How many scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Posted on 03/01/2005 9:11:14 AM PST by LibWhacker
Efforts to defend the US against bioterrorists - by throwing money at research - are backfiring, says a 750-strong group of top scientists
The US has poured billions of dollars into biodefence research since its anthrax attacks in 2001. More than half of the US scientists studying bacterial diseases have this week written to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) - their main funding agency - charging that the largess has created "a crisis for microbiological research".
"We are staging a no-confidence vote," says Richard Ebright of Rutgers University in New Jersey, who organised the protest. In an open letter to Elias Zerhouni, head of the NIH, 750 of the 1143 scientists the agency funded to study bacterial and fungal pathogens charge that the agency's emphasis on biodefence research since 2002 has diverted researchers away from potential breakthroughs in basic research.
The US has poured money into researching potential bioweapons such as the bacteria that cause anthrax, plague and tularaemia, and viruses such as Ebola, Marburg and smallpox. Biodefence funding at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) - the part of the NIH that deals with pathogens - jumped from $53 million in 2001 to $1.4 billion in 2004 with a projected $1.5 billion in 2005.
But the letter's signatories say this has diverted research away from germs that - unlike putative weapons agents - already cause significant disease. While biodefence grants jumped fifteen-fold between 1998 and 2005, they claim that the number of grants for work on non-biodefence disease germs fell 27%, while grants for studying model bacteria such as Escherichia coli fell by a whopping 41%. Widespread perception
Anthony Fauci, head of NIAID, says those numbers are a misinterpretation of the agency's complex grants database. "Funding has been steady for all non-biodefence-related research from 2000 through to 2004," he told New Scientist. "Not only that, but the funding increases for non-biodefence research in NIAID each year have been the same as, or better than, the funding increases for all research across NIH, including all kinds of disease."
Yet this is clearly not a widespread perception. The letter was open only to scientists funded under the NIAID sections for bacteria and fungi, says Ebright, to see what proportion of a defined group responded.
"We got the majority of the nation's top microbiologists," he says. This includes people who benefit from biodefence funding, such as the heads of two biodefence research centres, and anthrax researchers. The current president of the American Society of Microbiology and five past presidents have also signed. Biological models
The scientists point out they are on the verge of making major breakthroughs in model systems of bacteria, which could then be transferred to more obscure germs such as potential bioweapons agents.
"Everyone agrees we are just on the point of making significant breakthroughs in basic research on bacteria, because we can now analyse gene expression patterns and complex biomolecular networks," says Richard Gourse of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, another organiser of the letter.
"It will be much more difficult to make the same basic discoveries working on the biothreat agents than with model systems," notes Stanley Falkow of Stanford University in California, a prominent biodefence researcher. "We can't find new vaccines and treatments for bioweapons as Congress demands," he says, "unless we understand the basic biology behind host-pathogen interactions".
The concerned scientists want Zerhouni to create a new funding category for basic microbial science, or include more basic research under biodefence funding.
I'd yank their grants so fast, they wouldn't know what hit them.
Let me get this straight. These eggheads are whining because bushels of money aren't just given to them to pursue their own whims.
Oh gee oh golly gosh Mr. Coddled Research Scientist. Welcome to the real world. Now shut up and do your job!
They are borderline traitors. Undermining what all would agree to be a sane response to a severe threat, is, IMHO, an overt act of undermining our national security. Investigate, indict, try, punish.
How many scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
These guys could just shut up and play with the grants.
They want to get the basic research done that will resolve the general issues of biodefense, rather than working on a small number of bacterial candidates.
They're right.
We need more basic research on viruses especially, more on bacterial basics.
It's as if, during WWII, the Manhattan project was geared only to improving the explosiveness of TNT.
Let's assume for a moment that the scientists in question are not motivated solely by a desire for funding, but by a desire to find something that may help all of mankind.
We face a dilema - do we try to work on a few specific agents NOW, during a time of crisis, or do we hold off on those specific agents and concentrate on understanding the mechanics of infection, and try to come up with a more robust solution later.
The biggest problem, of course, is that "later" may be too late. The next biggest problem is that throwing more money at the "basic research" may not bring us a solution any sooner than the current level of funding will.
I understand your concern. It's not totally what we used to call "blue sky" research they want funding for - there are some solid leads that could be followed up with great benefit to all.
Generally speaking, micromanagement (pun intended) in the sciences doesn't pay off all that well. For every ivory tower study of the fifth dorsal nerve differentiation in purple streaked dragonflies, there's a bunch of ego hungry guys saying: "What will get me the most glory and prestige..I know, let's solve flu once and for all. I've got this idea on blocking the viral reproductive apparatus"
" How many scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"
Well, lets see.
First: You have to start a commitee to decide what a light bulb is.
Second: Once they figure out the physical properties necessary to make the bulb, then they have to send it to the second committee do decide just HOW they want the bulb to look.
Third: Once they decide it's appearance, then they send it to another committee to decide whether it will function as designed and must meet rigorous testing and field studies using computer simulation,before actually making one.
Fourth: Once the simulation shows that it will work, they then send it to the final committee for recommendations on who gets the 'grant' to install it.
Fifth: Once the grant has been given and the 'award' winnner installs the bulb in the designated location, then final field testing will determine whether it is performing according to the computer simulations.
Lastly: A scientific report will be filed and 'peer reviewed' for a final approval of all concerned.
How's that?
These are the same wackos who were against nuclear weapons in the 70's and 80's.
They are probably jealous they are not getting the real money.
The balance seems to me to be off if the report is correct.
It's the folk in the field who can sniff out the productive research paths.
Just as a (made-up) example: stopping a bacterial disease like Staph aureus, the hospital infection, might better be addressed by research on the immune system than on Staph aureus.
I agree that some targetting must be enforced by the direction of the government grants, but right now, if so many researchers...an overwhelming majority of the field... are saying that the balance is off, I'm ready to buy it. They are risking their future grant money, I think it's likeky to be patriotic, not self centered.
Though I do not agree with the scientists actions, you may be correct. This is certainly worth continued attention, especially because of the great "health improvement" potential.
Note: this topic is from 3/1/2005. Thanks LibWhacker. A bunch of Demagogic Party shills want the US to be defenseless, then destroyed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.