Memorandum submitted by Dr Rob W van Nues
(FC 02)
AN ECONOMIC
IMPACT MEASURE
FOR FUNDAMENTAL
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
RESEARCH DEFIES
ALL LOGIC
My perspective is that from a research associate
with more than 20 years laboratory experience. I have some
questions to raise and experiences to pass on. The idea of an
"economic impact measure" as a valuable tool to direct,
stimulate or regulate future research efforts seems ill-conceived.
Such a measure is superfluous and will be counterproductive.
1. Fundamental research teaches more skills
and trains thinking. I have been working, since the start of my
practical undergraduate and doctorate studies, in so-called fundamental
research: as a student I made this choice over that of biotechnology
(being the more popular direction in our faculty at that time)
which was focusing on industrial/applied topics. The reason for
this was that in the "fundamental" group I would learn
more techniques, which were (a) newly discovered, (b) not easy
to make successful and (c) together comprised a fairly complete
"toolbox" of up-to-date practical and specialist knowledge
hard to attain elsewhere. Furthermore, discussion about mechanisms,
how things work in nature were mainstream and more important than
just solving problems of how to get a greater yield out of the
same amount of substrates. Biotechnological gene-manipulation
was all based on knowledge obtained in the more fundamental areas
of gene-transcription; protein-localization and transport; and
for which industries cooperated with the more fundamental research
groups to optimize these findings in their interest, as I witnessed
during my doctoral studies.
In subsequent jobs, I have learned every time
the most recent techniques developed in my field. And I learned
that nature does not lie. To find your way through it, as happens
by doing fundamental research, requires creative thinking, a sceptical
but positive frame of mind and a lot of experimentation to correct
false assumptions/conclusions/predictions. The more we begin to
understand the more complex nature reveals itself to be. Applied
science does not allow for wandering in the dark, the path is
known; only the fastest means of transport has to be found.
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
GENERATES APPLICABLE
OUTCOMES THAT
CANNOT BE
PREDICTED
2. During my first post-doc in Edinburgh
I studied protein-protein interactions involved in an essential
modification of messenger RNAs (without this modification the
genetic information contained in these molecules would not be
correct, resulting in the synthesis of incorrect or incomplete
proteins). This process we studied in baker's yeast, as the process
is so fundamental for life that its mechanism in yeast can be
directly compared to that in more complex organisms like humans.
We published a finding that particular mutations in one of these
proteins would prevent the interaction with another one and thereby
causing a lethal malfunction of the system. When I had left, it
turned out that a group in Sheffield researching an eye-illness
found causative mutations in a human gene coding for the counterpart
of one of the yeast proteins we had studied. Their mutations were
highly similar to the ones we had described. Based on our yeast
work they could proceed with their finding and eventually conclude
that a similar protein-protein interaction would be disturbed
in case of the eye-illness. Thus, our fundamental work had an
outcome, although completely unforeseen, that had direct application
in a completely different field and for different scientists.
(But how do you evaluate the "economic impact" of this
if you had known this in advance?).
ADOPTION OF
"ECONOMIC IMPACTS"
LEADS TO
RETROSPECTIVE FUNDING
AND LACK
OF PROGRESS
3. History of biological science will show
that it is in the fundamental research areas that major experimental
breakthroughs are made that eventually find widespread use (DNA,
restriction enzymes, PCR, antibodies, DNA finger printing, gene-therapy).
I wonder whether such development can happen in research that
will be able to exactly predicts its outcomes and targets. Such
predictability will be needed if one wants to talk sensibly about
(and compare between) 'economic impacts' of different research
proposals. Any real fundamental research application, however,
can only state what it plans to study but can not predict the
outcomes, unless the work has already been done. Therefore, I
foresee that this pressure will have an unintended outcome, namely
the silent adoption of a system in which scientists apply retrospectively
for funding. Still, this will not guarantee experimental breakthroughs
required to keep the field developing.
FUNDING BASED
ON "ECONOMIC
IMPACT" IS
SUPERFLUOUS
4. Current research into, say, novel antibiotics
happen predominantly at universities as part of fundamental research.
When findings become applicable, companies are set up and bought
over by big pharmaceuticals. This provides a funding stream for
these research groups and associated universities which seems
quite natural. The "economic impact" measure will argue
to preferentially fund this kind of research that, however, has
already been successful and is able to recruit external monies.
Therefore "economic impact" measures lead to paying
groups that can do without such money. Overall, the range of research
that can be funded will shrink.
WHAT WILL
COUNT AS
HAVING "ECONOMIC
IMPACT"?
5. Almost everything can be described as
having an economic impact (to let me have a job for instance).
But, looking at the appointed board of directors of funding bodies,
it comes across that only that kind of research will be counted
as having "economic impact" that will fit the capitalist
model of earning money. A cure for HIV which is affordable for
Africans? Not economic feasible according to the major pharmaceutical
companies. Development of novel cheap antibiotics that get rid
of MRSA and "super-bugs" in hospitals? Idem ditto, all
left to universities to find out. I fear that such research will
also lose out when "economic impact" measures are introduced.
ONLY HISTORY
CAN TELL
WHETHER RESEARCH
HAD 'ECONOMIC
IMPACT'
6. Scientific findings (see 4) with a genuine
economic impact have been judged as such by history, in retrospect,
with gaps of decennia between discovery and application. The idea
of evaluating "economic impact" in advance as would
be the case with grant proposals, would try to bypass this historic
filter and can only result in speculation, driven by nepotistic
judgements as known from the "Dragon"s den" or
"The apprentice". It would be quite cynical that scientific
endeavour will be regulated by illogical fortune telling. Speculation
of would-be investment bankers replaces scientific argumentation!
Why not set up a grant-lottery? That would be more honest, fair
and time-saving.
"ECONOMIC IMPACT"
IS NOT
THE ONLY
DESIRABLE FOR
AN HEALTHY
SOCIETY
7. As stated above (see 2) one of the major
lessons I learned by doing science is that nature (including our
society) does not lie and cannot be made to lie. Predictions can
only be accurate in as far as we understand the natural phenomenon
involved. This taught me a sceptical outlook and always made me
ask questions as: "What if", or "Did you check
for this?". In general, such questions should be asked in
the case of developments with a large impact on human well-being,
on environment, or on heritage left for future generations. This
attitude is necessary for a healthy democracy, but often contrary
to attitudes of people driven by "economic impact".
"Economic impact" often assumes that
we can know everything and can calculate everything (risks, future
profits etc.). This assumption has been refuted time after time:
look at the banking crises and its effects. The rise of super
bugs in exactly those places where we go to get cured! Radioactive
waste. Floating islands of plastic in the Pacific. All a result
of "fast economic solutions" not hampered by a lack
of natural understanding and healthy scepticism!
Scientists and explorers dealing with uncertainty
in finding out about the unknown, thus provide a healthy counterbalance
to all people who are solely driven by their bank-accounts.
The values of a large proportion of our society
will be ignored by focus on "economic impact". Progress
can not always be translated into utilatarian valuta. It also
comes to the fore in education, literacy, respect, trust, tolerance,
knowledge, love of nature, and a healthy environment; ie well-being
(as opposed to materialistic welfare). A lot of people care for
other values than profit and immediate "economic impact"
and who all pay taxes that fund research.
January 2010
| 
