The lesson of Darwin for today's science

TY - JOUR

T1 - The lesson of Darwin for today's science

AU - Alpert, Joseph S.

N1 - Funding Information: Recently, I read a stimulating editorial in Natural History, a monthly magazine published by the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Usually, the magazine publishes interesting and provocative articles on various aspects of the biologic sciences. For many years, Stephen J. Gould contributed a regular article, usually about some aspect of evolutionary biology. The June, 2001 issue of the magazine, however, contained a thought-provoking editorial written by T.V. Rajan, chairman of the pathology department at the University of Connecticut Medical School (Farmington, CT) entitled “Would Darwin Get a Grant Today?” In this editorial, Dr. Rajan argues that “whole animal” biology is being eclipsed by “molecular biology” to such an extent that Charles Darwin’s research would not be deemed fundable if he were applying to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the National Science Foundation (NSF) for support in 2001. Dr. Rajan relates his recent experience in reviewing biomedical grants: “Nearly all the worthy molecular studies receive the funding they need, whereas many promising clinical projects—following the progression of a disease in real human patients, for instance—are turned down.” I have observed a similar distressing trend in biomedical research funding, as well as the attitudes of our clinical trainees who are seeking to become academicians. Interest in what I term “macrobiology” (whole animal biology, clinical biology) is in steady decline pari passu with rising enthusiasm for molecular biologic science. Indeed, for more than 10 years, my colleagues and I who have served on the executive committee of the Clinical Cardiology Council of the American Heart Association (AHA) have lobbied the research arm of this august organization to pay more attention to whole animal (ie, clinical) research. Funding Information: Unfortunately, the number of young investigators pursuing clinical investigation is falling rapidly. NIH funding for clinical research is modest at best, and the lion’s share of the dollars for clinical investigation is now coming from industry. In fact, many of the most exciting investigations in the clinical arena are currently being funded by the pharmaceutical and biomedical device companies. However, the questions posed in these latter trials are usually formatted by the company funding the research. This is neither surprising nor inappropriate, as industry is using these clinical research trials to evaluate their products. However, the difficulty with such research is that the questions asked are almost always highly focused. This inhibits clinical investigators from branching out and asking other equally valuable and compelling questions not directly in line with the direction that the industrial sponsor is seeking. This tendency, coupled with potential and actual conflicts of interest on the part of the investigators, can produce scientific data that are not of the highest quality.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18544403878&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18544403878&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11886-002-0102-9

DO - 10.1007/s11886-002-0102-9

M3 - Editorial

C2 - 12379161

SN - 1523-3782

VL - 4

SP - 441

JO - Current Cardiology Reports

JF - Current Cardiology Reports

IS - 6

ER -