No basic science for NIH?

9 October 2009

bacteriophageThe new director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, has been scrutinized for his Evangelical Christian beliefs, which some think might influence his science policy. But there may be an even more serious problem with his leadership of the biggest supporter of scientific research in the United States.

A recent New York Times article focused on Collins’ religious beliefs. The following statement, which was buried in the article, worries me much more:

While acknowledging the importance of basic sciences like biochemistry and genetics, he said he wanted scientists to consider clinical or therapeutic implications in their work. “We’re not the National Institutes of Basic Sciences,” he said. “We’re the National Institutes of Health.”

Since its inception, the NIH has supported both clinical research, the kind that can make us healthier, and basic research, which might not ever have a ‘payoff’. But basic research – letting scientists pursue what interests them – often leads to practical advances. One example is the work on bacteriophages, plasmids, and restriction enzymes, seemingly only of academic interest, that lead to the field of recombinant DNA technology.

It’s very easy to identify medically important problems – cancer, diabetes, heart disease – but who is smart enough to know which obscure area of research will lead to improvement of human health? Often the most important advances come from unexpected beginnings.

If the NIH reduces its support of basic science, who will step in to fill the void? Or will there be no more research on insect viruses (which lead to novel ways to synthesize proteins in cells), viruses that protect aphids from fatal wasp stings, and the diverse and abundant viruses of the seas?

  • DavidNL

    I agree that this is a worrying statement. These days the time from basic science discovery to application within or as a technology can be very short, so this quote suggests a significant lack of vision on Collins' part. The implicit suggestion that scientists engaged in basic biological research are not as a rule thinking about the real world applications of their work seems strange coming from him.
    I would point out, however, that a role for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is to fund basic science that is not as evidently health related, and some of your examples might better be NSF than NIH funded. A quick search of the NSF web site reveals several grants on phage, for example.

  • http://www.virology.ws profvrr

    You are absolutely correct that NSF funds basic research. However
    their budget is far smaller than that of NIH and I'm not sure that
    they could pick up the slack if Collins decides to take basic science
    out of the NIH portfolio.

  • DavidNL

    Yeah, I edited my comment almost immediately after posting (before I
    got your email) to account for that. Thanks for the reply. Your blog
    is great.

    David

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    David N. Levy, Ph.D.
    Assistant Professor
    Department of Basic Science
    New York University College of Dentistry
    921 Schwartz Building
    345 E. 24th Street
    New York, NY 10010-4086

    Office: 212-998-9287
    Lab: 212-998-9276, 998-9138
    Fax: 212-995-4087
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • tjkelleher

    Deeply ironic statement coming from a man who headed the NHGRI: it hardly made him a leader in translational science.

  • http://www.virology.ws profvrr

    That's an excellent point. Some say that the human genome sequence has
    yet to 'pay off'. Although I'm certain it eventually will.

  • http://www.virology.ws profvrr

    That's an excellent point. Some say that the human genome sequence has
    yet to 'pay off'. Although I'm certain it eventually will.