Is Big Biology Better?
HOPKINS BASIC SCIENTISTS WEIGH IN
ON THE PROS AND CONS.
What happens when a garrulous physicist and a cocky geneticist
share an office? First, they spend a great deal of time drinking
together; then they come up with the greatest scientific
find of the 20th century. Watson and Crick's discovery of
the structure of DNA is the most famous example of the virtues
of interdisciplinary collaboration and the benefits of lab
proximity. Contrast that with the Human Genome Project 50
years later—same teamwork, same discipline-crossing but on
a vastly increased scale. “It's clear,” says Chi Dang, Hopkins
Medicine's vice-dean for research, “that we're moving from
single laboratory-based science to large-scale science, with
multiple labs and efforts worldwide to solve major problems.”
Yet despite the success of the Human Genome Project, doubts
remain about the impact of “big biology” on the R01-based
individual laboratory approach “that's been the backbone
of research in the biomedical sciences,” says Stephen Desiderio,
who directs the Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences (IBBS).
We don't know, he cautions, how the expanded model will fare
in the long term.
The consensus at Hopkins, however, is that we're better
off with both.
Big biology apparently works best, for example, when it
attacks complex biological questions needing diverse types
of expertise and expensive technology. “Science is becoming
so much more complex and information-dense that we need more
team efforts,” says Dang. That's happening on Hopkins' basic
science side with the Institute for Cell Engineering (ICE)
and the IBBS, where scientists from different disciplines
work together on specific technologies or tackle parts of
biological problems.
And with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) increasingly
touting translational research, formerly rare unions of basic
scientists and clinicians have added importance, says Gerald
Hart, director of biological chemistry. “IBBS was founded
in part to build bridges,” he adds, “and improve communications
between people doing fundamental research and those with
clinical studies.” Such efforts build on the long-existing
atmosphere of mutual aid and assistance, Desiderio notes,
and “part of the culture here is that you never turn colleagues
down when they ask for help, and you don't make credit your
primary goal.”
Increased faculty collaboration is only one part of the
picture. “The move to big science is primarily instrument-driven,” says
Hart. “It's difficult for individual investigators to compete
for grants without current equipment.” That became painfully
clear not long ago, when Hopkins needed major investments
in technology. Fortunately, serendipity took a hand. “The
donor who funded ICE was driven by a desire to support stem
cell research,” Dang says—an undertaking, he explained, that
would require, at the least, molecular screening and assay
centers, a microarray facility, molecular imaging ability
and a proteomics center. “So a portion of the ICE gift nurtured
our core facilities.”
Expected to become self-supporting within three years, the
cores already helped make Hopkins competitive when it came
to apply for a research plum, a $17 million NIH Roadmap grant.
With a team led by Jef Boeke of the High-Throughput Biology
Center, Hopkins was awarded the grant this past October (see
article, page 4). The Roadmap grant encourages institutions
and investigators who have embraced the big biology approach.
It's inevitable, many researchers here agree, that biomedical
research at Hopkins will become more technology-intensive
and more collaborative as well as increasingly focused on
clinical outcomes.
And what about basic science investigators who may bristle
at the current “bench to bedside” thrust, those who just
want to be left alone to do their work? Will they be pressured
to board big biology's train? “No,” says Dang. “You can't
legislate collaboration. It has to evolve naturally. I strongly
feel there is still a role for the single investigator,” he
says. “There will always be scientists who prefer to work
on their own and who can make big discoveries. We need to
make sure that these investigators are encouraged.” Collaboration
versus independent research, however, doesn't mean all or
nothing. “If you look at your time as a pie, and 90 percent
of that pie is devoted to your individual research,” he says, “you
can probably make the remaining 10 percent collaborative.”
Hart agrees. “RO1 individual investigator research is still
critical,” he says, “because it's where major discoveries
are made.” At the same time, the administration's commitment
to seed money for new technology and facilities has made
Hopkins competitive in the new funding environment. That
takes on real importance in the basic sciences, Hart says, “because
we are wholly dependent on NIH. Raising money is much more
difficult for us—we don't have millionaire patients. Rats
and mice and yeast don't fund research.”
“IBBS and ICE are the best of both worlds,” he adds. “We're
ahead of the curve while other institutions are lagging behind.”
– Deborah Rudacille
|