Nursing science has a worrisome problem-we are not preparing adequate numbers of scientists to sustain the discipline. Although there is a shortage of nursing faculty, that is not my focus. Rather, I am referring here to the staggeringly low numbers of nursing scientists-PhD-prepared nurses-equipped to conduct the science necessary for the discipline and the profession.

Less than 1% of nurses have earned a PhD. Moreover, there has been a 12% decline in enrollment in PhD programs over the last 10 years, even though graduations have increased 20% during this period and the number of PhD programs has increased 14% with programs available in almost every state (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2022). In short, there are currently too few nursing scientists and too few PhD students being educated as nursing scientists; our numbers are not being replenished or keeping pace with need.

Without nursing scientists, bad things could happen. Without scientists, we may lose the ability to understand what is important to people's health and how various experiences affect health and well-being. Without nursing scientists, advances in care will likely slow down, as there will be no one doing important nursing intervention work and there will thus be a failure to provide evidence needed for safe and effective practice. Without nursing scientists, we will not have anyone doing the important theoretical and empirical work necessary to develop the knowledge needed to move forward important initiatives to improve health and well-being. Without nursing scientists, we will not have nursing science upon which the profession is dependent. Ultimately, without nursing scientists, nursing may cease to exist as a scientific discipline. It is clearly past time for nursing to find real solutions to the challenges of increasing enrollment and completion of nurse scientists in PhD programs.

The limited and diminishing numbers of nursing scientists is not new. Moreover, the reasons for losses of nursing scientists and low numbers enrolling in PhD programs are generally understood. So too, many voices have been raised about the issue, and some efforts have been directed at the problem. Unfortunately, there has been little demonstrable change in the number of nursing scientists being prepared. One potential solution to increasing the number and quality of nursing scientists is partnerships among PhD programs. This is an idea that disciplinary leaders collectively need to advance.

Science is not a competition. Rather, the point of science is knowledge development, and specifically for nursing science, the point of science is to improve human health and well-being. It would be counterproductive to be competitive about that goal. Like science itself, scientific training should not be competitive, although it needs to be taken seriously and conducted with the greatest rigor and control. In fact, because of the focus of nursing science training on developing the skills of those who will conduct science leading to knowledge that improves health, scientific training should not be taken lightly or engaged in by those whose are not prepared themselves for the tasks required.

Scientific training requires quite a few prerequisites and resources, including high-quality supervision and support (Rodriguez et al., 2020). Data show that strong, highly skilled, and focused mentorship is essential to scientific success. In addition to mentorship, training also requires excellent instruction and learning activities in theories (for what is science without theory), methods (because you need to understand how to ask and answer questions), and ethics (because unethical work is not scientifically sound). Good scientific training also requires attention to the substance of a discipline, including essential content to frame important questions. From disciplinary substance comes the knowledge produced by nursing scientists that is critical to safe and efficacious practice. Nursing science is currently in flux regarding the necessary focus of the discipline. The decision about the substance of disciplinary work remains to be sorted out by nursing scientists; multiple forums to engage in this challenging yet essential work need to occur. Finally, scientific training requires rigorous and varied research experience. Good training goes beyond the completion of a dissertation. Rather, good training includes participating on mentors' research studies, being engaged with the mentors' research team, learning about all aspects of prospective research, and learning how to wisely and accurately use existing data to answer important questions. That is, excellent research training includes many research experiences with varied methods while also being focused on disciplinary substance.

Providing strong, scientifically sound research training can be challenging for many PhD programs. Not all PhD programs possess the number of well-prepared nursing science faculty necessary to instruct students in the conceptual, procedural, and ethical work of science. Here is where nursing scientists can help each other through partnership and collaboration.

It has been said that although competition is the law of the jungle, cooperation is the law of civilization (Kropotkin, 1902). Much of our world is about competition, spurred on by notions of interpersonal competition and natural hierarchy as the path for individual and species survival. However, there is evidence that cooperation rather than competition leads to success; when talking about the fate of our discipline, success is imperative. It is possible that our competitive quests-for funding, the best students, the most promising faculty, everything-has adversely affected our ability to cooperate for the benefit of our discipline. When talking about training PhD students, the future nursing scientists, the general absence of cooperation or partnership among nursing scientists and nursing PhD program has been detrimental.

Unfortunately, there are only a few examples of partnerships associated with scientific training, including nursing science training (e.g., see Engler et al., 2014; Ladden et al., 2023; Reames & Kochan, 2015). Thus, nursing scientists need to develop frameworks for successful and sustainable partnerships. For best results, these partnerships likely need to consider best practice principles. First, they should be strategic; partnerships need a shared vision with clear aims and clear plans that are jointly agreed upon. Partnerships need also to be well aligned with complementary and consistent activities; if everyone has the same skillset and yet all are missing important other skills, little will be gained by partnership. Partnerships should be well thought out with quality work expectations and measurable goals. Partners should be respectful of each other's skills and contributions, and they should be transparent with each other, especially regarding what partners hope to give and gain. Clear, honest, and frequent communication is needed for partnerships to develop and to be sustained; good partners do not surprise each other with hidden rules, values, and expectations. Partners need also to be organized and accountable to the partnership agreement, delivering on commitments and responsibly conducting the work of the partnership with integrity and trust. Finally, to end this short and incomplete list, partners should commit to learning from the partnership, making sure the partnership is evaluated often and that evaluation results are reflected upon and used to change processes and perhaps even outcomes. It is important in partnerships, as perhaps in life, to be flexible; even the best laid plans may go awry and need revision.

Failure to train adequate numbers of nursing scientists can no longer be ignored. We have spent over a decade hoping the problem will go away; it will not. Attention to training scientists for our practice and discipline is too important for our continued sluggish approach. Nursing scientists are innovative, intelligent, thoughtful, and dedicated. Together, we should be able to identify and implement workable, collaborative solutions to this serious problem.

ORCID iD

Rita H. Pickler https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9299-5583

REFERENCES