|
 |
|
EMBO reports 9, 3, 216–220 (2008)
doi:10.1038/embor.2008.16
How do we ask for money? A view of funding for basic research
Juan-Manuel Schvartzman1 & Jorge-Bernardo Schvartzman2
|
|
|
|
1 Juan-Manuel Schvartzman, MD, is at Cornell University's Weill Graduate School of Medical Sciences and the laboratory of Robert Benezra at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
e-mail: schvartj@mskcc.org
2 Jorge-Bernardo Schvartzman, PhD, is Research Professor at the Department of Cell & Developmental Biology, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas (CSIC) in Madrid, Spain.
e-mail: schvartzman@cib.csic.es
|
|
|
|
Speaking to scientists about the need for more support and funding for basic scientific research usually amounts to 'preaching to the converted'. Indeed, just a few years ago, there would have been no rationale for writing a defence of such an enterprise. Yet, recent interactions with scientists and physicians have made us aware that even the people who carry out basic research do so with very different objectives. This article is not, therefore, a sermon; rather, it is a wake-up call for scientists to realize that their investigative freedom is being increasingly curtailed.
|
|
|
|
Knowledge is the greatest asset that we can pass on to future generations, and all research furthers our understanding of the natural world.
|
|
|
|
Before we discuss whether and why basic research—or whatever term is now in vogue—is endangered, it is helpful to consider the different interpretations of the meaning of basic research. While working at the University of Exeter, UK, Jane Calvert conducted a survey of politicians and scientists in the UK and the USA in which she asked them what they understood by the term 'basic research' (Calvert, 2004). The answers varied markedly, but generally conformed to one of five definitions: the nature of the investigation; the sole pursuit of knowledge, as opposed to developing an application; having no obvious immediate applicability; the location of the institution where the research is carried out; and the field of investigation. Although most of these definitions overlap to some extent, the study revealed a large variation within the definitions and even inconsistencies: investigators described their work as basic research in one context but not in another; for example, research on the biological basis of cardiovascular disease in a hospital but with no direct clinical applicability.
We would therefore like to propose a working definition of basic scientific research as 'the pursuit of knowledge in order to understand a natural process irrespective of the potential applications that might arise from such knowledge'. Our definition is much in line with the one that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; Paris, France) proposed in the Frascati manual (Table 1; OECD, 1994), although we would like to emphasize the nature of basic research as a fundamental attempt to satisfy a curiosity about the world around us. Evidently, this definition will not please everyone; some might feel, for example, that research conducted to advance our understanding of a medical condition—but with no immediate application in health care—is predominantly basic research, despite its eventual application. Furthermore, we are well aware that it leaves a grey area between basic and applied science.
|
|
Table 1
The Frascati manual's definitions of basic and applied research (OECD, 1994).
|
|
|
Eric Kandel elegantly described the motivations for basic research in his recent book, A Theory of Mind, with a quote from Archibald Hill—recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1922. Kandel wrote, "[a]t the end of the talk, an elderly gentleman rose and asked [Hill] about the practical use of his research. Hill pondered for a moment as to whether he should enumerate the many instances in which great benefits for mankind have arisen from experiments undertaken purely to satisfy intellectual curiosity. Rather than take this path, however, he simply turned to the man and said with a smile, 'To tell the truth, sir, we don't do it because it's useful; we do it because it's amusing'" (Kandel, 2006).
Notwithstanding whether the work is amusing, curiosity driven or the result of any other motive, the generally accepted purpose of basic research—its intended aim—is to obtain knowledge. It is of course crucial to pursue the practical applications that can arise from such knowledge, but this in itself does not drive basic research; knowledge has an intrinsic value of its own. When the famous alpinist George Mallory (Fig 1) was asked why someone would climb Mount Everest, he answered concisely, "because it is there". Scientists give similar responses to questions about their passion for research, whether they are studying quarks, biological systems, chemical reactions or galaxies. It is important here to point out that 'because it is there' is a perfectly justifiable reason for carrying out research. It is part of the human condition that we seek to understand the world around us and our place within it.
|
|
Figure 1
George Mallory (1886–1924) and his debatedly realized dream, Mount Everest (8,848 m). Image source: Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Yet, too many scientists frequently and fervently argue that research with an objective—to cure diseases or develop new technologies, for example—should be preferentially funded over research that might 'simply' further our understanding of a basic organism such as baker's yeast. This argument is usually accompanied by a statement about how science—and the biomedical branch, in particular—has advanced to such a degree that it is now possible to tackle the problems of human disease intelligently. Consequently, they argue, the benefits of applied research cannot be overlooked in favour of 'pointless' romantic curiosity and funding policies should be focused accordingly. We worry that there is so little concern about this. Why does the implicit conceit of the applied researchers fail to ring any warning bells akin to those that rang for antibiotic 'magic bullets' or the use of DDT to fight malaria—at their time touted as major successes of the applied sciences that subsequently turned into major failures?
|
|
|
|
...the evaluation criteria used for applied science are being misused to evaluate basic research
|
|
|
|
Two crucial terms here are 'should' and 'preferentially'. Unlike the implications that these terms suggest, however, the fact is that applied research is already preferentially funded, whereas support for basic research is at an alarming nadir. Less than 10% of NIH R01 grant applications—the main public funding grants in the USA—are approved and funded, and the pharmaceutical industry all too frequently influences the objectives of academic biomedical research (Nurse, 2006; Weinberg, 2006). However, despite our worry about the lack of funding for basic research, it is important to clarify that we do not seek to diminish the importance of supporting and carrying out applied research. The application of science to tackle mankind's problems has produced phenomenal successes over the past 50 years—discoveries such as statins, monoclonal antibodies or the cancer drug Imatinib (Gleevec®; Novartis, Basel, Switzerland) have all had a tremendous impact on modern health care.
Nevertheless, the importance of asking questions purely out of curiosity and carrying out experiments to test models that arise from these questions—the paradigm of basic biological research—cannot be dismissed as 'old-style' thinking; it is the main driving force of scientific freedom and originality. The Spanish developmental biologist Ginés Morata pointed out in an interview that, "genetic studies on animal models are allowing an accumulation of data that one day will have a great practical application" (Morata, 2007)—note his failure to mention which practical applications these might be. They are impossible to predict. Nevertheless, even if the knowledge gained never has a practical application, its pursuit is still worthwhile. Knowledge is the greatest asset that we can pass on to future generations, and all research furthers our understanding of the natural world. This notwithstanding, there are countless examples of basic research that have also given rise, often rather unexpectedly, to practical applications. It is unnecessary to list them all; a brief look at the work of Nobel Prize winners would be sufficient.
|
|
|
|
...even politicians who are familiar with and support basic research and its value to society still have to emphasize the possible benefits of research
|
|
|
|
One particularly suitable example is the genetic dissection of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway. Most people working in the field of targeted cancer therapies, many of which focus on mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors, are not aware of the fact that the investigation of this pathway was largely carried out in Drosophila after behavioural screens revealed a role for it in ommatidia development (Banerjee et al, 1987; Hafen et al, 1987; Perrimon, 1994). Similarly, the classic studies that uncovered the biochemistry of nucleic acids, reverse transcription or RNAi—to name but a few—would not have occurred were it not for curiosity and basic research.
We have focused on the biological sciences and their applications to medicine, but our arguments apply equally to space exploration—a field that eventually gave us GPS, weather monitoring satellites and a reliable three-day weather forecast—optical physics—which triggered the development of the laser and new methods of communication—or any of the other natural sciences. To reiterate, one never knows how discoveries made through basic research might turn into applications but, even if applications are not forthcoming, the generation of knowledge and the exercise of human curiosity are highly worthwhile pursuits in themselves. Moreover, if we are to secure our future and attempts to eradicate disease are to succeed, we must expand the pool of scientific knowledge in all directions, however obscure.
Scientists working in applied research are familiar with terms such as accountability, relevance, significance and the measurable outcomes used to justify or evaluate their research. It seems unrealistic, however, to expect a molecular biologist working on the structure of DNA to write in the 'significance' section of a grant application that the intended purpose of the work is, for example, to cure malaria. This type of pointless 'box ticking' is not only time-wasting, but also hypocritical. Yet, scientists conducting basic research are increasingly forced to do it, precisely because the evaluation criteria used for applied science are being misused to evaluate basic research (Lawrence, 2007; Gannon, 2007). This political hypocrisy is not new; after all, it is easier for a scientist to justify his or her work to a politician or a taxpayer as potentially 'life saving', while opportunely citing examples of basic research that have led to real cures or new products, than it is to say that knowledge is valuable in its own right.
|
|
|
|
...it seems that biologists have 'dug themselves into a ditch' by pointing to medical cures as potential outcomes of their work
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the problem is more profound. Curiosity-driven research not directly focused on applications is usually only funded by public institutions, with a few notable exceptions involving non-profit organizations such as, for example, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Chevy Chase, MD, USA). This translates into scientists having to ask politicians for money. In turn, politicians have to become elected and show that they can use public money wisely. Thus, even politicians who are familiar with and support basic research and its value to society still have to emphasize the possible benefits of research. Unfortunately, there is a significant failure by scientists, policy-makers and politicians to even try to convince the general public that knowledge is valuable and research for the sake of understanding is worthwhile.
Modern research policy in the USA has been predominantly based on the post-World War Two report, Science the Endless Frontier, written by Vannevar Bush (1890–1974)—then Science Advisor to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his report, Bush argued that the best strategy to advance research and development, and thus economic growth, was to fund and support basic research with the understanding that applied research would follow automatically (Bush, 1945). His recommendations soon led to the establishment of the US National Science Foundation (Arlington, VA, USA) to support basic science.
However, when US President Richard Nixon declared the 'war on cancer' in 1971, in an attempt to finally defeat this major killer in the USA and other developed countries, the application of biomedical research triggered more public interest and support than Bush's report had ever done. Now, despite the ongoing battle against cancer, most scientists working in cancer biology and, more importantly, anyone who suffers from the disease or is at risk of it—one in three people—are still hopeful that applied research will lead to better cures and therapies. Nevertheless, policies that use science to tackle this, or any other specific social problem, should not eclipse the importance of basic research. Indeed, if the 'war on cancer' has shown us anything, it is that applied research, however focused on its target it might be, does not always produce results. In fact, unpredictable and unexpected future boons from basic research are now at least as likely to better cancer prognosis or improve therapies as 36 years of applied research.
The true motive behind the growing investment in scientific research—whether public or private—is an economic one. That is, governments realize that if they invest money in research then they will benefit from investment—hopefully in the form of a cure, but certainly by generating profit from new knowledge-based industries, highly paid jobs and tax returns. Although this mantra is increasingly taking hold, even within the scientific community, most basic researchers are failing to convey to politicians and, more importantly, to the general public, the importance of creating and valuing knowledge as a commodity in itself. The financial logic therefore leaves basic research shorthanded. As we can never know what practical applications will come out of basic research, we cannot explain its potential medical, financial or economic worth, but are left to argue for its intrinsic value.
Furthermore, this situation establishes a vicious cycle in which scientists move increasingly towards applied research because they are not able to obtain funding for their curiosity-driven research. This further depletes basic research from its practitioners, which makes it harder to create the necessary basic knowledge to tackle social and medical problems. It is obvious that the failure of scientists to provide the new cures and therapies that were promised in grant applications or press releases has, and will continue to lead to the disillusionment of funding authorities and the public, as much as it has decreased the support for basic research (Hunter, 2007). However, many colleagues in physics, astronomy and space research have had considerable success in convincing both the public and funding agencies that basic research and the pursuit of knowledge about the world is an aim in itself, without the need to justify it pragmatically. Of course, particle accelerators, deep-space telescopes and Mars probes convey the idea of curiosity more readily and create much more fascinating images than a test tube or a cell culture. Conversely, it seems that biologists have 'dug themselves into a ditch' by pointing to medical cures as potential outcomes of their work.
Further evidence of this tendency to justify and orient research away from curiosity-driven themes is the ubiquitous system used to evaluate the quality of scientific work and, by extension, the quality of researchers. Over time, the impact factor of journals has become the primary quantifiable measure of the value of a researcher's work, driving scientists to carry out experiments that are more likely to please the editors at high-tier journals, rather than undertaking research that aims to understand a phenomenon in nature.
|
|
|
|
...the rationale for science and the manner in which it is now being funded is increasingly influenced by a materialist, economic mindset
|
|
|
|
Publications that have clear implications for medicine, biotechnology or engineering often receive an extraordinary number of citations. High-tier journals are therefore keen on publishing such articles because it increases their impact factor and rating among scientific publications. Conversely, a scientist knows well that research results without any possibility of practical application are less likely to receive attention and will eventually end up in a lower-tier journal—notwithstanding the quality of the research itself. This admittedly cynical analysis is even more relevant to young scientists who cannot afford to carry out curiosity-driven research because they need citations and publications in high-impact-factor journals to secure new positions or to be promoted. In some ways, this muddle is self-inflicted by our continued obsession with impact factors, but it is hard to see how to stop it. Numerous articles have been written about alternative schemes and measures to evaluate scientific quality (Colquhoun, 2003; Davies, 2003; Hirsch, 2005; Insall, 2003; Lawrence, 2003), and it is not our intention to add to the list. Nevertheless, the tyranny of the impact factor is still a major component in the decline of basic research. We must therefore consider alternative schemes and make the scientific community more aware of how it is hurting itself. After all, the value of an experiment and the knowledge we gain from it cannot truly be measured by whether or not it is published.
In summary, it would be callow to suggest that the difficulties in justifying funding for basic research are new—this is an age-old problem. However, the rationale for science and the manner in which it is now being funded is increasingly influenced by a materialist, economic mindset. If this misguided vision of science as a motor for economic growth continues, it might leave those among us who are truly interested in understanding nature not only with empty pockets, but also without new ideas.
Of course, at the end of the day, it is generally the taxpayer who funds research and thus allows scientific production. It is therefore the responsibility of scientists to explain and justify their work to the general public and to convince them that knowledge is valuable for its own sake. It is all too easy to list possible applications and build hopes of new cures and technologies but, as we have argued, failure to deliver these has marked effects on the willingness of governments to fund research and, by extension, for future scientific advances. Instead, scientists should be honest and explain that curiosity, the human drive to better understand the world we live in and the excitement that comes from discovery, are the main rationales of scientific research. We should do this as often as possible and at every possible opportunity. Perhaps now, more than ever, we should start questioning and educating our patrons.
|
|
Acknowledgements
We thank Fotios Asimakopoulos, Robert Benezra, Silvia Bernik, Alejo Efeyan, Server Ertem, Pablo-José Fernández, Jerard Hurwitz, Martin Jechlinger, Dora B. Krimer, Sajir Mohamedbhai, Jelena Pavlovic, Svetlana Pavlovic, Rocío Sotillo and Branka Stancevic for helpful discussions and review of the manuscript. JMS is supported by a US Department of Defense (DoD) Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP) FY07 Predoctoral Traineeship Award. JBS is supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia Grant #BIO2005-02224.
|
|
References
Banerjee U, Renfranz PJ, Pollock JA, Benzer S (1987) Molecular characterization and expression of sevenless, a gene involved in neuronal pattern formation in the Drosophila eye. Cell 49: 281–291 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Bush V (1945) Science the Endless Frontier. A Report to the President. Washington, DC, USA: Office of Scientific Research and Development
Calvert J (2004) The idea of 'basic research' in language and practice. Minerva 42: 251–268 | Article |
Colquhoun D (2003) Challenging the tyranny of impact factors. Nature 423: 479; discussion 480 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Davies J (2003) Journals: impact factors are too highly valued. Nature 421: 210 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
Gannon F (2007) Hype, hope and hypocrisy. EMBO Rep 8: 1087 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
Hafen E, Basler K, Edstroem JE, Rubin GM (1987) Sevenless, a cell-specific homeotic gene of Drosophila, encodes a putative transmembrane receptor with a tyrosine kinase domain. Science 236: 55–63 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 16569–16572 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
Hunter P (2007) More is less. New developments in funding the life sciences to make research more effective. EMBO Rep 8: 626–628 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
Insall R (2003) Impact factors: target the funding bodies. Nature 423: 585 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
Kandel ER (2006) In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind, 1st edn. New York, NY, USA: W. W. Norton & Company
Lawrence PA (2003) The politics of publication. Nature 422: 259–261 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Lawrence PA (2007) The mismeasurement of science. Curr Biol 17: R583–R585 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
Morata G (2007) Premios príncipe de asturias. El País, October 24th
Nurse P (2006) US biomedical research under siege. Cell 124: 9–12 | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
OECD (1994) The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development: Frascati Manual 1993. Paris, Washington, DC, USA: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Perrimon N (1994) Signalling pathways initiated by receptor protein tyrosine kinases in Drosophila. Curr Opin Cell Biol 6: 260–266 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Weinberg RA (2006) A lost generation. Cell 126: 9–10 | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
|
|
top  |
|
|
|
