'U.S. biomedical research under seige,' says Rockefeller University president Paul Nurse
COPY LINK
In an editorial published this week in one of the nation’s leading biomedical journals, Cell, Rockefeller University President Paul Nurse suggests that the scientific research enterprise in the United States is in danger of suffering major damage as a result of stagnated funding and the failure of political leaders to take science seriously.
“As a newcomer to American science, it is a surprise for me to see the slippage in confidence that has occurred during the last couple of years,” says Nurse, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist who came to the United States from the United Kingdom in 2003 to become president of Rockefeller. “Barely a day goes by without a scientist expressing concern over issues such as levels of funding, recruitment of researchers, restrictions on research projects, and potential political interference in scientific judgments.”
By any measure – funding, awards, publications, clinical applications – the United States has been the undisputed leader in biomedical research for decades. Talented scientists from throughout the world were drawn to the United States to study and work, fueling American technological innovation and economic growth.
That position, however, is beginning to shift, and several recent trends have given scientific leaders reason for grave concern, Nurse says. Among them:
Decreases in funding. The funds available for biomedical research doubled between 1998 and 2003, largely as a result of additional support from the National Institutes of Health, which distributes federal grants. But in the last three years, increases have not kept pace with inflation, leading to a decline in the real size of individual research grants and increased competition among researchers. The result is that our most talented scientists spend more of their time applying for grants (the average application is 25 pages in length and often requires several rewrites) and less of their time doing science. The situation also encourages conservatism both among applicants and among reviewers.
The stop-go funding is particularly troublesome for universities, which increase the number of students and other trainees they take on during periods of expanding budgets, only to see the jobs for which they are training disappear. “The present policies are set to damage a whole generation of young research workers, and the negative impact on recruitment of the next generation of scientists will be seen for years to come,” Nurse says.
Political attacks on science. The pursuit of science is the basis of the technological innovation that has made the United States the pre-eminent commercial nation in the world. But the Bush administration, apparently supported by certain influential sections of society, has shown little respect for or understanding of science, and has instead sought to undermine scientists. The administration’s apparent support for teaching Intelligent Design, a religiously based, nonscientific theory, in schools, and its policy on the use of human embryonic stem cells, have created roadblocks to scientific progress.
Institutions that host stem cell research, for instance, are in a deeply uncomfortable situation. Measures demanded by the National Institutes of Health mean they are forced to quarantine their non-registry stem cell lines from any research funded by federal money, for example, and risk losing all their NIH funding should even a single federally owned test tube end up on the wrong tray. The strain and fear created by such policies are already leading to friction between scientists who receive federal money and those who circumvent it.
Hurdles to recruitment. The intellectual stimulation that occurs when different cultures and traditions meet and interact is extremely important in fostering scientific innovation. Yet recruiting scientists from overseas has become more and more difficult because of increased immigration bureaucracy and long delays in visa processing. The situation at home is not much better: despite efforts by organizations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to improve science education in schools, the U.S. fails to generate enough home-grown scientists to drive the engine of scientific enterprise.
Public misunderstandings about science. When politicians fail to take science seriously or, worse, deliberately confuse science in order to promote a particular agenda, they often create misunderstandings among the public about how science works and what it can do. “The dialog between scientists and the public, which is critical to our earning their trust and confidence, is being eroded by polarizing debates in the media and the confrontation and combative approach taken by some politicians,” says Nurse.
“Since the Enlightenment, science has been based on respect, openness, rationalism and objectivity, and it is being damaged by a political environment that does not share these values,” says Nurse. “Though science remains strong, it is under siege in the U.S. and unless this trend is corrected it will suffer damage that will have repercussions well beyond the scientific community.”
