Samantha Call
Final Project
12-10-2014
Seminar in Composition
Ensuring
Success in Science
When
we look at the last one hundred years in terms of scientific discovery, we are
often amazed out how far humans have come in so short a time. Is it really so impressive though? In the grander scope of the universe, how
much do we actually know? Next to
nothing. As humans, we see ourselves as
limitless beings who can go on to discover everything there is. However, even if our intelligence would allow
for unlimited growth and discovery, our intelligence has made that impossible
through its development of a hierarchical structure that defines how we
function in nearly every aspect of society.
No longer is a hierarchy contained to the government or to
businesses. Every aspect of life is now
an industry with a ladder of climbing ranks that everyone is always looking to
ascend. While a hierarchy is effective
in some places, in others it can become a major hindrance. One such place is in the realm of scientific
research.
While
it is true that people are always looking for more answers about ourselves and
the universe we live in, it is also true that how and what we study is greatly
limited by the structure in which scientists must operate. The current structure of science as an
“industry” is hindering advancements in technology and knowledge that could
improve the quality of life and longevity of individuals and of society as a
whole. Humans as individuals and as a
race need to redefine the qualifications and motives behind scientific research
in order to survive and thrive. We should
do so by reevaluating the current structure of the scientific industry and reforming
it so that it is not based solely on wealth and connections to powerful people
within the system.
To even begin looking for funding from organization,
scientists must first build up their reputations. Doing so requires connections with
individuals higher up than them in the scientific hierarchy. There are the hospital administrators,
college and university professors and researchers, and other scientists who
have already established themselves through their own research. To get in with these people, you need to find
exactly the right internships while you are still in college, know how to
infiltrate their social and professional groups, and use every form of flattery
you can to please or impress them. Once you find people in the field, you have
the ability to publish articles and work with those people on their
projects. Only after you have your name
connected to someone higher up in the hierarchy will any company even consider
reviewing any grant applications of yours.
This is highlighted in the article “Breaking the Ice and Forging Links:
The Importance of Socializing in Research.”
In the article, the authors state that “a solid network becomes a
crucial element for future collaborations and taking the next steps in one’s
careers” and that it is necessary for students to socialize with more
experienced scientists or the path to their own research will be slower and
less successful (Stobbe, Mishra, and Macintyre). Without the stepping stones that other
scientists lay out for you, there is little hope to finding your own way. Socializing, therefore, is as much a part of
science as the actual research.
Another
issue is that the grant application process is extremely long and
complicated. According to scientist
Peter A. Lawrence, every grant has to make it past two groups of people, the
marketers or accountants of the company, and the scientific review board. Both are conditioned to not accept the
majority of applications. Marketers and accountants
only want to give money to projects they know will succeed, while the
scientists are more concerned with their own reputations, which they do not
want to risk by passing through acceptances for projects that may not be
successful. Even projects that are
deemed acceptable by both groups often are not awarded grants because,
according to Richard Mann, a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biophysics at Columbia University, “there just aren’t enough funds in
a single…grant to pay for a PI salary, plus supplies, plus the salaries of one
or two other people.” Ultimately, you
may have a life changing idea and a solid grant application, but if the project
is too large, risky, or it doesn’t play into the agenda of the company, you
will never get funded.
The lack of sufficient funding and the difficulty in
obtaining the funding is the fault of the hierarchy. Everyone is protecting their own interests,
so they are never willing to risk their position to back research that is
unusual or completely untested. That
untested research, however, could be the key to unlocking new technology or
insights. For example, a scientist may
believe they have found a new and improved cancer treating drug. However, that scientist will have a hard time
finding a company to fund them. Those
companies who would be interested in funding cancer drugs, are most likely
already doing so. With a stake in
already proven drugs, those companies do not want to risk their profits by
endorsing another drug. Additionally,
the research would be expensive, and if the study concludes that the new drug
is ineffective, the company is out of the money they spent on funding. For prospective researchers, “original ideas are the kiss of death for
a [grant] proposal; because they have not yet been proved to work (after all,
that is what you are proposing to do) they can be, and will be, rated poorly”
(Katz). These risks make it
difficult for new drugs to be tested, and even if they are tested, there is no
guarantee there will be sufficient funding to distribute them to the public for
use.
The
same drug that doesn’t get tested or distributed, though, could be the same
drug that safely treats cancer and ensures longer lives in patients.
This is the case with a drug developed in the United
Kingdom by the pharmaceutical company Janssen.
The drug, named abiraterone, has been proven to aid those who are dying
of prostate cancer, “extending their lives by an extra four months on top of
the three months from chemo” (Scowcroft).
Abiraterone is effective at extending the lives of men with prostate
cancer, but it faces the problem of a lack of funding. An organization named NICE has warned the
National Health System in the United Kingdom not to pay for the use of
abiraterone because it is not cost efficient.
According to NICE, “the drug is simply too expensive for the benefit it
brings” (Scowcroft). In other words,
there is no way for the government nor Janssen to profit off of the drug, so
they have taken it off of the list of options for men dying of prostate
cancer. Instead of the extra few months
a patient can have with their loved ones, they get no help, which is to the
benefit of those who don’t want to risk their position in the hierarchy by
approving a drug that yields little profit.
New drugs are not the only things being shortcut by the
system. Technology that could be helpful
in diagnosing and treating patients is also left without funding. One such piece of technology is associated
with the science of teledermatopathology.
This branch of science deals with using slides with pictures of the body
on them for diagnostic purposes. The new
technology would be able to send the slides across the world so that places
with less highly trained doctors can serve patients with the help of doctors
from other areas. Although the
technology has been found effective, there are laws in place that require each
institution in possession of a machine to use their own money to test it to
make sure it is efficient. There is
little to no funding for such testing, which means that many patients will go
undiagnosed. The lack of funding costs
people their lives, and that comes at the benefit of those who are working
their way up the hierarchy. Nobody wants
to risk losing their job over a risky grant or an expensive test, so they play
it safe and only grant money to scientists whose ideas are noncontroversial and
are likely to work or to those who are above themselves in the hierarchy. Small scientists with great ideas are boxed
out of the arena and their ideas are forgotten or stashed away.
R.C. Lewontin
condemns this system in his work, “Biology as Ideology.” According to Lewontin, humans are
self-concerned beings. The structure of
the scientific hierarchy plays right into this, rewarding those who are seeking
to move up the hierarchy and ignoring those only looking to make scientific discoveries. There is a preoccupation with status quo that
causes companies to filter the studies they back. Lewontin demonstrates this by using the
example of studies regarding the DNA of people of different races. Both white and black children in Britain had
their genes looked at and compared to their IQ scores. While the study revealed no underlying
biological difference between the children of different races, those behind the
study revealed something about themselves through their choice to pursue this
type of research. Instead of looking
into research that could positively change the future, they were looking for
research that would maintain the status quo, so that they could say there was a
reason that a minority was rightfully below them in the hierarchy. As Lewontin writes, “it is meant to
legitimize the structures of inequality in our society by putting a biological
gloss on them” (Lewontin, 37).
Individuals and companies will only support research that benefits them
and improves their position in the hierarchy, which is another reason the
hierarchy is so destructive.
Individuals who benefit from the hierarchical system of
the scientific industry obviously find ways to attempt to validate its
existence. One way they do so is by
asserting that the system serves as a filter.
It keeps the unqualified and unreliable scientist out and keeps the
successful and reliable ones in. Without
it, they claim, anyone would be able to begin their own study. This could lead to the wasting of money that
could be used for other, more effective studies, or to the reduction of funding
from companies or individuals who are turned off by bad projects in the past. Funding for research could diminish completely
in this case and useless studies would be undertaken, taking up valuable
resources. There is, indeed, a need for
a filter in the scientific world, but this filter should not hinder the advance
of legitimate research. If the hierarchy
can be considered a filter, then it is doing its job so well that hardly
anything can get through. The small,
insignificant grains of research can get through, but the large chunks of gold
that hold the real value are left behind.
An
example of this is a recent study on a gene variant in Latina women that
indicates a forty percent decrease in the likelihood of getting breast
cancer. However, the study of this gene
is so limited that scientists have gotten nothing from their research thus
far. They are not taking any risks or
trying anything new. The scientists
believe that simply finding a small link between the gene and breast cancer
constitutes an entire study. The issue
is that they still know next to nothing about the gene and what triggers it and
what causes it to reduce the risk of breast cancer. Lewontin would argue that the geneticists involved in this study are failing to
make the distinction “between correlation and identity,” making the mistake of
assuming that “it is the correlation that indicates the role of genes”
(Lewontin, 34). The study has uncovered
such a small piece of the puzzle that it is insignificant. It does nothing to get us closer to a cure or
treatment for breast cancer. Development
in genetics can often cause people to get excited about the possibilities of eliminating
issues such as breast cancer, but it is important to stay grounded and realize
the limitations of some genetic studies.
The variant genes may appear to be the answer, but they could only be a
partial answer or possibly not even that.
The connections between the variant gene and a reduced risk of breast
cancer may be the basis for more studies, but it is important to note that they
do not provide us all of the answers.
Due to the limitations of the scientific hierarchy, these are the only
kinds of studies that are constantly being supported. Larger, riskier studies are pushed aside,
even though they are the ones that could
actually find a cure or treatment.
The
issue with bias in scientific research funding is hindering advancements that
could benefit our society as a whole, but there are ways to combat that
bias. Much of the problem is that
private companies are being relied on more and more to fund research as the
government struggles to rebound after the global economic recession that hit in
2008. The government’s largest tool for
funding research is the National Institutes of Health, which gives $31 billion
to scientists based on “a system of competitive, peer-reviewed grants”
(Gollaher). This organization was
responsible for funding the biotechnology industry through its granting of
funds to researchers studying DNA in the 1970s, “which spawned the
U.S.-dominant biotechnology industry” (Gollaher). However, any advantages this organization
once had are being destroyed by a recent government sequestration that aims to
reduce the amount of money given to scientists for research. According to the NIH, the government reduction
in funds can lead to over 700 less grants being given each year. This means that due to the recession, the
government has decided to take away funding from the very institution that
helped fuel the biotechnology industry that fostered the United States’
economic growth since the 1970s. The
decrease in funding for the NIH, therefore, slows economic growth and inhibits
scientific discoveries. The NIH, unlike
the private research funding companies, does not have to worry as much about
how profitable new discoveries will be because they are given their money by
the government and do not profit directly from the success of the research they
fund. For this reason, the government
should focus on finding ways to maintain the place of the NIH and other similar
institutions in the national budget. By
resourcing their money from tax breaks and subsidies for companies that may or
may not foster economic and scientific growth, there will be more money going
toward a tried and proven system.
Reform
should not fall solely into the hands of the government, though, because
private funders, such as universities, will continue to be a presence through
the power of their money. The major
issue is the grant process that they use.
In an article entitled “The Grant Application Process,” Wanda K.
Johnston outlines the unnecessary extension of the development of a grant. From its birth, a grant is tainted because
the scientist must only come up with “a project idea that is compatible with
the college’s mission and strategic plan” (Johnston, 70). Other than needing to ignore projects they
may be interested in, scientists must undergo the writing of a lengthy,
overly-detailed twelve page application.
That application must include information on the researchers “experience,
history, accomplishments, and expertise,” along with the issue being addressed,
the exact methodology, plan for success, and use of funds (Johnston, 72-73). The need for the inclusion of prior successes
and the desire for a guaranteed success keep many scientists out of the running
simply because they are young or are interested in something not previously
tested.
To
change this, the grant application must be reworked so that who you know and
your age are not factors in the decision of whether or not to fund you. One possibility is eliminating those sections
that would bias the grant readers against the author, such as lack of prior
experience. Once that filter is
eliminated, there should be quotas put in place by universities that encourages
new forms of research, as advocated by Ted Cox of Princeton University. He argues that a shorter application could
not only help a reviewer “remember what they’ve read,” but also help those who “can
do original and interesting work” stand out (Ted Cox). Maria Leptin, a professor at the University
of Cologne in Germany, similarly advocates reforms for the grant process. She supports the switch to making sure that
applications “are judged purely on scientific merit by scientists, no political
strings, no fake collaborations, no age limits.” By focusing on the idea rather than the
scientist, we can ensure that actual progress is made and new innovations are
developed. Although it is important that
a university be able to profit somehow from safe research, it is also necessary
for a certain proportion of their money to go to studies that can help society
as a whole. If universities and companies
set specific minimums for spending on riskier studies, we could be leaps and
bounds past where we are now in terms of scientific exploration and discovery. This would eliminate the fear of reviewers
and others in the hierarchy that allowing risky studies to occur would harm
their careers. By taking away that fear,
decisions will be fairer.
While
it goes beyond the scope of normal everyday conversation to speak to others
about the problems with the scientific hierarchy that are plaguing the advancement
of humankind, it is important that we bring attention to these issues. As an individual, you may not be directly
impacted by every study that becomes funded due to a change in the way the
system works, but over time, these studies can lead to knowledge that will change
the world. Whether it is new medicine,
new technology, or new methods, science changes lives. The way research is being conducted now,
though, keeps us at a standstill developmentally, which is an issue for a
species that depends on adaptability for survival. Pressure to change the workings of the hierarchy,
such as eliminating incentives to reject risky grant proposals, will be instrumental
in ensuring the progression of the human race.
Works Cited
Danielle Giambrone, Babar K. Rao, Amin
Esfahani, Shaan Rao, Obstacles hindering the mainstream practice of
teledermatopathology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Volume
71, Issue 4, October 2014, Pages 772-780, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962214014005
Gollaher, D. (2013, October 16). Funding
problems stifling our scientific future. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/oct/16/funding-problems-stifling-our-scientific-future/?#article-copy
Johnston, Wanda K. (1995) The Grant
Application Process, Community & Junior College Libraries, 8:1, 69-73, DOI: 10.1300/J107v08n01_09
Katz, J. (n.d.). Don't Become a Scientist!
Retrieved December 8, 2014, from http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/scientist.html
Lawrence, P. (2009, September 15).
Grantsmanship and the Application Process. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735719/
Lewontin, R.
(1992). Biology as ideology. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.
O'Connor, A.
(2014). Genetic Variant May Shield Latinas From Breast Cancer. The New York
Times. [online] Available at:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/genetic-variant-may-shield-latinas-from-breast-cancer/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%7D&_r=0
[Accessed 21 Oct. 2014].
Scowcroft, H. (2014, August 15). Prostate
drug decision highlights urgent need for reform. Retrieved December 8, 2014,
from http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/08/15/prostate-drug-decision-highlights-urgent-need-for-reform/
Stobbe, M., Mishra, T., & Macintyre,
G. (2013, November 21). Breaking the Ice and Forging Links: The Importance of
Socializing in Research. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003355
Undsci.berkeley.edu,
(2014). Who pays for science?. [online] Available at: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays
[Accessed 19 Nov. 2014].
You are entitled to full comments here, but in this case, my full comments will be rather brief. Why is that? I can't imagine that much here should be changed, unless the essay was going to get much longer and more complex.
ReplyDeleteYour previous version was quite good. The structure, especially, and your general direction had a lot of merit. I thought you relied too much on speculation/intuition and not enough on detailed evidence in a number of sections, though, and that the final version would require a good deal more research. I also thought that the ending, ideally, would have *something* along the lines of a specific proposal for reform.
Well, you did all of that, and you did it well. Your research is fleshed out and, given the length of the essay, compelling. Your structure remains good. I feel like the introduction could be slightly streamlined in retrospect, but that's small potatoes. I also think your proposal for reform - which was focused, and articulated through research - was specific and good. You are writing about large issues, but you're doing so in specific, focused ways.
In short: this is a good, focused, well-researched essay from beginning to end, which addresses every problem I saw in previous drafts, and makes various other enhancements.