The budget proposal by the Obama administration is a mixed bag in terms of funding for science. Targeted research received some OK gains but basic research was left with the same or even less money than the previous year. If this trend continues, it won’t just be basic research that takes a hit. It’ll be your health and the U.S. economy too.
I know, I know, a scientist bemoaning a cut in funding -- talk about someone with a vested interest! But hear me out.
In some ways this funding proposal is understandable. We have a dwindling pot of money and we want to fund what will be most likely to pay off. The problem is that this approach keeps science from finding completely new things that will lead to new approaches to treating diseases, identifying new energy sources and so on. We won't make any dramatic leaps in knowledge that fundamentally change how we address our problems.
Funding predominantly targeted research is like looking for your car keys only in lighted areas of the street. You are missing a whole lot places where the keys could be. Science is similar. Basic research is like adding new light posts—it opens up areas of research we didn’t even know we could explore.
I have a listed a few such findings off the top of my head. Because I’m more of a molecular biologist/geneticist, I’ve focused on these topics. There are undoubtedly lots of other examples from this and other areas that I haven’t included. Please feel free to add more to the comments section if you’d like.
Cell cycle regulators. Cancer happens when a cell grows out of control and/or refuses to die. Our cells have all sorts of controls in place to keep cells growing and dividing when they should and to also stop growing and even to die when they should too. The key regulators in this process were originally found in the humble baker’s yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We found them more easily in yeast because of the unique properties of this model system (easily manipulated genetics, fast growing, etc.). Because of that initial basic research, we were able to study this aspect of cancer and begin to identify treatments based on these regulators much sooner than we otherwise would have.
Micro RNAs. Until the early 1990’s, RNA was mostly thought of as a passive molecule. Basically the instructions found in genes in DNA were copied into RNA. This mRNA was then translated into proteins using two other RNAs, tRNA and rRNA, and it was proteins that did all the heavy lifting in the cell.
Through the work done in a small, see-through worm called C. elegans, we discovered that tiny RNAs are actually important in controlling how much protein gets made from a gene. These microRNAs are used in people too and have been shown to be involved in a number of cancers. Not only that, but they are incredibly useful tools for exploring how genes work so we can find new targets to go after for cancer research. It would have taken a very long time to find them with targeted research and even longer to figure out they were significant and how they work without basic research. I am not sure we would have found out what they are and/or do for decades if we had just focused on people.
Genetic Engineering: What started out as some basic research on bacteria in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, turned into today’s genetic engineering. People who become anemic from cancer treatments can thank basic science for their EPO and people with diabetes can do the same for their insulin. Both are now grown in bacteria using the genetic engineering tools created from basic research.
And the list can go on and on. The human genome project has opened up so many avenues of research that we are still figuring out where to go with it all. The same is true for the basic research that identified stem cells, the structure of DNA, recombination and on and on.
If we had just focused on targeted research, we would have missed most of this or at least research would have been delayed by years or even decades. Sick people would have suffered longer because we didn’t fund basic research.
Of course I understand the quandary we are in here. If we have to choose between research on duck penises and food stamps for poor families, food stamps would undoubtedly win. This is even if the duck research might help us understand and possible even better treat conditions like preeclampsia, a problem with high blood pressure that can happen with pregnancy.
But we do need to think about how we can get the most bang for our limited science research dollars. Can we free up some money by streamlining how scientists are funded? Should we change how we assess whether scientific research has been successful or not? Should we divvy up the money in different ways with an increased percentage going to basic research?
I don’t have the answers to these questions but the folks in Washington need to start thinking about this. I don’t think we want to give up our strong science position in the world just yet.