I have been planning a series of posts on the latest developments in Biophysics (and perhaps other science fields), but before I got to that, I wanted to pass along the commencement address of Nobel Laureate Roger Kornberg to the Stanford School of Medicine this year. I've heard Roger Kornberg speak on numerous occasions and have to say that this is my favorite speech/talk/presentation I've heard from him. Short and concise and worth the read in full.

On the origins of rigorous medical research and medical schools:

Little over a century ago, disease was attributed to an imbalance of humors, and the only treatments were bleeding and violent purgatives. Medical schools were trade shops funded by fees from the students, who gained licenses to inflict their ignorance on the general population. Change began in Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, with the germ theory of disease and the work of Pasteur, Koch, Ehrlich and others. Charles Eliot, then president of Harvard, was aware of these developments and of the appalling state of American medical education, and proposed to introduce medical science in the curriculum at Harvard medical school.

We've come a long way in those hundred years!

If you've spent time in an academic research setting this will definitely resonate with you:

If I were to ask members of this audience what were the most important advances in medicine during the 20th century, most would make a similar list: X-rays, for both diagnosis and treatment; antibiotics, which have largely eradicated bacterial disease; cell culture, which led to the polio vaccine; noninvasive imaging, especially magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, for early detection of cancer and other conditions; genetic engineering, which is the basis of most new medicines; the list could go on. These medical advances have one thing in common: They were all discoveries made in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, with no idea of any application, no purpose in the prevention or cure of disease. The lesson of the past is counterintuitive: To solve a difficult problem in medicine, don’t study it directly, but rather pursue a curiosity about nature and the rest will follow. Do basic research.

“The success of medical science has become, in a way, its undoing. We are dazzled by the knowledge we have acquired and rush to apply it to medical problems. This is understandable, but often premature. Take the human genome, the true font of medical knowledge. It’s all there, the answer to every question about human biology. The trouble is the answers are written in a language we don’t understand. It is a multidimensional and dynamic language. The products of the genome, both protein and RNA molecules, interact with one another and with the genome itself in a dance of dizzying complexity [more on this soon]. At present, we can only dimly perceive the significance. We can grasp a tiny fraction of 1 percent of what there is to know and understand. Just imagine, if the medicine of today flows from this tiny bit of knowledge, how much more would be possible if we knew the remaining 99 percent. What more persuasive call to the pursuit of basic research can there be?

“And yet this call is often unheeded. Traveling across the United States and abroad, I’m disheartened by a shift from research to application. It’s ironic. Just as the lesson of the past century is learned, it is forgotten.

“This is not only a scientific but also a political problem. The support of basic research has traditionally come from government rather than the private sector, and for good reason. The timeline is very long—basic problems take decades to solve. Only the public, with a lifelong interest, will support such an undertaking. Industry, with a short-term interest and eye on the bottom line, can hardly be expected to do so. What CEO could report to his or her board that a major investment has been made in research that may or may not become profitable in 10 to 20 years, or longer? Let me give you a specific, disquieting example. Pharmaceutical companies developing anti-cancer therapies are regularly forced to choose between a drug that cures cancer with a single dose and one that must be administered weekly and which only prolongs life by a year or two. Management invariably makes the right decision on behalf of shareholders, and pursues the less-effective drug. This is not an isolated or rare occurrence. It occurs on a weekly basis. Government clearly has a special responsibility and a unique role to play.

“Our government has performed this role admirably in the past. Some 50 years ago, in perhaps the most farsighted action of any legislative body in history, the U.S. Congress began funding basic biomedical research. The investment has been repaid many times over. How many people do you think were crippled or died of polio last year in the United States? The answer is virtually none, due of course to the polio vaccine. Imagine the savings in treatment and productivity, not to mention human suffering. Not only has the investment in medical research been repaid, but it was small to begin with. The annual budget for cancer research today is only $5 billion, less than 10 percent of our annual expenditure on soft drinks, less than a week of the war in Iraq. And yet, despite its small size, this budget has been cut repeatedly over the past decade. At a time when medical science is poised for the ultimate payoff—the cure of cancer and other dread diseases—many promising leads are being abandoned.

The current environment in medical research is bad and getting worse because of the funding situation--to say nothing of the Bush Administration attempts to get their own results. It is increasingly difficult for young, promising faculty to get funding for exciting new research, and even seasoned faculty. I've personally seen grant proposals that were rejected despite praise for the science and early results that would have easily been funded several years ago when there was more money. This should not happen.

Having recently received my PhD in Biophysics I have been on the front lines of academic research and have witnessed the awesome potential of medical research. But in today's climate it is becoming harder and harder to follow up on promising leads. I plan to discuss some interesting new scientific endeavors and dig more into some of the funding related aspects in Congress. But I encourage everyone to send a note to their congresscritters in support of science funding.

If there is any interest, I can follow this up with descriptions of the latest in biophysical research. If not, I'm happy to make other uses of my time.