Of Billionaires, Jellyfish, and Pond Scum: What Really Matters in the Debate Over the Future of Research

By Ann Bonham, PhD

On March 15, 2014, The New York Times Sunday edition published a front page story by William J. Broad,“Billionaires with Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science.”The piece drew nearly 500 comments on the Times’ website in 24 hours, debating the pros and cons of philanthropic support for research.

Philanthropic investment in research is most welcome, but I was struck that this story made the front page, over a much less flashy yet far more important story: that the nation’s entire biomedical research enterprise may be in peril from a lack of federal investment. However generous, philanthropy cannot begin to substitute for a national commitment to medical research.

Between 1998 and 2003, the federal government essentially doubled the funding for biomedical research through appropriations made to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest funder of basic biomedical science in the world. That significant investment led to breakthroughs in the diagnosis or treatment of many diseases in the past decade that were derived from basic science funded, at least in part, by the NIH.

Basic science is a high-risk investment. It can be serendipitous and unpredictable, and requires a large upfront commitment of time and energy. Some of the most major breakthroughs begin with small, unglamorous steps that require unimaginable commitment of time and energy, yet can eventually result in innovative new diagnostics, treatments, and sometimes cures.

As one example, in the 1960s, Dr. Osamu Shimomura and colleagues examined the properties of bioluminescence—the biochemical emission of light by living organisms—in jellyfish. He asked the question: How do these organisms biochemically emit light? An interesting question, although it would hardly have made the front page of the New York Times, or otherwise garnered much attention. The team identified a key protein, named aequorin, and elucidated how it worked chemically to make light emission possible. The finding eventually led to the identification of “green fluorescent protein” or GFP.

Shimomura did not work alone; other investigators made critical contributions to developing GFP as a biochemical marker that makes it possible to monitor gene expression and track the resultant protein movement within individual cells. GFP is now one of the most widely used scientific tools, enabling many other remarkable discoveries of how genes, proteins and cells function in health and disease. For the development of GFP, Shimomura and others were awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, nearly five decades after his original discovery.

I have previously noted my favorite example: Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn and collaborators performed experiments, more than three decades ago, on Tetrahymena (or “pond scum”), a single-celled protozoan,to answer a fundamental question: How do cells overcome an inherent biological step that shortens their DNA molecules each time the cell undergoes normal replication? Given this phenomenon, the strand of DNA could become so short with repeated cell divisions that part of the genetic blueprint would be lost, and humans would lose their ability to develop normally. Another interesting question, but the future impact on medicine and science was still to come.

As it turns out, discoveries made using this seemingly unremarkable pond-dwelling organism uncovered the existence of a protective cap on the ends of the pieces of DNA, “telomeres,” that essentially protects the DNA during cell division. That discovery triggered thousands of additional experiments in laboratories around the world that continue to this day. And because of those studies, each one building on prior work, we have an advanced understanding of cells that serves as the basis for innovative treatments for neurodegenerative disorders and cancer. Dr. Blackburn and her colleagues were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009.

Those are two examples. There are thousands of others. Based on current investment trends, it is unlikely that philanthropic donors or private sector research and development would have been interested in funding the original exploratory research on pond scum. Historically, the federal government has been the primary funder of this sort of high-risk basic science, because of both the proximal outcomes—fundamental discoveries that lead to clinical breakthroughs—and the distal outcomes—a stronger, more competitive and productive nation. These basic breakthroughs taking place in laboratories across the nation, and the public support that makes them possible, rarely are covered in the news or seen in the public eye.

Despite vocal bipartisan support for fundamental biomedical research, the commitment to federal funding does not match the rhetoric. We are now in the middle of an “un-doubling” of the NIH budget. In 2014, the federal appropriations for NIH—while nominally about $30 billion—is closer to the year 2000 level ($20 billion) when inflation and costs of doing research are considered. This year’s appropriation fell far short of simply breaking even with 2012. As a result, there are far fewer NIH-funded research project grants. Some of the brightest scientists in the nation have lost federal support and are shutting down their laboratories and laying off skilled technicians, unable to support their research teams and forced to put bold new ideas on hold. Even the most committed of our younger scientists are thinking twice about beginning a career in research in the public interest. This lost momentum and collapse of research infrastructure stifles potential breakthroughs from high-risk basic science that will take decades to recover, or may not be salvageable at all.

All this leads to one question: Now what? As the GFP and pond scum stories illuminate, we can start by turning our basic science breakthroughs into headlines that will captivate the public, and better explain the time lag between discoveries and clinical translation. But most important, we should rethink altogether how Congress allocates funds for biomedical research.

Current funding for NIH is in the discretionary spending category, which makes it subject to an annual appropriations process by Congress. What if Congress, while honoring the annual appropriations process, committed to a multi-year, predictable, modest increase in funding for biomedical research? The relative risk of committing to a steadily increasing funding scheme over the current annual appropriations process, which has resulted in the sobering and unrelenting decline in federal dollars, seems quite low—especially when considering the impacts of federal support on the health of our citizens who make our nation more productive, more competitive, and more innovative.

So let’s not be diverted into arguing the pros and cons of philanthropic funding for research. Instead, let’s focus on preserving the much larger and essential public investment that saves lives.

bonham-annAnn C. Bonham, Ph.D., is Chief Scientific Officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, D.C. She can be reached at abonham@aamc.org.

This entry was posted in Commentary, Research. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Of Billionaires, Jellyfish, and Pond Scum: What Really Matters in the Debate Over the Future of Research

  1. Amy Hildreth says:

    Amen! The health of our nation depends so much on the work of basic scientists- only it is impossible to predict which projects will truly translate. Continued (stable) funding for research is essential.

  2. Mike Lehman says:

    Well pitched “elevator talks” will never substitute for solid, peer-reviewed research, and as pointed out, discoveries that have long-term impact on our health are much more likely to come from wide-ranging basic research (some from sources as unexpected as pond scum!) than targeted ventures. The NIH has been and will continue to be our best weapon in the fight against disease, and long-term stable public, not private, support for biomedical science should be our priority as a nation.

  3. Peter Stambrook says:

    Not only are health benefits often derived from basic research, but also economic benefits. The US government’s support of studies of “sex in bacteria” produced multiple Nobel prizes and evolved into the biotech industry as we now know it.

  4. I’ll come in from left field and offer this observation: the very peer-review process that Mike Lehman mentions can be the barrier to new research and discovery. Peer-review and publication in a journal like Science takes serious funding.

    Jack Andraka, the teenager who won the ISEF Prize in ’12 with a simple test to detect pancreatic, ovarian, and lung cancer at its earliest stages, talks frequently about his own experience with the cost of researching an idea before one even gets into the lab. He’s part of the growing ranks of people pushing for open science, and calling for an end to the money-printing that is science publishing.

    Add the massive push against federal spending from the rising tide of libertarianism, and we’ve got a situation where privately funded research is becoming an imperative, not just an option.

    It shouldn’t matter where the money comes from IF we have sunshine in the equation – open funding of open science.

  5. Tika Benveniste says:

    All options for funding basic science research must be considered, be it public or private. However, the NIH has in place a system of peer-review that is used as a model by many other countries. The issue is the decline in NIH dollars, which has serious implications for human health as well as economic development in the US. There are many examples of fundamental basic science discoveries that have led to the development of FDA approved drugs for the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases. Those studies started with asking fundamental questions about cell biology and physiology in model organisms and mammalian cells, and took many other scientists building on this framework over a period of 25-30 years before therapeutic implications were appreciated. Diminished NIH funding is dismantling the process of fundamental scientific discovery, which is a grave disservice to scientists and the public alike.

  6. Michael Shipley says:

    Kudos, Dr. Bonham, thank you!

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s