Harold
Varmus, the current director of the National Cancer Institute in the USA, held a talk
yesterday at a conference on life sciences for health and innovation at
Rikshospitalet in Oslo. He won the Nobel Prize in 1989 for the discovery of the
‘cellular origin of retroviral oncogenes’ together with J. Michael Bishop. The
title of his talk was ‘Why medical research matters’, and he did a pretty good
job of presenting all the arguments for why medical research does in fact
matter. But his talk was mostly about the glorious success that American
science has enjoyed since WWII, and how the country—both the government and the
American people—were in complete agreement about the importance of science to
the future of American society. And what a glorious history the USA has had
when it comes to science during the past seventy years. It was not difficult
following the war to convince the American people of the importance of having a
strong scientific base and community. Being able to defend the USA was an
important motive for driving scientific endeavors, as Varmus pointed out. For
example, the space program was implemented in order to be able to compete with
the Soviets in space. It is safe to say that emphasis on defense in terms of
technology and weapons was sufficient to push many scientific endeavors forward
during the period from 1950-1980. But what Varmus also emphasized was the sheer
amount of scientific discoveries during the past seventy years, an astounding
number—that have led us to the point where we are today. He was also keen to
point out that science is important for its own sake—that curiosity about,
interest in, and the pursuit of basic research are valuable things in and of
themselves. Basic research should not be discouraged according to Varmus. We
cannot just emphasize innovation and translational research at the expense of
basic research. He pointed out that many basic research discoveries were not
translated into anything of practical use for perhaps decades after their
discovery. Despite this fact, Varmus argued that this was the way science should
proceed—that an emphasis on innovation should not necessarily be the major
focus moving forward. And I agree. I don’t know to what extent the research
climate has changed in America during the past ten years. What I know is that
it has changed dramatically in Norway during the same period. There are
advantages and disadvantages as with all changes. I’ve written about both in
previous posts. I am not opposed to change. But it is clear that innovations
and patents are being emphasized to a large degree to the detriment of free
independent basic research. We should not be skimping on basic research in the
rush to commercialize scientific findings.
I was heartened by Varmus’ positive
presentation of American science, especially since I started out as a scientist
in this type of research atmosphere during the 1980s and can attest to its
veracity. I have often talked about working in dynamic research environments (Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and UCSF) when I worked in the USA. They were
dynamic—they were inspiring, encouraging, educational—for all sorts of reasons,
but mostly because the men and women who led the research groups were dynamic individuals
who loved science. They lived for science—it was not a part of their lives, it
was their lives. You can argue the wisdom of this type of lifestyle as much as
you want for my sake. I know all the arguments against it—that it cuts into
family life, that there is no time for social events, and so on. But these
people socialized with other scientists and their families. They talked a lot
about science and new ideas and approaches with their families. Their wives and
husbands and children were an integral part of their scientific lives. And
being around these types of scientists was a positive experience. It’s sad to
hear about and to witness the economic hard times that the USA is currently
experiencing; Varmus also meant that the American people have become much more
negative and conservative when it comes to wanting to fund science. That’s sad
to hear. It’s hard to say if the USA will recover, and even if it does,
difficult to say whether the excellence that has defined most of the research
will continue. If science does not have the backing of the American people, it
will not get the funding it needs to continue, because the politicians that
will be voted in will support the views of their constituents. Has America
peaked in terms of its scientific prowess? Is it now time for the USA to hand over
the relay for other countries to carry? I hope not.
Varmus also
talked about cancer research and how the NCI has taken the initiative to start
a new project called Provocative Questions. This list of 24 questions resulted
from discussions at workshops for scientists at the NCI, where the scientists who
got together discussed and debated the current state of affairs for
cancer-related issues—e.g. drug resistance, metastasis—and came up with some
new questions and approaches for doing cancer research in the years to come (http://provocativequestions.nci.nih.gov/rfa).
Some of the questions that have made the list of Provocative Questions are: How does
obesity contribute to cancer risk? What environmental factors change the risk
of various cancers when people move from one geographic region to another? Are
there ways to objectively ascertain exposure to cancer risk using modern
measurement technologies? Why don't
more people alter behaviors known to increase the risk of cancers? How do changes in
RNA processing contribute to tumor development? Why are some disseminated
cancers cured by chemotherapy alone? Given the appearance of resistance in
response to cell killing therapies, can we extend survival by using approaches
that keep tumors static? These are all good questions, and hopefully the scientists of the future
will be interested in studying them. I hope that the quality of American
science continues to be high, but I know that it won’t remain that way without
a concerted effort and focus on the part of politicians and the public alike.
The public has got to believe, has got to be convinced, that science pays off.
And not necessarily commercially, but from the standpoint of helping cure different
diseases down the road, and in aiding in the development of new technologies. The
only way to ensure this is to communicate
the importance of science whenever one gets the opportunity to do so, using all
media available, e.g. social media like blogs, Facebook and Twitter. The world
has changed, science and the way science is done and communicated has changed—perhaps
we are ushering in a new era for science—a ‘brave new world’--we are part of the change. It is happening
around us, and perhaps we will not recognize what was when the changes are
complete. It is exhilarating to think about being part of the change. I thought
about that today on my way to hear yet another lecture by another Nobel Prize
winner—Ivar Giæver. I thought—there are so many opportunities for younger
people now to get introduced to science and research. They are so lucky
compared to when we started out. Now they have computers, internet, social
media, apps of all kinds, virtual learning, interactive learning and so on. There
is a plethora of courses, conferences, lectures, idea festivals, all designed
with young people—students--in mind. But these are not enough. Students have to
experience the exhilaration of working for a dynamic scientific leader who does
basic research and who is a visionary--not a bureaucrat or a technocrat. That’s
what matters for the future, that’s what will hook students and keep them interested in
doing basic research.
