| T H E N I H C A T A L Y S T | J U L Y – A U G U S T 2007 |
| | |
From the Assembly of Scientists: ViewpointErosion of Freedom of Inquiry |
by Abner Notkins |
Ed. note: The following commentary represents the views of the author and appears here under the auspices of the NIH Assembly of Scientists, which has been accorded a standing ViewPoint space in The NIH Catalyst. Individuals who wish to write a column should contact a member of the ViewPoint editorial board (Abner Notkins, Harvey Alter, Edward Korn, Alan Schechter, Joshua Zimmerberg).
What would tenured scientists view as true freedom of inquiry?
The answer simply put: To wake up in the morning with a new idea for an experiment in one's area of expertise and to initiate that experiment the same day with available resources and without having to seek administrative approval.
In fact, it is this unencumbered freedom to explore ideas that has led so many individuals into science as a career. The Intramural Research Program (IRP) at NIH for years has represented the best of this tradition—and still does today. But this tradition is under constant direct and indirect attack and requires vigilant protection.
Ironically, direct threats to freedom of inquiry sometimes come from the very source that deserves so much credit for making American science the envy of the world, the U.S. government.
Unfortunately, political considerations at times inform funding decisions, leaving scientists to choose to pursue either those well-funded research areas that are in current political favor or some poorly funded line of research that they consider more promising.
The IRP can create its own political problems. In an effort to satisfy an institute's often vocal extramural community and patient constituency, mission-oriented and translational studies frequently are favored over investigator-initiated basic and long-term research that doesn't have an immediate payoff.
This emphasis pressures scientists within an institute to conform to current priorities and can restrict curiosity-driven freedom of inquiry. Serendipitous findings also may create a dilemma: Instead of pursuing unexpected leads, a scientist may feel or actually be compelled to back away should these leads not fit into the mission or type of work currently favored by an institute.
A related problem is the pressure to conform that many tenured intramural investigators experience when an incoming institute director or scientific director wants to modify the scientific direction of the institute.
Because decisions on the yearly budget of intramural investigators generally are in the hands of a single individual—the scientific director—the pressure to conform to the changing thrust of an institute rather than to pursue one's own research ideas can be great. The lack of a readily available formal appeal process for investigators who feel that their budgets are inadequate or have been inappropriately reduced adds further pressure to conform, as does the lack of the option—available to extramural scientists—to seek funds from other public or private agencies.
Along the same line, candidates for tenure-track positions know that to be selected they must come up with projects that will be viewed as relevant to the particular institute's current direction. From the institute's point of view this certainly seems to make good sense, but it may not take full advantage of the candidate's scientific curiosity, creativity, and expertise—nor does it allow for truly free choice of projects.
Similarly, "big science" projects are revolutionizing biological research and expediting the achievement of specific goals, but at a price. Invariably, these projects limit freedom of inquiry for individual members of the "big science" research teams.
The threat to freedom of inquiry is not just politically and administratively based, but also can come from the scientific community itself. The peer-review process that has proved so important in evaluating the contributions of individual scientists and in maintaining the high quality of science can sometimes be one of the culprits.
Study sections are reluctant to support novel ideas and technologies that by definition have not already been proven. Grant applicants are well aware of this and stay away from "risky" projects in favor of "safe" projects. NIH intramural scientists face the same problem.
Although it is generally thought that intramural scientists have greater freedom to choose long-term "high-risk, high-impact" projects, intramural scientists increasingly are choosing safer projects to ensure a good review by the Board of Scientific Counselors.
These boards are made up of extramural scientists who, ironically, criticize intramural scientists for not choosing "high-risk, high-impact" projects, but punish them when the projects do not provide outstanding results. This, too, diminishes free choice.
As in all fields of endeavor, science too has its trends and fads that generate infusions of money from public and private funding agencies. The scientific community rewards investigators in these areas with invitations to present their work at meetings and publish their papers in prestigious journals.
Such actions can result in an exodus from true independent investigator-initiated research to trend-conformity. The scientific journals also contribute to this problem by favoring trendy papers, even to the exclusion of solid and important papers in other areas.
Some scientists and administrators have added further to the problem by taking the position that tenure, promotion, and support require publication in so-called high-impact journals (for example, Science, Nature, Cell).
It certainly is not the intention of the scientific community or the journals to dampen creativity or freedom of inquiry—and they almost certainly would dispute this accusation—but the end result is subtle, and often not so subtle, pressure on investigators to follow the trend.
Of factors that place restrictions on projects that an investigator might wish to pursue, one of the most distressing is the increasing bureaucracy that has evolved in government and academia in recent years.
Although often well-intentioned and in some cases perhaps necessary, the paperwork required to study pathogens, toxins, recombinant molecules, and even panels of stored sera that have identification markers can become so onerous that investigators choose not to do experiments in these areas.
The same applies to animal protocols that now require so much information—well beyond the original intent of ensuring that the animals are protected from undue pain and discomfort—that approval often takes months and becomes a stifling paperwork exercise.
The prohibition on outside consulting imposed on intramural scientists to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest creates still another problem. It diminishes interaction with the extramural community, limits scientific exchange, and reduces opportunities to develop new technologies and therapies.
Similarly, the restrictions on travel, lecturing, editing, and serving on scientific boards—together with the cumbersome paperwork required to obtain approval for some of these activities—creates a negative environment that makes interaction with the academic extramural community more difficult than ever before.
Although freedom of inquiry is not and never has been totally open-ended—nor should it be—the cornerstone and success of the NIH intramural and extramural programs has been and remains bottom-up, investigator-initiated research. Anything that erodes this freedom, no matter how subtle, must be viewed with concern.
Many of the issues discussed here have become so ingrained and accepted that they are no longer readily recognized as the threats they truly are to freedom of inquiry. Restriction on freedom of inquiry will have an adverse effect not only on recruitment and retention of the current generation of scientists, but also on attracting the best of the next generations into science as a career.
How should the scientific community deal with these and future problems? Each issue is different and requires a separate solution. Decisions must be constantly weighed to find the balance that provides the best environment for creative endeavor. Open debate and constant appraisal and reappraisal would seem to be the best approach.
The NIH Assembly of Scientists provides a proactive venue for intramural scientists to express concerns and views. The AOS has worked successfully over the past couple of years with the NIH administration on the problems associated with the conflict-of-interest regulations. Equal attention and effort now should be placed on these many other problems that impinge on scientific creativity so that the NIH IRP maintains its great and successful tradition of freedom of inquiry.
-Abner Louis Notkins is Chief of the Experimental Medicine Section Oral Infection and Immunity Branch, NIDCR
