We should celebrate the scientific breakthroughs that benefit the many, not the few.
Image: Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences.
Like a lot of people, I awoke this morning to the news of the newBreakthrough Prize in Life Sciences. Initiated by multibillionaires Art Levinson, Sergey Brin, Anne Wojcicki, Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan and Yuri Milner, the Breakthrough Prize is intended to recognise "excellence in research aimed at curing intractable diseases and extending human life." Winners are awarded $3 million each and since this is a prize, they can spend this money in any way they wish. According to the website, this prize is "dedicated to advancing breakthrough research, celebrating scientists and generating excitement about the pursuit of science as a career."
Wonderful -- anything to give science a positive public platform. But unfortunately, this prize is flawed and seriously misguided and thus, I don't think it will accomplish its stated goals.
First and foremost, the Breakthrough Prize draws attention to the fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific research is actually done. Science, perhaps more than any other intellectual pursuit, actively builds on the research and technical innovations -- and the ideas -- of others. Breakthroughs in scientific understanding are not made by individuals. Nearly all "breakthroughs" are the result of scientific collaborations and research teams where each individual brings his or her specific expertise, experience and passion to focus on a particular aspect of a narrowly-defined challenge or problem. To single out individual scientists for special recognition is to overlook or ignore the dozens or even hundreds of talented individuals who also contributed to that breakthrough. The fact is that large collaborations are "the norm" for the areas of science that this prize is aimed at.
Although the name is "the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences", all of the recipients work in biomedical research. So the vast majority of the life sciences -- areas like biology, climate science, ecology, ethology, microbiology, marine biology, zoology, botany, and taxonomy (just to name a few) -- are overlooked. All of these fields are critically important to understanding the world around us -- and all of them are grossly underfunded, especially when compared to human medical research: in 2010 the NIH (which is the primary funder of human medical research in the USA) received US$31bn, whereas the NSF --- which covers most of the rest of science including physics and chemistry -- got less than $7bn that year.
This prize appears even more parochial; this year's award winners' research primarily focuses on cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Although these diseases do take a terrible toll, they also disproportionately affect people in Western countries, so the prize seems to be aimed at people like Tom Lehrer's Dr. Samuel Gall, who specialises in the diseases of the affluent. In contrast, people who live in developing nations are still dying in staggering numbers from diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, measles, a variety of respiratory ailments and HIV/AIDS. With the exception in HIV/AIDS, research into all of these diseases is severely underfunded.
Why most "life scientists" are not excited
This prize is deeply flawed for another reason. According to Breakthrough Prize co-creator, Russian tech investor Yuri Milner, one of the top priorities of the Breakthrough Prize is to "motivat[e] young scientists to stay in science, and not necessarily switch to areas that are better monetized".
In addition to being vaguely insulting by suggesting that scientists lack motivation and commitment unless rewarded with huge sums of money and fame (fleeting though it is), one lucrative prize cannot and will not change reality. The sad fact of a life in science is that there are thousands more scientists entering the job market each year than there are available jobs in science. Those who are lucky to get a paying research position often toil for long hours as poorly-paid postdoctoral fellows for 5 or 6 years or more before being hired to permanent positions. Some are stuck as postdocs for their entire working lives. Others end up chronically underemployed outside their fields or unemployed altogether.
The postdoc years also coincide with the biological facts that this is when most people start their own families and, at the same time, their aging parents most need help: poor pay, poor social support and frequent long-distance relocations add to the pressures of remaining in science. Amongst those who continue to struggle to remain in the life sciences, biomedical researchers enjoy better employment prospects than do scientists in other biological disciplines.
So, these are the people who most need to feel excited. But they will get nothing except possibly a few free glasses of wine, if they are invited to a big party hosted by one of the winners. Most "life scientists" are simply too far away from the winnings: these funds go to a small number of respected and well-established scientists who have already accumulated an impressive warchest of awards and prizes. Seriously: look at the lists detailing their prizes and awards. Basically, this year's recipients are very well-funded when compared to recent science doctorates and even to established scientists in other life science disciplines.
How to make scientists into heroes
Outside of giving scientists colourful capes and tights, a better way to achieve the aims of supporting science and motivating people to stay in science would be to award the prize money in smaller packages. Additionally, instead of giving the majority of these funds to individual silver-backs, these monies should be invested in research teams who work together to address specific life sciences issues that face humanity today. These issues range from overpopulation and its attendant problems (particularly poverty, the lack of housing, clean water, adequate food and health care) to the disastrous effects of human-caused global climate change and its devastating effects on biodiversity and ecosystems -- and people. These are all areas that receive much less research funding than does research into so-called "Western" diseases. For this reason, a relatively small investment of money into these disciplines could make a Really Big impact (something which, to their credit, Bill and Melinda Gates appreciate).
In my opinion, we should invest in making this planet a better, more habitable and joyful place for everyone, not just for a few rich Westerners who may be cured of their formerly incurable cancers. As Mr Spock will observe in the future: "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Prizes and the large sums of money associated with them can do a lot of good, and can even help motivate young scientists to continue in research, but only if they are targeted so that they, and the whole world, benefit.
Sources:
Breakthrough Prize in Life Science (press release)
Many thanks to my twitter followers who agreed with my points and encouraged me to expand upon and share them here.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Follow Grrlscientist's work on facebook, Google +, LinkedIn, Pinterestand of course, on twitter: @GrrlScientist
email: grrlscientist@gmail.com
email: grrlscientist@gmail.com
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Bob O'Hara is a biostatisician who conducts research at the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F) in Germany. In his free time, he writes the blog, Deep Thoughts and Silliness and tweets from his twitter account @BobOHara
No comments:
Post a Comment