tery. One idea favored in the 1960s held that a hypothetical viral gene, dubbed an "oncogene," could direct the transformation of a normal cell into a tumor cell. In an effort to characterize the RSV oncogene, Bishop, Varmus, and postdoctoral fellow D o m i n i q u e Stehelin compared two RSV strains provided by Peter K. Vogt, of the University of California, Los Angeles. One viral strain was capable of transforming cells into cancer cells and presumably contained the oncogene, and one was a variant that could not transform cells and presumably lacked the oncogene. In research that would be routine today with the tools of modern molecular biology, but which was quite difficult in the early 1970s, the scientists developed a nucleic acid probe that could identify the RSV oncogene. Not surprisingly, the oncogene was shown to exist in chicken tumor cells transformed by the virus. Quite surprisingly, the scientists also found that a nearly identical version of the gene resided in normal cells as well. In 1976, Bishop, Varmus, Stehelin, and Vogt published in Nature a paper in which they reached what the Nobel Assembly calls the "remarkable conclusion that the oncogene in the virus did not represent a true viral gene but instead was a normal cellular gene, which the virus had acquired during replication in the host cell and thereafter carried along."
Nobel chemistry prize cowinner Cech
The discovery that oncogenes are in some way abnormal versions of normal cellular genes (called protooncogenes or cellular oncogenes) that are ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom changed the way scientists view cancer. All of the more than 40 oncogenes that have been identified since 1976 are involved in the systems that regulate the growth and division of cells. The dysfunction of proto-oncogenes, which can be caused by a number of mechanisms, leads to cell division run amok. A discordant note was struck last week by Stehelin, now the head of the molecular oncology research unit at Louis Pasteur Institute in Lille, France, who complained that the Nobel Assembly overlooked his contribution to the research in awarding the prize to Bishop and Varmus. Stehelin told C&EN that he was "delighted" that the UCSF scientists had won the prize, but that he took issue with the way nominees for Nobel Prizes are evaluated. He maintains that his work was central to the discovery for which Bishop and Varmus received the Nobel Prize. Neither Bishop nor Varmus would comment on Stehelin's complaints. A statement issued by UCSF for the scientists said that Stehelin performed difficult experiments, but that the work was carried out under the supervision of Bishop and Varmus. Meanwhile, the 1989 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for contributions of importance to the development of atomic precision spectroscopy. One half of the $469,000 prize was given to American physics professor Norman F. Ramsey of Harvard University for invention of the cesium atomic clock. The other half of the prize goes jointly to American physics professor Hans G. Dehmelt of the University of Washington, Seattle, and West German physics professor Wolfgang Paul of the University of Bonn for development of the ion trap technique, which has made it possible to study a single electron or a single ion with extreme precision. Rudy Baum
NSF adds requirements for grant proposals The National Science Foundation has introduced two significant new requirements in the research grant proposal process. It is now requiring principal investigators to include in their proposals a statement describing how the proposed research project will contribute to the training of future scientists and engineers. And in a push to emphasize the quality of published research over quantity, it is limiting to 10 the number of publications that will be considered in reviewing a grant application. The changes are psychologically important, says Kendall N. Houk, director of NSF's chemistry division. Houk points out that evaluating the effect of the proposed research on the infrastructure of science and engineering is already one of the four criteria used in reviewing a proposal. "This is just a way of saying we have to worry about the future, who the scientists are going to be, and that we want to do a good job in educating them. This is one way of putting it down in black and white." Requiring principal investigators to list the names of all their graduate students and postdocs over the past five years, along with a summary of the total number of graduate students advised and postdocs sponsored, will give NSF an idea of how many people are being trained in a lab, Houk says. Given the choice between two borderline proposals that are equal in all respects, "it would be better to fund a program that has a history of training people and sending them on to fruitful careers in science." But Houk also strongly emphasizes that the primary focus in reviewing a proposal will remain the quality of the proposed research. The changes in the proposal format aren't going to exclude anyone from the process, he says. "A great scientific proposal that doesn't involve students, say, from a theoretician who doesn't even work with students, will still get funded." Limiting the list of publications to the five that have had the greatest impact, plus five that have the October 16, 1989 C&EN
7
News of the Week most direct relationship to the proposed research, was prompted, Houk explains, by concerns particularly strong within the biological and behavioral sciences directorate: There has been an alarming explosion in the number of publications, and fragmentation of work into many small pieces. The chemistry division didn't believe that there was a problem in this area, but the limitation on publications still applies to chemistry proposals. Although admitting that NSF's action is more drastic, Houk points out that the National Institutes for Health, for example, already limits how long a biographical sketch in a proposal can be, and that automatically limits the number of publications that can be listed. Janice Long
Vietnamese scientists seek ties with U.S. Fourteen years after the end of the war in Vietnam, two of that nation's top scientists came to Washington, D.C., last week seeking to build ties with U.S. scientists. Physicist Nguyen Van Hieu, president of Vietnam's National Centre for Scientific Research, and chemist Ho Si Thoang, vice president (for chemistry) of the centre, met with National Academy of Sciences president Frank Press and Office of Technology Assessment director John H. Gibbons, and with officials of the American Chemical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and American Association of Engineering Societies. Their host in Washington, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), also arranged a meeting with several science writers, and visits on Capitol Hill. And during their stay of two to three weeks, Hieu and Thoang are visiting universities and industrial firms across the country. The U.S. has no diplomatic relations with Vietnam and imposes an economic embargo aiming at "diplomatic and economic isolation of Vietnam." Normalization of relations appears unlikely within the next year without a Cambodian set8
October 16, 1989 C&EN
tlement acceptable to the U.S. and resolution of bilateral humanitarian issues. Scientific relations thus are difficult and funding from U.S. government agencies nonexistent. Nevertheless, spadework has been done since 1978 to lessen Vietnam's scientific isolation and build up contacts with it by a nonprofit group, the U.S. Committee for Scientific Cooperation with Vietnam. For example, the group helped Thoang to become an ACS member and to attend and deliver papers on his catalysis research at three ACS national meetings. This year, under the group's auspices, 70 Vietnamese scientists will come to the U.S. for stays of from three weeks to two years, while about 40 U.S. scientists visit Vietnam, notes committee chairman Judith L. Ladinsky of the University of Wisconsin. Now, FAS is joining the effort. It will try to arouse more interest in scientific contacts, and find ways of enlisting more scientists and funding, says FAS president Jeremy J. Stone, who visited Vietnam earlier this year. FAS hopes to play a catalytic role similar to the role it played in promoting scientific links with China in the early 1970s before official ties began. In their visit to ACS and other contacts, the two Soviet-trained scientists frankly described the low level of their nation's scientific facilities, equipment, and funding, and acknowledged that Vietnam has been "very closed to the West." However, they note, reforms like the Soviets' perestroïka (restructuring) are starting. "We'd like to have more contacts," stresses Hieu. "We want to send our students and scientists abroad, and invite many scientists from abroad to visit." In a few cases, like chemistry of natural products, U.S. scientists visiting Vietnam may find new things of interest, Hieu and Thoang say. But for now, visitors will come primarily to teach. However, note several sources, with a hard-working and talented population of more than 66 million, and rich mineral and other natural resources, Vietnam has "high scientific potential"—if properly trained, equipped, and funded. Richard Seltzer
ICE shifts focus of its U.S. drug business The recent spate of restructurings in the pharmaceutical industry shows no signs of letting up. In the latest activity, ICI is selling its U.S. over-the-counter (OTC) drug business to the six-month-old jointventure company, Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Co. ICI, the U.K.'s largest chemical company, is looking to consolidate its prescription drugs and focus resources on launching some of those drugs in the U.S. market. In the $450 million deal, ICI also will obtain the rights to one of Merck's mature products, the antidepressant drug Elavil, which had 1988 sales of about $25 million. Merck has been exchanging the rights to some of its established products, as in its recent agreement with Du Pont (C&EN, Oct. 9, page 6), for the opportunity to launch promising new products or other lines of business. In March, the joint venture with Johnson & Johnson was established to develop and market OTC formulations of Merck's prescription drugs and to seek other new products. The acquisition of ICI's business, expected to be completed by Jan. 1, will make Johnson & Johnson-Merck the 14th largest firm among U.S. OTC drug companies. ICI's OTC drug sales in the U.S. last year totaled $125 million, more than 70% of it antacid products. The Johnson & Johnson-Merck joint-venture company will thus be getting its first marketable products, along with a sales force of about 50, and a production facility in Pasadena, Calif. It is expected to take several years for the company to complete the development and regulatory review process to produce its own OTC products. A promising candidate is a formulation of Merck's anti-ulcer drug, Pepcid. The antiulcer drug market, in which annual sales of a single product can reach as much as $2 billion, is extremely competitive for the major drug manufacturers. OTC formulations can both expand markets and prolong product life, especially after patents have expired on prescription drugs. Ann Thayer
