Standards for the Ph.D. Degree in the Molecular Biosciences

Abstract

Biological Science has been changing at a stunning pace with unprecedented growth, deepening of knowledge and proliferation of methods of investigation. At the same time interdisciplinarity has become commonplace and even essential as the barriers between the traditional biosciences disappear. Biochemistry and molecular biology, cell biology, structural biology, developmental biology, genetics, immunology, microbiology, neurobiology, nutrition, physiology, pharmacology, and molecular medicine now speak the same scientic language and use the same molecular tools. It is not unusual for elements of these molecular biosciences to be combined in a single doctoral thesis. Besides, informational science has made possible the birth of genomics, while interest has been moving from molecules to mechanisms and to whole organisms, from a focus on individual components to biological systems. In 1989 the Committee on Education of the International Union of Biochemistry published its Standards for the Ph.D. Degree in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Those Recommendations were published in: Trends in Biochemical Sciences 14, 205}209, 1989; Biochemical Education 17(2), 58}62, 1989; and FASEB Journal 3, 2106}2110, 1989. Some 3000 copies of the document and several hundred reprints were distributed throughout the world. The Recommendations were also translated into and published in Chinese and Japanese. At least one international scientic organization adapted them, and another adopted them with minor changes. Many expressed their approval and subsequently several have inquired if the Recommendations have been revised. This document contains the revised Recommendations. The decision to revise and extend the 1989 Recommendations was not taken lightly. It was rea$rmed after a very positive response was obtained to an invitation issued to respected and experienced individuals in many countries to help the writing committee in this task. There was unanimous agreement in their responses that the 1989 Recommendations were sound and already quite generic by virtue of being expressed in behavioral terms. Because of this agreement, the format and content of the 1989 Recommendations have been largely retained so that this revision is less a matter of rewriting than of modication and updating based on the combined experience of the international and interdisciplinary panel of consultants recruited to assist in this project. Three members of the present writing committee were heavily involved in the formulation and writing of the 1989 Recommendations. A fourth had provided comments. In this way continuity has been achieved. The majority of consultants for this revision had not previously been involved. We thank the Executive Committee of IUBMB for their valuable assistance and nancial support; the Committee on Education for entrusting us with this project; all those who acted as consultants by o!ering us their comments on and suggestions for revision of the 1989 Recommendations; and Dr H. James Spooner of the College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, for expert editorial assistance. Final responsibility for the contents of the present Recommendations however, rests equally with those named below.