If
you had a million dollars, what would you invest in: developing an affordable
treatment for diabetes, or conducting research on how bacteria protect
themselves from invasion? The National Science
Foundation and the National Institute of Health are two important government agencies
that allocate tax dollars to scientists and allow them to delve into a basic
understanding of human health. In the 1960s, these agencies decided to fund
research that studied the mechanisms of how microbes protect themselves, simply
because it was an interesting question. There was no way of knowing how such
basic research could affect human health; they were curious about bacterial
biology and pursued it with conviction.
Normally,
when a virus enters a bacterium, it adds its own DNA to that of the bacteria,
invading it and taking over. Researchers found that bacteria protect themselves
from such viruses by selectively cutting the viral DNA. This finding lead to
the scientific discovery of restriction enzymes—an enzyme that cuts specific
chunks of DNA and uses this technique to move genes around. In fact, scientists
quickly learned how to move human DNA into bacteria. Due to rapid bacterial
replication, scientists can use them to make large quantities of human
proteins.
Healthcare Applications
Why
is this at all useful for modern medicine?After this discovery, researchers were able to efficiently produce human
insulin, by introducing the human insulin gene into bacteria—a significant
advancement in diabetes research. Prior to this discovery, insulin was expensive,
unsafe, and less effective. In fact, it was harvested primarily from fetal
cows. Because of heavy federally funded basic science research in the 1960s,
human insulin is currently an effective and affordable treatment for diabetes.
Translational
research is the buzzword of the moment, while basic science research has taken
the “back seat” in research development and funding. Most obviously, one reason
for this new emphasis is the political pressure on government agencies, like
the NIH, to show tangible public benefit from all the basic science investment.
Translational science research funding for the testing of new treatments,
vaccines, and diagnostic tests seems far more valuable to politicians and to
most of the general public. Furthermore, there has been an increasing
impatience with the pace of basic scientific discovery that results in new
products and cures.
Historically
speaking, the past generation has been filled with revolutionizing scientific discoveries.
Because of our current age of “instantaneous Google search results” and rapidly
developing gadgets, we have far greater expectations for basic science
advancements. The progress toward prevention and cures for widespread diseases,
such as AIDS and cancer, has not been as rapid as we would like.
It
is worth noting how such policy views and pressure on the NIH has directly
affected funding. Every grant application to the NIH is evaluated on its
practical merits—should this be an
essential requirement for funding? In the 1970s, I don’t believe the
practical application of basic research into the DNA polymerase of Thermus aquaticus could have been
sufficiently justified. It is a simple thermophilic microbe with no medical or
agricultural consequences. However, today, in retrospect, heat resistant Taq DNA polymerase is one of the most
important enzymes in molecular biology because of its use in polymerase chain
reactions (PCR). Similarly, how would one have justified the study of the
practical application of fungal metabolism, which led to the discovery of
statins? In hindsight, we know the clinical value of statins in lowering
cholesterol and thus, we can reassure ourselves that it was a wise investment.
In the 1960s, the discovery of restriction enzymes, which
has saved millions of lives by the creation of human insulin and other proteins,
began with the simple question of how bacteria protect themselves. This has paved
the way for scientists to ask other novel questions, create new knowledge, and
further revolutionize science, with the discovery of DNA fingerprinting,
biofuels, cancer drugs, vaccines, and HIV medications. Given enough funding to
basic science, who knows what has yet to come. It is wise to consider funding
basic science research as a critical investment in our future. Basic science
provides the raw materials for clinical translation and will always represent
humanity’s best hope at meeting a wide range of public health challenges.
The argument can be made that this system is
wasteful, because although there are few fruitful successes, there are many
more projects that yield no practical results. Consider a box of many particles,
each trying to escape through a small door—they will randomly bounce around
until they find the door. Finding the door is like finding its significant
application to science and humanity. What
do we do? Do we only choose to give all the energy to the small number of
particles that are on track to hitting the door very quickly? Or do we allow
all the particles to bounce around, each given less energy? Each particle, given
enough time, will find the door, and since we have no way of knowing which
particle (or basic science research) is the most fruitful, we must give all
particles the opportunity to be energized (funded). This is because, after
sufficient time, we will all reap the application of this research.
Given that this opportunity cost exists for any
number of projects we exclude from our funding (even if we exclude one), we
must fund them all. This argument makes no claim as to the distribution of
funding; rather, it simply highlights the importance of funding basic science
research.