"If you think research expensive -- try disease!"
Kornberg stresses importance of basic research at New York Academyby Irma S. Jarcho
All the sections of the New York Academy of Sciences united on 12 November 1997 in sponsoring a lecture by Professor Arthur Kornberg of Stanford University, geneticist and Nobel Laureate. The lecture, entitled "Medicine and Science at the New Millennium," presented an interesting picture of medicine and science in these waning years of the twentieth century.
Citing several centenaries celebrated in 1997, among them the discovery of the electron and the development of JELL-O¨ and grape nuts cereal (with neither grapes nor nuts), Kornberg gave pride of place to the observation by BŸchner that yeast juice could convert sucrose to ethanol. This proved that the intact cell was not a requirement for fermentation and, in Kornberg's view, set the stage for modern biochemistry.
Kornberg amusingly characterized the activities of scientists in the twentieth century as various categories of "hunters." The first two decades were dominated by the Microbe Hunters. Then came the Vitamin Hunters, who were followed by the Enzyme Hunters. Then came the era, in which we are now immersed, of the Gene Hunters. Nearly every day we read announcements of the discovery of a gene responsible for a specific disease or defect. We are now discovering genes which control a predisposition to a disease, breast cancer among them. The next wave of hunters, taking us well into the next century will be the Head Hunters -- those who explore the functions of the brain.
In Kornberg's opinion, the Gene Hunters populated the most glorious of ages (after all, he is a geneticist!). The effects of genetic advances on medicine, agriculture, and basic science cannot be exaggerated. Another discovery, as he termed it, of this era, is the coalescence of many discrete medical sciences into one discipline -- chemistry. It is a language that is international, that explains where we came from and what we are. It links physical and biological sciences. We can now understand genetics in simple chemical terms -- the nucleotides of DNA. As a result, science now possesses a phenomenal capacity to integrate immense quantities of sophisticated information.
In this time of informational plenty Kornberg felt we are beset by serious problems which complicate our lives and threaten the foundations of our huge scientific enterprise. He discoursed on four of these. The first is the antiscience attitude of our society. He saw a rising tide of public fear of science, especially chemistry, and noted that biology isn't doing so well either! Hollywood has portrayed scientists as demons -- in Lorenzo's Oil, The Fugitive, and Jurassic Park. Kornberg suggested that Hollywood has taken its cue from Congressional committees which make it seem as if science is racked by fraud, while in truth this is a rare occurrence. There are some intellectuals who are disillusioned with science because it has failed to cure the ills of society. He noted especially Vaclav Havel, who blames modern science for degrading the natural world and bringing us to an abyss. Kornberg summed up the present tenuous status of science in the following quotation from Timothy Ferris: "Though science is stronger today than when Galileo knelt before the Inquisition, it remains a minority habit of mind, and its future is very much in doubt. Blind belief rules the millenial universe, dark and rangy as space itself."
The second problem Kornberg saw facing science is the lack of public support of basic research, which he saw a result of a misinformed public. To him this is a serious problem, which has to be fought on several fronts. The idea of targeted plans, strategic plans for research, is one that is deeply flawed. Discovery is serendipitous, not something that can be planned. Kornberg particularly praised the role of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which, he asserted, has changed the face of medicine in the postwar world because of its backing of basic research. If the same amount of money had been spent on treating patients, it would have been squandered in comparison with what the NIH accomplished. Today, basic research takes up only 1% of the health care dollar.
For example, the current breakthroughs in genetic engineering are based entirely on enzymes that cut and restructure DNA. The work leading to this discovery was funded by the NIH without promise or expectation that it would lead to any results. The aim of the research was an understanding of basic processes of a cellular nature, but it had unexpectedly practical results. Many, including some scientists, faced with a disease, do not see the value of spending money on basic research, yet it proves to be cost-effective. Major discoveries in science have been serendipitous, among them X-rays and penicillin.
There is a saying that "Necessity is the mother of invention," but Dr. Kornberg turned this saying on its head and insisted that inventions become the mother of necessity. Practical uses for inventions become apparent only after things have been invented. Many modern inventions have been known for years -- he cited fax machines as one example -- but became widely used only after the need for them became apparent. Inventions emerge from findings in basic science. This is true in other fields as well, and he saw basic research as the lifeline of advances in medicine. Kornberg insisted that "The future is invented, not predicted."
The apportionment of research monies is an overriding issue in biomedical science, Kornberg noted. Given a limited amount of money and talented researchers needing funds, how to apportion the funds? The temptation is great to choose safe, practical projects over those in pure science. This, he observed, has led many promising researchers to abandon science for careers in business and industry.
For the long-term support of basic research, Kornberg said that we must somehow manage to convey to those who hold the pursestrings the message, "If you think research expensive -- try disease!" Throughout the history of medical science major advances have been based on the pursuit of basic knowledge. The role of government cannot be overestimated, Kornberg added. More than 90% of the support for basic research is from the federal government. Privately funded research has never sustained a substantial research effort.
The third problem cited by Kornberg is that of conflicts within our sciences. For example, the conflict between chemistry and biology. This serious rift is counterproductive, he emphasized. Chemists neglect biology, especially macrobiology, finding the study of macromolecules, such as proteins, too mundane and too complex. Another conflict is embodied in the term biotechnology, a term which erases the distinction between biology and technology. There are currently in the United States some 1200 biotechnology companies. These are not in business to do research. They do research to do business, Kornberg stated, and commercial pressures generate secrecy which is counterproductive.
The last problem Dr. Kornberg expounded was that of the uses and possible abuses of advances in science and technology. In his view knowledge beats ignorance -- any day. The problem is how to cope with the avalanche of data and technological advance. What deserves the most emphasis and unites us all is devotion to the culture of science. Though science is great, scientists behave as people. What sets them apart is the discipline of science and its role as a frontier for exploration.
Home Winter 98 Full Screen
The TEACHERS CLEARINGHOUSE FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY EDUCATION