Commentary: The professional masters degree

Abstract

A recent report from the National Research Council [1] expresses the recommendations of a panel that investigated the needs of the modern Life Sciences industry for scientifically sophisticated professionals, who know both business and science. Specifically, they recognized that development of the Professional Science Masters Degree (PSM) across the country is an appropriate mechanism for providing what seems to be needed: potential leaders with broad scientific expertise and a deep understanding of both business and management. The particular programs discussed as examples worked diligently to integrate in a fundamental way the business and science, combining scientific education with both the “hard” and “soft” skills traditionally included in graduate management and business programs, with a particular emphasis on working in teams. Indeed, the panel recommended that the federal and state governments, private and public and educational institutions and philanthropic organization and corporations join together in supporting initiatives that increase the number and quality of offerings at this level if we are to maintain our national competitiveness in the life sciences. The arguments are well documented in the report as to need and opportunity for PSM education and with the stimulus of possibly increased financial support, there is no doubt that the number of these programs will increase. Further motivation for institutions to provide this type of professional graduate education is that the needs of the industry are quite substantial, with the strongest evidence being the high salaries of graduates of ongoing PSM programs—salaries higher than for new PhD's, by quite a bit. Although not the subject of this particular report, but of equal importance, is the dearth of career paths for our best and brightest students who are looking for an alternative to the limited number of options we have provided to remain in science if they are not interested in going to medical school or pursuing the PhD. Overall, the report is timely and articulates an important problem with a potential educational solution that makes good sense. The report leaves to us as Biotechnology educators several important challenges that are crucial discussion topics. The first question is fundamental: how do we assure the integration of science and business in our classrooms? It is not appropriate to use the “smorgasbord” approach of taking a series of science courses that we already offer in addition to some business courses that are also ongoing, and calling it “integrated.” One tactic is the use of case-based science where the technology is discussed within the context of real-world problems and real business issues. But regardless of the specifics, a growth in PSM programs will stimulate our creativity in developing new approaches that embrace the blending of science and business. Second, we need to ask how to create meaningful team experiences that show how the bioscience business is firmly based on the principles of good science, as well as to offer experiences that lead to developing leadership skills. It is a challenge to provide meaningful team projects that are not “make work” but it is likely that a close association with industry managers will help assure a steady flow of projects and hopefully resources for the students and programs involved. Third, we need to ask how to include educational experiences and curriculum that are not usually included in traditional science or business programs. Specifically, areas such as regulatory affairs, intellectual property and bioproduction need a prominent place in PSM programs designed for the Life Sciences industry. Finally, we need to develop mechanisms for the evaluation of the effectiveness of our programs. Although we can all likely agree on mechanisms we do not want—standardized tests, for example—we need to be mindful that the promised increased support for the PSM programs from either government or industry will likely come with a mandate for evaluation tools that are broadly applied and stand up to scrutiny. These questions need to be discussed and the widest range of ideas considered. There is no doubt that the curricular challenges posed by what is hopefully strong growth in Life Sciences PSM programs will be solved through the creativity and imagination of our colleagues in both science and business. The remaining challenge, however, will require the education of many of our colleagues. As the graduates of Life Sciences PSM programs find successful careers in industry or the non-profit sector, it is up to us to show not only our students, but also our colleagues as well that the pathway to success in science can be propelled by the skills and knowledge gained in pursuing the PSM degree. If the Life Science PSM is going to flourish, it will require the broadest scientific community to embrace it as a rewarding and successful career path. We are embarking on a new educational model with a new degree in a new industry, so we must make it a priority to assure that our best students are made aware that they have a bright future with the skills and knowledge derived from PSM programs. This will require that our colleagues, whether acting as advisors to undergraduates or while teaching in the most basic courses, recognize the opportunity for our students and the need within our industry. With the growth and opportunities in the emerging sectors of the Life Sciences and the increasing roles played by those already through the original PSM programs, there is no doubt that we and our colleagues will be advocates and participants in numerous vibrant and growing PSM programs throughout the country. As a result, we as educators can rightfully take credit for supporting an educational initiative that keeps our country as the leader in Life Sciences innovation, and also assures our students exciting and gratifying careers doing science at the highest level.