Janowsky D S, Glick I D, Lash L, Mitnick L, Klein D F, Goodwin F K, Hanin I, Nemeroff C, Robins L
J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1986 Feb;6(1):1-7.
Although the scope of basic studies in psychopharmacology and psychobiology has been expanding steadily for about 30 years, relatively few clinical psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychopharmacologists now choose to become researchers or teachers in these disciplines. Such training is crucial to the future vitality of both academic and private-practice psychiatry, and in view of increasing constraints on training funds, student researchers may well be an endangered species. With these concerns in mind, at its 1984 meeting, the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology's Education and Training Committee organized a symposium of investigators, administrators, and former trainees to explore aspects of effective clinical research training in psychobiology and psychopharmacology. Aspects discussed included mentoring, settings and content of training, depth versus breadth of curriculum, and the effect of a critical mass of colleagues at various stages of professional development. Following a brief overview, selected panelists addressed the issues from their individual perspectives.
尽管心理药理学和心理生物学基础研究的范围在约30年里一直在稳步扩大，但现在相对较少有临床精神科医生、心理学家和心理药理学家选择成为这些学科的研究人员或教师。这样的培训对于学术和私人执业精神病学未来的活力至关重要，鉴于培训资金的限制日益增加，学生研究人员很可能成为濒危物种。出于这些担忧，美国神经精神药理学院教育与培训委员会在其1984年的会议上组织了一次由研究人员、管理人员和以前的学员参加的研讨会，以探讨心理生物学和心理药理学有效临床研究培训的各个方面。讨论的方面包括指导、培训的环境和内容、课程的深度与广度，以及在职业发展的各个阶段同事群体数量的临界值的影响。在简要概述之后，选定的小组成员从他们各自的角度探讨了这些问题。
