers Cancer Institute

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) powered by human language has made remarkable progress and gained widespread use through tools such as ChatGPT. While it is mostly known for helping with reading and writing, scientists are starting to explore how this type of AI can be used in research.

In a recent study, Rutgers researchers, including from Rutgers Cancer Institute and RWJBarnabas Health, show that generative AI can model basic biological structures, like amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and a loop-like structure commonly found in proteins. The study was published in Scientific Reports .

Researchers also found that generative AI can analyze the way a drug and its target protein interact. These capabilities are still in an early stage but are poised to evolve alongside the rapid advancement of generative AI technology, paving the way for potential applications in the biomedical sciences , including cancer research.

Wadih Arap, MD, Ph.D., director of Rutgers Cancer Institute at University Hospital and Renata Pasqualini, Ph.D., chief of the Division of Cancer Biology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and Rutgers Cancer Institute researcher are senior authors of the study. Other authors include Alexander M. Ille, Ph.D.; Christopher Markosian, MD/Ph.D. student, Stephen K. Burley, MD and Michael B. Mathews, Ph.D.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Spike mutations that help SARS-CoV-2 infect the brain discovered

Faulty gene makes the brain too big—or too small

3 hours ago

Men infected with high-risk types of HPV could struggle with fertility

6 hours ago

Weight loss drug's heart benefits extend to people with heart failure, study finds

12 hours ago

Hot flash drug shows significant benefits in clinical trials

13 hours ago

A potential pathway may guide new therapies for inflammatory bowel disease and other inflammatory diseases

Immune cells have a metabolic backup plan for accessing their anti-cancer playbook

Autism spectrum disorders linked to neurotransmitter switching in the brain

14 hours ago

New work validates targets for personalized cancer immunotherapy

Macrophage mix helps determine rate and fate of fatty liver disease, study finds

Related stories.

Investigators explore impact of cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption on Black breast cancer survivors

Jan 24, 2023

Researchers identify lipid vascular 'ZIP code'

Aug 14, 2023

Mechanism for development of rare colorectal cancer subtype identified

Aug 25, 2021

'Legos of life': Deep dive into the 3-D structures of proteins reveals key building blocks

Jan 22, 2018

Phage display-based gene delivery: A viable platform technology for COVID-19 vaccine design and development

Jul 7, 2021

Researchers find tumor microbiome interactions may identify new approaches for pancreatic cancer treatment

Oct 10, 2022

Recommended for you

Novel AI algorithm assists in breast cancer screening

17 hours ago

Detective algorithm predicts best drugs for genetic disorders and cancer

Aug 22, 2024

Can AI pick IVF embryos as well as a human? First randomized controlled trial shows promise

Aug 20, 2024

Generative AI can not yet reliably read and extract information from clinical notes in medical records, finds study

Aug 19, 2024

Worldwide machine learning contest advances wearable tech for Parkinson's disease

AI model aids early detection of autism

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Master of Science in BME

Prep for research leadership, a phd or medical school.

Program Benefits

The 30-credit Duke  Master of Science in Biomedical Engineering  provides a unique combination of opportunities:

• A respected and highly-ranked graduate program
• A flexible curriculum with choice of concentration, and the option of thesis or non-thesis
• Access to graduate certificate programs in high-demand career areas
• A wide array of degree concentration options aligned with faculty research
• Dedicated career support
• A track record of positive career outcomes
• Life Science course—3 credits
• Advanced Mathematics course—3 credits
• BME courses—12 credits
• Thesis option —6 elective course credits and 6 independent study credits, or
• Non-thesis option  —12 elective course credits

The skills I developed at Duke have enabled me to head several innovative projects, even as an early career professional. Jasmine Roddey, MS ’16 Global Safety Senior Associate, Amgen

Sample Course Schedule

This chart shows a sample curriculum for a Duke BME Master of Science (MS) student that has chosen the Drug and Gene Delivery Concentration:

View course descriptions »

Important Notes

• Undergraduate courses may be taken, but cannot be used to fulfill degree requirements
• Students may take up to 6 credits of independent study (BME 791 and BME 792) as electives for a project in the same lab or in lieu of research credits for an MS thesis
• Students may take 3 credits of Master of Engineering, Master of Engineering Management, or other business/management courses as an elective
• Other elective courses must be selected from Engineering, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, Mathematics, Computer Science, or related disciplines

Additional Details

Non-thesis option.

Non-thesis MS students complete their degree by taking a milestone exam in one of the three formats.

• Oral poster presentation on a research or design project conducted at Duke
• Submission of a proposal on a new research project, based on materials learned at Duke
• Comprehensive oral exam on technical knowledge learned at Duke

The projects and research proposal must be related to biomedical engineering and approved by the student’s adviser. The formulation of the project plan is a collaborative, mentored experience. Successful project plans are those in which students can do the following:

• State a research problem in a chosen area of study and demonstrate the value of the solution to the research problem;
• Apply sound research methods/tools to problems in an area of study and describe the methods/tools effectively;
• Analyze/interpret research data;
• Draw valid conclusions from data and make a convincing case for the contribution of those conclusions in advancing knowledge within that area; and
• Communicate their research clearly and professionally in both written and oral forms appropriate to the field

Thesis Option

MS students engaged in research are encouraged to prepare and defend a thesis.

Preparation

The Master’s Thesis should follow the format defined in the Graduate School’s Guide for Preparation of Theses and Dissertations, and should include the following items:

• An abstract with objectives and clearly stated unique contributions,
• A survey and discussion/synthesis of pertinent literature,
• Discussions of the completed research tasks, including theory development, experimental design, materials and methods used, results from the study, and disussion, and
• A set of conclusions that emphasize new theoretical, modeling, or experimental contributions; or novel applications of existing theories.

The quality of the Master’s Thesis should allow the material to be publishable in a peer-reviewed journal. Learn more information on the master’s thesis from Duke’s Graduate School website.

Upon the completion of the written thesis, the student must defend it orally. The thesis advisor must approve the thesis for the defense before its final submission to the faculty committee. In a letter to the Graduate School, the adviser will indicate that the thesis is ready for defense. The student is responsible for asking the DMSA to announce the thesis defense. The defense takes place no less than one week after the student has submitted the thesis to the Graduate School and has presented copies to the faculty committee members. An oral presentation is a public event. The faculty committee generally meets with the candidate in a closed meeting following the open oral presentation. During the defense, the faculty committee may question the student on both the content of the thesis and the student’s course work.

The possible outcomes of the Master’s Examination are:

• The student passes. A majority of supporting votes are required, in addition to the approval of the Advisor.
• The student fails. Re-examination might be permitted upon the recommendation of the Advisor and the approval of the Director of Master’s Studies.

Customize Your Degree

Concentrations, certificates, additional information.

• Admissions Requirements
• Application Deadlines
• Tuition & Financial Aid
• Career Services

Take the Next Step

Want more information? Ready to join our community?

Master’s Contacts

Have a question about the program or admissions? Contact the Admissions & Recruiting team.

Sina Farsiu

Director of Master’s Studies, Anderson-Rupp Professor of BME

Research Themes

Biomedical & Health Data Sciences, Biomedical Imaging & Biophotonics

Research Interests

Focused on medical imaging and machine learning to improve the overall health and vision outcome of patients with ocular and neurological diseases (e.g., age-related macular…

Paul J Fearis

Associate Director of Master’s Studies, Associate Professor of the Practice in the Department of BME

Innovation & product development processes, design for manufacture

Bev Gedvillas

Master’s Program Coordinator

More Master’s Degree Options

Meng in biomedical engineering, meng in medical technology design, meng in photonics & optical science, md+master’s dual degree.

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Nei-laboratory-research.jpg.

The NIH Director, organization, and staff directory.

lymphocyte-attacking-cancer-cell.jpg

How NIH works to prevent disease and improve health.

Youngmi-conducts-research.jpg

Jobs at NIH

Search for jobs, including scientific, administrative, executive careers.

google-map.jpg

Visitor Information

Directions, maps, parking information, and more.

questionmark-key.jpg

Frequently Asked Questions

Answers to frequently asked questions about the NIH.

about-us-contact-us.jpg

How to contact NIH by email, phone, or mail.

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

Assistant/Associate/Full Professor - Biomedical Engineering

• Madison, Wisconsin
• COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING/BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
• Faculty-Full Time
• Opening at: Aug 21 2024 at 16:20 CDT

Job Summary:

The Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison seeks to fill a tenure-track position at any level in the area of artificial intelligence/machine learning driven computational approaches in the design and application of tissue engineered "biomimetic twins", i.e. novel models of human organ function or dysfunction that would accurately predict the influence of external factors. Additionally, a candidate whose research in this field complements the department's existing strengths in Tissue Engineering, Cellular Engineering, Neuroengineering, Biomechanics, Biomedical Imaging and Optics, and Medical Micro technologies would be of particular interest. The candidate's research should have clear implications for improving human health. The ideal candidate will be interested in collaborative work with existing centers and faculty in the Department of Biomedical Engineering and throughout campus. The Department of Biomedical Engineering advances the mission of the College of Engineering to foster a respectful, diverse, equitable and inclusive environment.

Responsibilities:

Developing an innovative research program in AI/ML driven tissue engineering approaches; teaching and developing undergraduate and graduate courses in Biomedical Engineering, to foster the learning of a diverse student population; mentoring graduate students, and supervising their research; participating in departmental and university faculty governance; participating in outreach and service in industry and government; and contributing to professional and public services.

Institutional Statement on Diversity:

Diversity is a source of strength, creativity, and innovation for UW-Madison. We value the contributions of each person and respect the profound ways their identity, culture, background, experience, status, abilities, and opinion enrich the university community. We commit ourselves to the pursuit of excellence in teaching, research, outreach, and diversity as inextricably linked goals. The University of Wisconsin-Madison fulfills its public mission by creating a welcoming and inclusive community for people from every background - people who as students, faculty, and staff serve Wisconsin and the world. For more information on diversity and inclusion on campus, please visit: Diversity and Inclusion

Required PhD Biomedical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences or related field, with demonstrated excellence in research and teaching appropriate for appointment level.

Qualifications:

Candidate will have a demonstrated record of academic achievement such as peer-reviewed publications and grant awards appropriate for the appointment level, exceptional potential in establishing a world-class research program in AI/ML approaches to tissue engineering, and a commitment to high-quality and inclusive undergraduate and graduate teaching, learning and mentoring. Associate and Full professor candidates must possess experience and scholarly credentials that meet the tenure standards of the UW-Madison Divisional Committee and of the College of Engineering.

Full Time: 100%

Appointment Type, Duration:

Ongoing/Renewable

Anticipated Begin Date:

AUGUST 18, 2025

Minimum $114,000 ACADEMIC (9 months) Depending on Qualifications

Additional Information:

The Department of Biomedical Engineering in the College of Engineering at UW-Madison enrolls approximately 650 undergraduate students and 120 MS and PhD students from all over the world. The Department has 24 Primary Faculty, 62 Affiliate Faculty, 5 Teaching Faculty, 3 Emeritus Faculty, and 16 Staff, with state expenditures exceeding $2.5 million annually and research expenditures exceeding $10 million annually. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has a long history of interdisciplinary collaboration between departments and colleges as well as a strong commitment to promoting diversity and engaging in inclusive practices in our learning and research environments. A faculty member recruited in this specialty area will have the opportunity to closely collaborate with clinical and basic science faculty in College of Engineering, the School of Medicine and Public Health, the School of Pharmacy, the School of Nursing, School of Veterinary Medicine, as well as from multiple research centers at UW-Madison, including the Carbone Cancer Center, Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Center, Cardiovascular Research Center, and McPherson Eye Institute. The department plans to hire one position.

How to Apply:

Please apply directly to website by clicking on "Apply Now." Upload a SINGLE PDF document containing a cover letter, a detailed curriculum vitae (CV) including a complete list of publications, and names and contact information of three references. Applicants should also include a maximum three-page research statement and a one-page teaching statement describing how the applicant's research and teaching goals fit the solicitation described above. The deadline for assuring full consideration is November 8, 2024. However, these positions will remain open, and applications may be considered until these positions are filled. Employment will require an institutional reference check regarding any misconduct. To be considered, applicants must upload a signed 'Authorization to Release Information' form as part of the application. The authorization form and a definition of 'misconduct' can be found here: https://hr.wisc.edu/institutional-reference-check/

Mondira Saha-Muldowney [email protected] Relay Access (WTRS): 7-1-1. See RELAY_SERVICE for further information.

Official Title:

Professor(FA020) or Associate Professor(FA030) or Assistant Professor(FA040)

Department(s):

A19-COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING/BIOMEDICAL ENGR

Employment Class:

Job number:, the university of wisconsin-madison is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer..

You will be redirected to the application to launch your career momentarily. Thank you!

Frequently Asked Questions

Applicant Tutorial

Disability Accommodations

Pay Transparency Policy Statement

Refer a Friend

You've sent this job to a friend!

Website feedback, questions or accessibility issues: [email protected] .

Learn more about accessibility at UW–Madison .

© 2016–2024 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System • Privacy Statement

Before You Go..

Would you like to sign-up for job alerts.

Thank you for subscribing to UW–Madison job alerts!