US science is in peril, say Nobel Medicine Prize winners

Oct 07, 2013 by Kerry Sheridan
This handout photo shows neuroscientist and Nobel Prize winner Thomas Südhof, MD, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine

Three American winners of the Nobel Prize for Medicine on Monday said scientific progress in the United States is in peril due to unprecedented funding cuts and ideological challenges.

The scientists were honored for their work on how cells organize their cargo and move molecules—a process that contributes to normal body and brain function but is also at the root of neurological diseases, diabetes, and immune disorders.

But after they recounted their anecdotes of shock and amazement—including the German-born neuroscientist Thomas Suedhof who admitted he was "a bit lost" driving around in Spain when he got the call with the news—their speeches turned to a future that may hold fewer opportunities.

Co-winner James Rothman, 63, of Yale University, who studies how cells transport energy outside of themselves, said he was struck by how hard it is to get research funding these days.

"It is much, much more difficult... for a young scientist to get started today," he told reporters, describing a shrinking budget for the National Institutes of Health, the largest funder of US research.

The NIH pays out about $31 billion per year, more than any other government gives to researchers, but budget constraints have kept funding flat for the past several years, meaning even less money when adjusted for inflation.

NIH officials say that competition has also increased for grants, leaving about 16-17 percent of applications funded, far short of the target of 30 percent.

Professor James Rothman, of Yale University, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine along with Randy Schekman and German Thomas Suedhof

Rothman said he was concerned about funding long before the budget cuts brought on by the recent sequester, or the current shutdown of the federal government by Republicans opposed to President Barack Obama's .

Reflecting on his own beginnings as a scientist, Rothman wondered aloud if he would have been able to make the same strides under the present circumstances.

"I really am very concerned that I would not have been," he said.

"I see today the kind of enormous opportunities and yet the discouragement that young scientists in this country feel and it is something we need to pay attention to if we want to maintain this country as the great competitive world leader that it has been."

Rothman praised his co-laureates as men whose work had at times been "complementary, and sometimes competitive."

Rothman's co-winner Suedhof, 57, whose lab is at Stanford University, focuses on how synapses form in the brain and how messages get sent, with a view to unlocking the mysteries of Alzheimer's disease and autism.

"It seems to me there is a significant increasingly vocal percentage of the population that thinks we shouldn't go after truth and truth is not important. And so that worries the hell out me," said Suedhof, who is an American citizen.

Randy Schekman, at a press conference at the University of California, Berkeley, is the co-winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Medicine, October 7, 2013

Funding is "in danger," leaving enormous hurdles to overcome in solving the main mysteries of the brain, he said.

But he described the biggest problem as "this cognitive dissonance" in America. "You can't at the same time be for science and against it," he said.

"I would consider it as progress if everybody, no matter what their ideology or religion is, could agree on the principle that truth is not an ideological issue."

The third co-winner, Randy Schekman of the University of California, Berkeley, recalled his humble beginnings, including getting turned down for early on, and how US government support later became "an enormous benefit."

He also said he was able to work his way through university despite coming from a middle class family and being one of five children.

"I could work a summer job and pay for the entire school year," Schekman said, recalling that his tuition in 1966 was $40 a term and room and board cost $400.

"Unfortunately as you know this is no longer true. Tuition fees... have escalated dramatically."

Schekman, 64, is best known for his work on cell organization in yeast and for identifying three classes of genes that control different parts of the cell transport system.

Rudy Tanzi, a professor of neurology at Harvard University, told AFP that he sees many American science majors head for high-paying consulting jobs rather than academia.

"Because is so weak we are now in jeopardy of losing a generation or two of American scientists," said Tanzi, who has collaborated with both Suedhof and Schekman.

"The reason is job security. They are afraid to embark on a future that relies on unstable funding," he added.

"Most of the PhDs we see coming in are from other countries."

Explore further: Drive behind Nobel Medicine Prize say winners

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Drive behind Nobel Medicine Prize say winners

Oct 07, 2013

A German-born neuroscientist who describes himself as "incredibly driven" was actually driving around in Spain when his phone rang Monday with the news that he'd won the Nobel Prize. ...

Nobel laureate: 'Joy, disbelief' at news

Oct 07, 2013

Randy Schekman, one of the recipients of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Medicine, told AFP Monday that he received the news with a mixture of "disbelief and joy." ...

Recommended for you

F1000Research brings static research figures to life

3 hours ago

F1000Research today published new research from Bjorn Brembs, professor of neurogenetics at the Institute of Zoology, Universitaet Regensburg, in Germany, with a proof-of-concept figure allowing readers and reviewers to run ...

How science can beat the flawed metric that rules it

5 hours ago

In order to improve something, we need to be able to measure its quality. This is true in public policy, in commercial industries, and also in science. Like other fields, science has a growing need for quantitative ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kochevnik
3 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2013
The irony is that science increases longevity. Then these old bastards turn conservative and have free leisure time, again due to science and technology, to voice their retardation and senility
Gmr
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2013
Funny thing is, a decent chunk of basic research science used to be funded privately. Bell Labs for instance. But, you know - profits, investors, bottom lines mean people are looking for the quick fix to get the numbers up this quarter, not for the prestige and eventual creation of new markets that investing in basic research results in.

Now there is just a drive for patents. And patents don't win Nobel Prizes for basic research. And far too often patents are created and bought to be sat upon until the opportunity for lawsuits ripens.
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2013
Don't be surprised to see a comment about "Canadian socialist health care" or some supposed failure of the Canadian system. It will almost certainly be from an American right winger, sometimes pretending to be from Canada, who doesn't know that, in Canada, doctors, hospitals, etc., are provincial responsibilities, not federal.
goracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2013
Funny thing is, a decent chunk of basic research science used to be funded privately. Bell Labs for instance. But, you know - profits, investors, bottom lines mean people are looking for the quick fix to get the numbers up this quarter, not for the prestige and eventual creation of new markets that investing in basic research results in.

Now there is just a drive for patents. And patents don't win Nobel Prizes for basic research. And far too often patents are created and bought to be sat upon until the opportunity for lawsuits ripens.

Indeed. Recall the nuisance suit by SCO claiming to own Linux?