blog

On 22nd April this year, four distinguished experts — F1000Prime International Advisory Board Member Bruce Alberts of the University of California, San Francisco, Marc W. Kirschner of Harvard Medical School, Shirley Tilghman of Princeton University, and Harold Varmus of the National Cancer Institute — issued a call to action. Their perspective article, ‘Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws’, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, highlighted the major obstacles standing in the way of progression in biomedical research in the USA.

One day later, we published the first F1000Prime recommendation of Alberts et al.’s paper: Structural Biology Faculty Member P Shing Ho awarded the article our top rating (three stars), describing it as “highly significant”. In his comments, he addressed one of the major issues brought up by the authors: “The most obvious problems that we (as practicing scientists) see are related to funding research — the excruciatingly low success rates in funding of competitive grant proposals and the variable quality of reviews that inform these funding levels”.

While funding is clearly an important matter in the discussion of the sustainability of US biomedical research, it’s not the only one. “Rather than simply call for more funding,” writes Immunology Faculty Member Daniel Gray, “this article points to major problems in the training pipeline, academic funding structures and grant review processes that many researchers privately acknowledge but rarely highlight publicly.” He also states that “the issues identified are relevant internationally”. In a similar vein, Robert Sterner, Faculty Member of the Ecology Faculty, draws parallels with the scientific environment outside the lab: “As an environmental scientist, I see many of the same symptoms discussed here in my professional life, the drawbacks of hypercompetitiveness and the increased stress on ‘translational’ work chief among them.”

Amidst the strategies and suggestions, there is an underlying sense of urgency. Jon D Hennebold, Faculty Member in Diabetes & Endocrinology, adds a sobering note to the discussion: “If biomedical science is to thrive in the US, the deficiencies noted in this article must be dealt with in the near future.” And, if we were in any doubt about how soon this is, Cell Biology Faculty Member Daniel Reines reminds us: “What is striking is not only the eminence of these decorated scientists but the urgent ‘hair on fire’ tone put forth in the article.”

At the time of this post’s publication, the article has received a total rating of 16 stars, and it has also generated much discussion elsewhere. There is now the question of how the community will react. One thing is for sure, though: there is a definitive need for change. Neuroscience Section Head Joshua R. Sanes summarizes the general consensus perfectly: “Let’s hope this call to action is heeded.”