About the author

Dan Rhoads

Dan is a postdoc working at the University of Cyprus in developmental biology. He has a BSc in molecular biology and a PhD pharmacology and biochemistry.

To enable tagging you will need to register on Bitesize Bio. We're sorry for the inconvenience, but it's free, only takes a few seconds, and it will enable you to view our seminars for free, ask questions from the professional community, and take part in the lively community of Bitesize Bio

Following on last week’s post about the NIH and English as the Language of Science, I have another selection from Arthur Kornberg’s book For the Love of Enzymes to highlight.

Essentially, Kornberg is describing the critical elements in the relationship between scientists, industry, and innovation (page 294):

One critical ingredient must be provided by industrial management if it wishes to capture and retain creative and productive scientists. It must provide an open atmosphere which encourages the scientist to discuss ideas, progress, and failures with colleagues in and out of his organization and to publish without restraint. Such an atmosphere is conductive to a flow of students, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting professors through the company.

He explicitly argues that innovation and discovery depend upon open access to ideas. Many will react by suggesting that private industries will lose money from the competition by sharing secrets. That would be my gut reaction as well. Scientists however, [should] keep laboratory notebooks documenting the progress of their discoveries, just as companies retain patent attorneys to ensure fair compensation for work done.

That this reminds me of the Open Access publication is of course no coincidence. What promotes innovation in one setting promotes innovation in all, generally speaking.

Innovation in industry cannot maintain itself on its own however. Kornberg continues:

One often hears that the private philanthropy and corporate contributions will fill the gap left by reduced federal support. This is utter nonsense. The gap in question is billions of dollars a year. Such private philanthropic resources are not available, nor are there equitable mechanisms for obtaining and distributing such sums except through federal taxation and administration. Will biotechnology companies, having obtained their science and scientists from the universities, share their fortunes with their academic parents and benefactors?

Kornberg’s points are plainly obvious to anyone familiar with how research is financed. The success of American science is singularly the result of impressive government support. Continue reducing that support, and innovation will come to a screeching halt over the course of the next generation.