Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Curb your enthusiasm

2007; Elsevier BV; Volume: 150; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.trsl.2007.04.005

1931-5244

Jeffrey Laurence,

Health Sciences Research and Education

It has been a very good first year for our Journal in its reincarnation as Translational Research. There has been a clear transition, and not only in terms of the obvious changes to title, cover art, and Editor-in-Chief. We have also completely revised our team of Associate Editors and the Editorial Advisory Board and retired several positions. Manuscript submissions rose by over one third, as we continue to publish approximately the same number of articles as in recent years. The number of full-page views on our website almost tripled from 2005 to 2006, accompanied by a 22% increase in full text downloads through ScienceDirect. Although our acceptance rate remains close to its historic level of 50%, inauguration of an active triage process—35% of submissions were rejected by Editorial staff without external review—has reduced manuscript decision time (now a mean of 27 days), and some of the workload set upon our generous peer reviewers. As a result, they can now concentrate on key submissions. We have also introduced a new section with the April 2007 issue, Featured New Investigators, and will soon initiate a review series, Subspecialties in Translational Medicine.But in terms of funding for the biomedical sciences, ensuring the progress we chronicle in our journal, it has been close to an annus horribilis.The American public seems to appreciate scientific research and wants to see it succeed. According to opinion polls commissioned by Research!America in 20061America speaks: poll data summary.Research!America. 2007; 8: 1-35Google Scholar:•85% believe “scientific research is very important in America today.”•76% agree that the “U.S. should be a global leader in scientific research.”•71% would be “more likely to vote for Congressional candidates who support research.” Which is great, save that we scientists seem to be doing a pretty poor job in lobbying to fund their thirst for our research.For example, the 2006 survey also revealed that only 55% of Americans “want increased funding [for research] now”; 31% supported “cuts to CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] budget.”1America speaks: poll data summary.Research!America. 2007; 8: 1-35Google Scholar A minority (46%) believed that “investment in research is important for job creation and incomes.” Given these attitudes, is it so surprising that the NIH faces a $529 million cut even before accounting for inflation?More than 10,000 NIH extramural grants are up for competitive renewal in 2008, the greatest number of renewals since budget declines began 4 years ago.2Dove A. Biomedical research faces flat budget for 2008.Nature Med. 2007; 13: 228-229Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar Even the NIH bio-defense budget, for several years, a popular means of linking one’s ostensibly lower priority basic science project to the juggernaut of new defense money, is in jeopardy. It faces a 0.7% reduction.2Dove A. Biomedical research faces flat budget for 2008.Nature Med. 2007; 13: 228-229Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar There is a proposed increase for the National Science Foundation, but most of that growth derives from downsizing the NIH.2Dove A. Biomedical research faces flat budget for 2008.Nature Med. 2007; 13: 228-229Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google ScholarRecitations of the implications of such cuts in key medical and scientific journals, including our own,3Humes H.D. Translational medicine and the National Institutes of Health road map: steep grades and tortuous curves.J Lab Clin Med. 2005; 146: 51-54Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar, 4Laurence J. Translating translational research.Transl Res. 2006; 148: 1-3Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar once seemed poignant; they are now almost trite. It has been clear for some time that 4 essential elements to the conduct of basic research—talent, good ideas, cooperation, and funding/resources5The research melting pot in a time of famine.Nature Immunol. 2007; 8 ([editorial]): 321Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar—are slowly being drained of the latter, driving out the former. Leo Furcht, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), bemoaned the fact that, “Senior research investigators who’ve had funding for 20 to 25 years are having to shut down their labs [and] young people are shunning biomedical research careers.”2Dove A. Biomedical research faces flat budget for 2008.Nature Med. 2007; 13: 228-229Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google ScholarThe current administration seems aware of these circumstances but offers some peculiar advice: Curb your enthusiasm. President Bush’s science adviser, John Marburger, suggests that scientists simply “curb their appetite for federal funding.”6Mervis J. Science adviser says that pruning is the key to a healthy budget.Science. 2007; 315: 927Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar We should all suddenly become more entrepreneurial and attract private support. But comparatively few scientists benefit from the generosity of the large foundations, including Gates and Hughes, relative to the vast majority who must ‘live and die’ by government-funded grants.”5The research melting pot in a time of famine.Nature Immunol. 2007; 8 ([editorial]): 321Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google ScholarWhat might be done? For several editorialists, it all rests on better packaging. A recent message in Nature Immunology counsels that “scientists must push themselves to become more politically active, to lobby politicians for funding increases.”5The research melting pot in a time of famine.Nature Immunol. 2007; 8 ([editorial]): 321Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar They suggest models based on labor movements. “When companies such as Ford, Kodak, Nortel, Airbus and Japanese Airlines announced recent layoffs of thousands of employees, high-profile news stories were published describing embattled employees and their protests to politicians and to the public about the loss of wages and jobs.”5The research melting pot in a time of famine.Nature Immunol. 2007; 8 ([editorial]): 321Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google ScholarMaybe it is just me, but I have a difficult time equating basic union jobs with scientists, who certainly make financial sacrifices to engage in their vocational passions but, given their educational and socioeconomic status, have alternative opportunities that may not make them the most sympathetic of sufferers. Recent accounts of fraud, as in the human stem cell debacles, and financial conflicts of interest in several important clinical trials, have also not helped generate empathy from public or politician.The call to engage the American public in the necessity of scientific research must exceed mere public education. As Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), recently observed, in key cases “the public generally does understand scientific content in a fundamental way, but still doesn’t like it.”7Leshner A.I. Outreach training needed.Science. 2007; 315: 161Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar He argues that the “scientific reward system” of promotion and tenure needs to recognize and support the efforts of scientists to interact effectively with the public. “Unfortunately, there is no alternative,” Leshner concludes.Good luck at effecting those changes.In fact, the recently retired chair of the House Science Committee, Sherwood Boehlert, a self-proclaimed “cheerleader for science” and a moderate Republican, believes that scientists have done a much better job in the past few years in getting their message across.8Boehlert S. Explaining science to power: make it simple, make it pay.Science. 2006; 314: 1228-1229Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar “I’d say they’ve gone from a D-minus to a solid B. They’re beginning to appreciate that politics is a different realm … To talk about some great advance in pure scientific terms isn’t enough. What does it do to strengthen the economy, or enhance competitiveness, or provide more jobs?” This argument is similar to the “let’s borrow a page from the Nortel/Airbus union handbook.” What if your basic work on the nematode does not have an obvious component immediately translatable for economy, competitiveness, or jobs? How do you train a post-doc to address this cheerleader’s challenge that “you have to prove to me that it [research] has some public benefit besides a bunch of Ph.D.s sitting in a laboratory coming up with something that they can publish that no one can understand?”8Boehlert S. Explaining science to power: make it simple, make it pay.Science. 2006; 314: 1228-1229Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google ScholarRepresentative Boehlert did have 1 intriguing idea for engaging Congress: road trips. “There’s no substitute for kicking the tires … What are we supposed to do—sit in our offices and read these reports? Like hell. We need to get out in the field … science isn’t getting the attention it deserves because there’s not the sense of urgency.”8Boehlert S. Explaining science to power: make it simple, make it pay.Science. 2006; 314: 1228-1229Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar Tipping one of my hats—I am a senior scientist for programs at amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research—we have done just that in arguing for more research funding in general, and for AIDS, in particular. But then we have Dame Elizabeth Taylor and actress Sharon Stone to join us in Congress.Lacking a celebrity visit to your laboratory, there is strength in numbers. David Skorton, the new president of my university, Cornell, and a physician, suggests a stronger presence for the academic health center in addressing public expectations and mandates in the biomedical sciences.9Skorton D. The Academic Health Center: Progress and Prospects. 2007Google Scholar He also notes that “incursion of the business community into academic health centers holds great promise,”9Skorton D. The Academic Health Center: Progress and Prospects. 2007Google Scholar which is something also proposed in my inaugural editorial.4Laurence J. Translating translational research.Transl Res. 2006; 148: 1-3Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar And in a recent Hickam Lecture presented at the Combined Annual Meeting of the Central Society for Clinical Research and the Midwestern Section of the American Federation for Medical Research, Dr. Edward Benz, Jr., President of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, argued that, “For the career of the physician-scientist, the times that we’re in are so gloomy that if we’re to repopulate with the youngest and brightest we need to focus on mentorship.”10Benz Jr, E.J. Mentors and their messages—it takes a karass. 2007Google Scholar He warned that we researchers “are driving people away from our field; we are our own worst enemy.” Remain positive, Benz continued, as “life in academic medicine is a good thing.” And start to become better catalysts, informed and creative mentors, for the next generation. I suggest trying every model we can, and with more than a little sense of urgency. It has been a very good first year for our Journal in its reincarnation as Translational Research. There has been a clear transition, and not only in terms of the obvious changes to title, cover art, and Editor-in-Chief. We have also completely revised our team of Associate Editors and the Editorial Advisory Board and retired several positions. Manuscript submissions rose by over one third, as we continue to publish approximately the same number of articles as in recent years. The number of full-page views on our website almost tripled from 2005 to 2006, accompanied by a 22% increase in full text downloads through ScienceDirect. Although our acceptance rate remains close to its historic level of 50%, inauguration of an active triage process—35% of submissions were rejected by Editorial staff without external review—has reduced manuscript decision time (now a mean of 27 days), and some of the workload set upon our generous peer reviewers. As a result, they can now concentrate on key submissions. We have also introduced a new section with the April 2007 issue, Featured New Investigators, and will soon initiate a review series, Subspecialties in Translational Medicine. But in terms of funding for the biomedical sciences, ensuring the progress we chronicle in our journal, it has been close to an annus horribilis. The American public seems to appreciate scientific research and wants to see it succeed. According to opinion polls commissioned by Research!America in 20061America speaks: poll data summary.Research!America. 2007; 8: 1-35Google Scholar:•85% believe “scientific research is very important in America today.”•76% agree that the “U.S. should be a global leader in scientific research.”•71% would be “more likely to vote for Congressional candidates who support research.” Which is great, save that we scientists seem to be doing a pretty poor job in lobbying to fund their thirst for our research. For example, the 2006 survey also revealed that only 55% of Americans “want increased funding [for research] now”; 31% supported “cuts to CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] budget.”1America speaks: poll data summary.Research!America. 2007; 8: 1-35Google Scholar A minority (46%) believed that “investment in research is important for job creation and incomes.” Given these attitudes, is it so surprising that the NIH faces a $529 million cut even before accounting for inflation? More than 10,000 NIH extramural grants are up for competitive renewal in 2008, the greatest number of renewals since budget declines began 4 years ago.2Dove A. Biomedical research faces flat budget for 2008.Nature Med. 2007; 13: 228-229Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar Even the NIH bio-defense budget, for several years, a popular means of linking one’s ostensibly lower priority basic science project to the juggernaut of new defense money, is in jeopardy. It faces a 0.7% reduction.2Dove A. Biomedical research faces flat budget for 2008.Nature Med. 2007; 13: 228-229Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar There is a proposed increase for the National Science Foundation, but most of that growth derives from downsizing the NIH.2Dove A. Biomedical research faces flat budget for 2008.Nature Med. 2007; 13: 228-229Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar Recitations of the implications of such cuts in key medical and scientific journals, including our own,3Humes H.D. Translational medicine and the National Institutes of Health road map: steep grades and tortuous curves.J Lab Clin Med. 2005; 146: 51-54Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar, 4Laurence J. Translating translational research.Transl Res. 2006; 148: 1-3Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar once seemed poignant; they are now almost trite. It has been clear for some time that 4 essential elements to the conduct of basic research—talent, good ideas, cooperation, and funding/resources5The research melting pot in a time of famine.Nature Immunol. 2007; 8 ([editorial]): 321Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar—are slowly being drained of the latter, driving out the former. Leo Furcht, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), bemoaned the fact that, “Senior research investigators who’ve had funding for 20 to 25 years are having to shut down their labs [and] young people are shunning biomedical research careers.”2Dove A. Biomedical research faces flat budget for 2008.Nature Med. 2007; 13: 228-229Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar The current administration seems aware of these circumstances but offers some peculiar advice: Curb your enthusiasm. President Bush’s science adviser, John Marburger, suggests that scientists simply “curb their appetite for federal funding.”6Mervis J. Science adviser says that pruning is the key to a healthy budget.Science. 2007; 315: 927Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar We should all suddenly become more entrepreneurial and attract private support. But comparatively few scientists benefit from the generosity of the large foundations, including Gates and Hughes, relative to the vast majority who must ‘live and die’ by government-funded grants.”5The research melting pot in a time of famine.Nature Immunol. 2007; 8 ([editorial]): 321Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar What might be done? For several editorialists, it all rests on better packaging. A recent message in Nature Immunology counsels that “scientists must push themselves to become more politically active, to lobby politicians for funding increases.”5The research melting pot in a time of famine.Nature Immunol. 2007; 8 ([editorial]): 321Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar They suggest models based on labor movements. “When companies such as Ford, Kodak, Nortel, Airbus and Japanese Airlines announced recent layoffs of thousands of employees, high-profile news stories were published describing embattled employees and their protests to politicians and to the public about the loss of wages and jobs.”5The research melting pot in a time of famine.Nature Immunol. 2007; 8 ([editorial]): 321Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar Maybe it is just me, but I have a difficult time equating basic union jobs with scientists, who certainly make financial sacrifices to engage in their vocational passions but, given their educational and socioeconomic status, have alternative opportunities that may not make them the most sympathetic of sufferers. Recent accounts of fraud, as in the human stem cell debacles, and financial conflicts of interest in several important clinical trials, have also not helped generate empathy from public or politician. The call to engage the American public in the necessity of scientific research must exceed mere public education. As Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), recently observed, in key cases “the public generally does understand scientific content in a fundamental way, but still doesn’t like it.”7Leshner A.I. Outreach training needed.Science. 2007; 315: 161Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar He argues that the “scientific reward system” of promotion and tenure needs to recognize and support the efforts of scientists to interact effectively with the public. “Unfortunately, there is no alternative,” Leshner concludes. Good luck at effecting those changes. In fact, the recently retired chair of the House Science Committee, Sherwood Boehlert, a self-proclaimed “cheerleader for science” and a moderate Republican, believes that scientists have done a much better job in the past few years in getting their message across.8Boehlert S. Explaining science to power: make it simple, make it pay.Science. 2006; 314: 1228-1229Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar “I’d say they’ve gone from a D-minus to a solid B. They’re beginning to appreciate that politics is a different realm … To talk about some great advance in pure scientific terms isn’t enough. What does it do to strengthen the economy, or enhance competitiveness, or provide more jobs?” This argument is similar to the “let’s borrow a page from the Nortel/Airbus union handbook.” What if your basic work on the nematode does not have an obvious component immediately translatable for economy, competitiveness, or jobs? How do you train a post-doc to address this cheerleader’s challenge that “you have to prove to me that it [research] has some public benefit besides a bunch of Ph.D.s sitting in a laboratory coming up with something that they can publish that no one can understand?”8Boehlert S. Explaining science to power: make it simple, make it pay.Science. 2006; 314: 1228-1229Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar Representative Boehlert did have 1 intriguing idea for engaging Congress: road trips. “There’s no substitute for kicking the tires … What are we supposed to do—sit in our offices and read these reports? Like hell. We need to get out in the field … science isn’t getting the attention it deserves because there’s not the sense of urgency.”8Boehlert S. Explaining science to power: make it simple, make it pay.Science. 2006; 314: 1228-1229Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar Tipping one of my hats—I am a senior scientist for programs at amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research—we have done just that in arguing for more research funding in general, and for AIDS, in particular. But then we have Dame Elizabeth Taylor and actress Sharon Stone to join us in Congress. Lacking a celebrity visit to your laboratory, there is strength in numbers. David Skorton, the new president of my university, Cornell, and a physician, suggests a stronger presence for the academic health center in addressing public expectations and mandates in the biomedical sciences.9Skorton D. The Academic Health Center: Progress and Prospects. 2007Google Scholar He also notes that “incursion of the business community into academic health centers holds great promise,”9Skorton D. The Academic Health Center: Progress and Prospects. 2007Google Scholar which is something also proposed in my inaugural editorial.4Laurence J. Translating translational research.Transl Res. 2006; 148: 1-3Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar And in a recent Hickam Lecture presented at the Combined Annual Meeting of the Central Society for Clinical Research and the Midwestern Section of the American Federation for Medical Research, Dr. Edward Benz, Jr., President of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, argued that, “For the career of the physician-scientist, the times that we’re in are so gloomy that if we’re to repopulate with the youngest and brightest we need to focus on mentorship.”10Benz Jr, E.J. Mentors and their messages—it takes a karass. 2007Google Scholar He warned that we researchers “are driving people away from our field; we are our own worst enemy.” Remain positive, Benz continued, as “life in academic medicine is a good thing.” And start to become better catalysts, informed and creative mentors, for the next generation. I suggest trying every model we can, and with more than a little sense of urgency.