There is always some tension between academic research, applied research and entrepreneurship. While academic research is primarily driven by curiosity, applied research and entrepreneurship need to solve a real world problem. Scientists working in healthcare (and I guess this could apply to any field) have an extraordinary desire to test things, curiosity is what at the end of the day makes them go to the lab on a Sunday afternoon just to see if an experiment has proved them right or wrong (where else would someone go to work on a Sunday afternoon?). This is obviously great, and it is a fantastic driver of science, but to help people, ideas need to move to the real world and get to the marketplace, and therefore they need to be able to solve problems.
Basic research pursues an increase in knowledge. More and more knowledge is again the driver of scientists. But this knowledge needs to be protected in order to get to the marketplace, and (whether we like it or not) this is done through IP protection, through patents (see my previous post patents are so XXth century).
And finally, scientists are eager to publish things, to show their accomplishments, to get respected in their academic world. The system rewards or punishes them depending on the impact and number of publications in prestigious journals. Again, this is not good or bad, it just reflects how science is structured, but scientists working in healthcare should be aware that publishing is not the ultimate goal, but commercializing whatever they are working on to help patients and society.
By solving this tension between the two worlds, we will innovate faster and better.
2 comments:
After graduating in the medical school I spent (I prefer to say enjoyed) 4 years doing basic research (computational pharmacogenomics).
That job was really great. And I agree with you, curiosity is the key (I also worked on Sundays because of that).
One day I was attending the PhD dissertation of a member of the lab. He spent years analyzing the genome of the Gold Fish. In his dissertation he spent 10 minutes trying to convince us about the crucial importance of that kind of fish for the human health and medicine.
What the hell? I was surrounded by biologists, physics, mathematicians and computer scientists. They seemed to agree with that.
But I didnt!
Ok, Gold Fish genome is interesting. Your work is curious, is innovative, is great. But have very little to do with human health!
That day I decided to return to medical practice and spend 4 years training as a primary care physician.
However, I think intellectual property policies harms Science.
From my point of view, basic research should be funded by society. It is crucial, as they generate basic knowledge that will be useful (or maybe no). But driving basic research based on "applicability" or delaying publication or share of discovers will damage science.
The benefits of basic research funding are not only in the applicability of the discovers (sometimes are), but in an intangible value: the education of the young researchers in methodologies that can be afterwards applied to solve real problems.
Myself, for example. Now I am a medical doctor treating patients. But thanks to the knowledge I obtained during my work as scientist (work that was funded by european commission) I am not just a "clinician".
I found real problems, and try to solve them with my scientific skills. Now I can focus in "intellectual property". Now my driven force is not curiosity but real problem solving.
Without the help of European Commission and my laboratory (a public entity), both funded through the taxes of citizens and companies I would never be able to think about "keyose" (or other projects in future).
I think there should be scientists founded to do science without "IP" restrictions. And founded to teach young scientists to do science, young scientists that should them move to the real world (in biomedicine: clinical world) and translate the knowledge and basic science methods to the clinical practice.
Translational research is not about getting clinicians and basic scientists around a table. It is about taking scientists and moving then to the clinical ground (real clinical practice). Or taking clinicians and moving them to the basic research lab. Nobody seems to understand that.
Post a Comment