Editorial pubs.acs.org/chemneuro
Lost in Translation: The Death of Basic Science
T
research group is best known, and one that has many real world applications, is Pd-catalyzed C−N coupling. This resulted from a curiosity-driven project for which we were not trying to do anything practical. By focusing too much on applied work, the rate at which the scientific community will make major breakthroughs will be slowed considerably.” This latter point is true not only for the biomedical sciences, but also for materials and fuels, where deep, expert knowledge of chemistry is critical. I love translational science and applying a deep understanding of mechanistic synthetic chemistry to biological and neuroscience problems; however, any success borne from these endeavors is solely due to my classical training in synthetic organic chemistry. As I reached out to numerous leaders in both industry and academia, the same sentiments were echoed unanimously. As a society and a community of scientists, we need to take pause and consider a future wherein we have no true subject matter experts, and a future where American innovation is lost to other countries that continue to invest and train in the basic sciences. We can ill afford the death of basic science, and be lost in translation without the tools to enable innovative discovery.
he current fascination of applied basic science, i.e., translational science, to funding agencies, due in large part to the perception of a more immediate impact on human health, is a harbinger of its own doom. Strong words? It is clear in the last 10 years that research funding for basic organic chemistry and/or molecular pharmacology is in rapid decline. However, the quality of translational science is only as strong as the basic science training and acumen of its practitionersthis truth is lost in the translational and applied science furor. A training program that instills and trains the “basics” while offering additional research in applied science can be a powerful combination; yet, funding mechanisms for the critical first steps are lacking. Historically, the pharmaceutical industry hired the best classically trained synthetic chemists and pharmacologists, and then medicinal chemistry/drug discovery was taught “on the job”. These highly trained and knowledge experts could tackle any problem, and it is this basic training that enabled success against HIV in the 1990s. When the next pandemic arises in the future, we will have lost the in-depth know-how to be effective. Moreover, innovation will diminish. As Dr. Wendy Young, Vice President, Discovery Chemistry from Genentech states “The pharma and biotech industry has heavily relied on academia to train the next generation of synthetic chemists. Without duly trained synthetic ‘jocks’, our drug discovery efforts and innovation in the United States will dwindle. Without question, innovation has been a core strength of the United States, and this is due to the training in deep basic science.” Phil Baran, the Darlene Shirley Professor, from SCRIPPS states “It is ironic that a field with such an incredible track record for tangible contributions to the betterment of society is under continual attack. Fundamental organic synthesis has been defending its existence since I was a graduate student. If the NIH continues to disproportionally cut funding to this area, progress in the development of medicines will slow down and a vital domestic talent pool will evaporate leaving our population reliant on other countries for the invention of life saving medicines, agrochemicals, and materials.” Nobel Laureate E. J. Corey, the Sheldon Emory Professor Emeritus at Harvard, shares a similar sentiment in that “synthetic organic chemistry is an endangered field (species extinction if current trends continue)...” He continues, “One of the United States’ scientific treasures is being steadily squandered, partly because its leading practitioners have very little influence on NIH’s priorities. The consequences will not be good for our country’s future.” The same is true in pharmacology as well as drug metabolismbasic science training and expertise are shrinking at an alarming rate. Stephen Buchwald, the Camille Dreyfus Professor of Chemistry from MIT, sums up the overall situation quite nicely: “I believe that the increasing emphasis on applied research to the exclusion of basic research is shortsighted. Both have their place, but I firmly believe that you cannot have continued success in developing new applications without breakthroughs in basic research. The work for which my own © 2016 American Chemical Society
■
Craig W. Lindsley, Editor-in-Chief AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
Published: August 17, 2016 1024
DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.6b00206 ACS Chem. Neurosci. 2016, 7, 1024−1024
