Status: R
THE SCIENTIST
VOLUME 8, No:3 FEBRUARY 7, 1994
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
===============================================================
Articles published in THE SCIENTIST reflect the views of their
authors and not the official views of the publication,
its editorial staff, or its ownership.
===============================================================
*** THE NEXT ISSUE OF THE SCIENTIST WILL APPEAR ON ***
*** FEBRUARY 21, 1994 ***
*** ***
*******************************************************
Subscription rates for the printed edition are:
In the United States: one year $58, two years $94
Canada : one year $82, two years $142
All other foreign : one year/air cargo $79,
one year/ airmail $133
THE SCIENTIST
(Page numbers correspond to printed edition of THE
SCIENTIST)
FOR SEARCHING PURPOSES:
AU = author
TI = title of article
TY = type
PG = page
NEXT = next article
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : CONTENTS
PG : 3
============================================================
NEWS
AIDS TASK FORCE: Proponents of the new National Task Force
on AIDS Drug Development say that the panel may make a
significant difference in advancing research and bringing
forth new AIDS therapies. A key factor in its success,
however, will be the composition of the task force, they say
PG : 1
BIOTECH PROSPECTS FOR 1994: The most pressing problems
facing the biotech industry this year are related, directly
or indirectly, to a lack of financing. Fears associated with
health-care reform and product setbacks have reduced public
investment, and companies have responded by downsizing their
research efforts, reducing or freezing their work forces,
and merging with other companies
PG : 1
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY: Environmental scientists as well as
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt are hailing a
National Research Council report on the new National
Biological Survey. But it remains to be seen whether the
report will appease critics of the agency
PG : 1
ENVIRONMENTAL FOCUS AT ACS: A wide variety of issues will be
discussed next month at the American Chemical Society's
207th meeting in San Diego, with environmental topics and
the employment market for chemists garnering a good deal of
attention
PG : 3
SOCIETY, POLITICS, AND SCIENCE: The social and political
contexts in which scientists work will be major themes of
the 1994 annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science later this month in San Francisco.
PG : 4
OPINION
SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL: Jesse H. Ausubel, director of
Rockefeller University's Program for the Human Environment,
discusses the serious problems facing United States science
as it approaches the year 2000. He considers the role the
U.S. plays in the global science community, and urges
creation of "international marketplaces," where researchers
and policy officials can gather, exchange ideas, and, in
general, conduct the increasingly complex business of
science
PG : 11
COMMENTARY: While the majority of Americans rank support of
medical research as a top priority, the United States'
governmental decision-makers are not giving it a high enough
status on their agenda, a situation Research!America, an
Alexandria, Va.-based research advocacy organization, is
dedicated to changing in 1994, according to the group's
president, Mary Woolley
PG : 12
RESEARCH
ECOLOGY RESEARCH LEADERS: Ecology research is attracting
more attention among scientists worldwide, and while these
researchers may not be as prolific as investigators in other
disciplines, citation data indicate some clear leaders in
the field, according to the newsletter Science Watch
PG : 15
HOT PAPERS: A plant biologist discusses his paper on shade-
avoidance reaction in the cucumber plant
PG : 16
TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY
SAFE, SENSITIVE IMPROVEMENT: Enzyme immunoassay use is
escalating in the laboratory and the clinic, as more
researchers are choosing these versatile detection methods
as a more sensitive and safer improvement over the
previously widely used radioimmunoassays and the hazardous
wastes they generate
PG : 17
PROFESSION
GETTING PUBLISHED: Scientists may have little trouble
getting their research before the proper journal publishers
or agencies, but when it comes to trying to sell a popular
science book to publishing houses, the services of a
literary agent as a go-between are all but mandatory
PG : 21
VLADIMIR A. EFIMOV, head of the Laboratory of Gene
Engineering at the Shemyakin Institute of Bioorganic
Chemistry in Moscow, is spending a year as a visiting
scientist at Triplex Pharmaceutical Corp. in The Woodlands,
Texas
PG : 23
SHORT TAKES
NOTEBOOK PG : 4
CARTOON PG : 4
LETTERS PG : 12
CROSSWORD PG : 13
ENZYME IMMUNOASSAY PRODUCTS DIRECTORY PG : 19
OBITUARIES PG : 23
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Analysts Say Lack Of Cash Will Hamper Biotech Research
As '94 Gets Under Way
With projects on hold and downsizings, mergers, and
acquisitions on rise, only firms with products in clinical
trials can progress
AU : SUSAN L-J DICKINSON
TY : NEWS
PG : 1
Among the myriad issues confronting the biotech industry in
1994, the most pressing problem companies will face is a
lack of adequate financing, say industry observers.
Fueled by concerns over potential drug-pricing controls
related to national health care reform and two highly
publicized biotech product failures, public financing has
plummeted, they say, while many firms are running out of
reserve capital. The New York-based accounting firm Ernst &
Young reported late last year that public financing of
biotechs fell by two-thirds, from $3.2 billion for the year
ending June 1992 to $1.1 billion for the year ending June
1993. Meanwhile, 58 percent of public biotechs have less
than two years' worth of cash reserves on hand.
The lack of capital is having a major impact on science at
these firms, according to company officials, industry
analysts, and researchers interviewed by The Scientist.
Research projects are being put on hold; many companies are
downsizing, and still more face the likely prospect of
merging with or being acquired by another company in the
near future. "The CEOs [of biotech companies] have some
painful stories," says Carl Feldbaum, president of the
Washington, D.C.-based Biotechnology Industry Organization
(BIO).
R.D. McLauchlan, president and CEO of West Conshohocken,
Pa.-based U.S. Bioscience Inc., says that the tight capital
market has forced his company to restrict projects
investigating their anti-cancer compounds' potential
efficacy in AIDS. It's a trend, he says, that he is
witnessing throughout the industry. Biotech companies "are
no longer pursuing interesting sidelines, and at the first
hint of a problem [with a compound] they are shelving the
project," he says. "And once you make the admission that
projects are being cut back, it's obvious that, somewhere
along the line, a scientist is not working as a result."
How much uncertainty faces biotech scientists depends, to a
great extent, on the bench at which they toil, industry
analysts say. Those at the 10 or so "top-tier" biotech firms
enjoy the same relative security as someone employed by a
large pharmaceutical concern. Companies like Amgen Inc. of
Thousand Oaks, Calif., or Genentech Inc. in South San
Francisco, Calif., which are relatively large and have
revenue-generating products already on the market, are
considered "known" entities on Wall Street. They can access
cash through public financing on an as-needed basis,
regardless of investor interest in biotech stocks.
Burning Cash
But the majority of companies are more vulnerable to
fluctuations in the stock market, and these firms are
burning cash faster than ever, analysts warn. In fact,
according to Ernst & Young, the net burn rate--the amount of
cash being expended vs. the amount of cash revenue--for
public companies last year averaged $2.1 billion, up by $400
million from 1992.
According to industry observers, two general factors are
expected to have a strong impact on the amount of money
public investors put into biotech this year. The first, a
positive one, is the recent approval of two new products:
Pulmonase from Genentech, which treats cystic fibrosis; and
Emeryville, Calif.-based Chiron Corp.'s BetaSeron, used
against multiple sclerosis. Both of these therapeutics
address clinical conditions for which there has been no
treatment, and industry analysts are hopeful that their
successful approval and early sales will stimulate the
entire sector, just as the failure of two well-publicized
products--Malvern, Pa.-based Centocor Inc.'s Centoxin and
Boulder, Colo.-based Synergen Inc.'s Antril--to win
government approval acted to depress stock prices across the
industry a year ago.
An even larger factor, one that continues to dampen investor
confidence in the biotech sector, according to analysts and
company officials, is the drug-pricing control mechanisms
proposed in President Clinton's health plan. Two proposals--
the formation of a breakthrough drug advisory committee,
which would review introductory prices for cures and
treatments for AIDS and other diseases, and a plan to give
the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to
exempt new drugs for AIDS and other diseases from Medicare
reimbursement--have investors shying away from the biotech
market.
In fact, a recent survey of 30 companies involved in AIDS
research conducted by BIO found that 40 percent of them
cited the president's proposal as the cause of the industry-
wide shortage of working capital, and almost 47 percent of
those companies said that AIDS and AIDS-related research was
being delayed or curtailed as a result.
"If such price controls become a reality, the capital
markets for the industry will be frozen," predicts Nick V.
Arvanitidis, chairman and CEO of Liposome Technology Inc. in
Menlo Park, Calif.
Feldbaum reports that BIO and its member companies are
lobbying hard in Washington to have such controls removed or
at least ameliorated before the final version of the health
plan is hammered out.
`Tougher Questions'
In the meantime, whether biotechs will be able to raise the
money they need over the coming year will depend to an ever-
increasing extent on their ability to offer solid proof that
their technology's promise can--and will soon--become
reality, analysts say.
"Investors are asking tougher questions about timeliness and
milestones and expectations," observes Michael Hildreth, a
partner in Ernst & Young's life science practice.
Michael Celano, Arthur Andersen & Co.'s partner in charge of
the Philadelphia office of life sciences, agrees, and
predicts that in order to complete an initial public
offering in 1994, a company will need to have solid,
preferably later-stage clinical trial results in hand, as
well as validation from a larger drug company in the form of
financial support or scientific collaborations.
"The less substantive, `touch-and-feel' type of facts that a
company can present, the harder a time it is going to have
getting financing," Hildreth concurs.
The good news coming from the financial sector, analysts
say, is that, based on a spate of offerings beginning last
fall, the public market does appear to be interested in
investing in biotech companies again. "There was some
momentum gaining toward the end of the year," says Hildreth,
who points out that through November and early December
there were five or six initial public offerings and about 10
follow-on public offerings completed by biotechnology
companies.
But the financing that is taking place is bringing in less
money for the companies than in years past. "The financing
may be becoming available, but at what price?" asks
Feldbaum. "If you look behind the deals made in late 1993; I
think you will find that the companies had to give a greater
percentage of their equity away."
"Valuations [of companies] are down significantly in a
continuing trend since 1991," concurs Hildreth. He reports
that in 1991 the average valuation of newly public
companies--a measurement based on the value of a share of
stock times the number of outstanding shares--was
approximately $105 million, a number that dropped to $85
million in 1992, and to $70-$75 million last year. "That's a
reality check," he says, reflecting a view expressed by many
biotech analysts: that stock prices were highly overinflated
in 1991 and early 1992.
Downsizings And Mergers
A market correction on Wall Street translates into real
financial pain for many companies and scientists in the
biotech sector, observers say. Feldbaum reports that the
current cash shortage is weighing heavily on the minds of
industry CEOs he talks to. "They are really trying to spread
their cash thinner," he observes. "They are being much less
aggressive about hiring, and in some cases laying people
off. Whereas in April or March [of last year] someone would
tell me that they had seven or eight lines of research
going, now they report their board of directors say they
have to concentrate on just three of those."
"I see companies downsizing," confirms Frank Martin, vice
president of science at Liposome Technology Inc. of Menlo
Park, Calif. He stresses that, with two products in phase
III clinical trials, he foresees no immediate problems for
his own company, but he knows that other companies are under
financial pressure, and he is sympathetic.
"We've had two downsizings in our history, and it's
unpleasant," Martin says. "The most damaging thing for the
scientists is how it can impact the mood in the company." He
recalls a point at which Liposome Technology stock dipped to
$2 per share; the scientists were depressed and unmotivated,
and the mood was reflected even in the fact that the company
parking lot emptied out early.
Now, as Liposome gets closer to having a marketable product,
he says, the scientists' morale is up: "It creates a
momentum you can ride," he observes. But he also is aware
that, as is true of any young company trying to develop new
technology, there are undoubtedly more trials somewhere in
his firm's future.
"Scientists aren't stupid, and anyone can read a balance
sheet. If your company is burning cash at a high rate and it
doesn't have a lot of cash on hand, something is going to
happen," he says.
"You also need to keep in mind that these are small
companies. Visitors are highly visible, so scientists know
when you are trying to sell off parts of a company or
technology." Martin declines to name specific companies
that are feeling the pinch financially, but says it is going
on all around him. "I think there is no question that there
is going to be a shakeout in the industry," he says.
A "shakeout," or industry-wide consolidation through
mergers, acquisitions, and company failures, has been
predicted by biotech analysts for the past few years. The
expectation results from the fact that there are some 1,200
biotech companies and estimates on the cost of developing a
single biotech drug range from $125 million to $400 million.
"There isn't anywhere near enough financing to see all of
these companies through to successful delivery of products
to the marketplace," says Hildreth.
"1994 will be the year of the merger," Celano says, a
prediction he expects may bring setbacks for individual
products and companies but may result in a positive move for
the industry as a whole. "In two or three years," he says,
"there will probably be the same number of public companies,
but about two times the number of employees in the
industry."
And while scientists employed in the biotech industry may
welcome his long-term prediction, there is certainly a
feeling of uneasiness about the interim, "shakeout" phase,
observers say.
"A merger or acquisition is perhaps even worse than running
out of money," says Martin, whose company, Liposome, spent
six months putting together a merger deal that eventually
fell through. He uses the words "disaster" and "nightmare"
to describe the process.
"If your company goes under, it's like bleeding to death;
you can see the end coming," Martin says. "But a merger or
acquisition is sudden and rife with unknowns." The biggest
of these, he says, is the fear of losing one's job or having
to relocate.
New Strategies
But some industry watchers note that biotech firms are
developing new financing and business strategies that may
ameliorate these concerns at the lab bench.
One such trend, observed over the past two years, is that
biotech executives are becoming increasingly creative when
it comes to devising new ways to finance their operations.
Another factor that has kept many of the companies from
merging thus far is that they are working with a new
business model, one that calls for virtual, rather then
vertical, integration. Rather than try to develop a large,
self-sufficient corporation that does everything from
discovery through manufacturing, sales, and marketing,
companies are increasingly content to aim for being highly
specialized, niche players.
"They are looking at what they do best and trying to
leverage those strengths," Hildreth says. As an example, he
points to a group of companies that are developing gene-
sequencing technologies. "Only one-fourth of these companies
has an expressed objective of being a fully integrated
corporation," he says. "The other three are envisioning a
business that licenses their knowledge to drug companies
that will develop the products for commercial sale. This is
a much different business model that reduces capital need
and probably gives those companies a longer horizon for
survival."
Equally interesting for scientists at these firms, perhaps,
is Hildreth's prediction that "smaller companies focused on
a particular skill will be better able to replicate an
academic environment, one which a lot of company founders
and key scientists are familiar with and in which science
moves along more quickly."
But for the science to move at all, there needs to be cash,
and that is the most immediate concern expressed by CEOs and
bench scientists alike. "Our bench scientists are coming up
with additional antibodies that are as promising, if not
more so, than our lead compound, but we don't have the money
to follow up on them," says Herbert Loveless, vice president
for clinical development at Houston-based Tanox Biosystems.
"We may have good preclinical and phase I data [on a
compound], but we can't pursue these projects into the
clinic. The lack of capital is creating a dam, and it's very
frustrating."
Susan L-J Dickinson is a freelance writer based in
Philadelphia.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : National AIDS Task Force Expected To Accelerate Drug
Development
Bench scientists will play a major role in an ambitious
effort to streamline the campaign against HIV
AU : FRANKLIN HOKE
TY : NEWS
PG : 1
The soon-to-be-appointed National Task Force on AIDS Drug
Development may have a strong, positive impact on the
research and development of antiviral therapies to counter
HIV infection, say industry and academic scientists,
government officials organizing the task force, and members
of the AIDS-affected community. Key to the task force's
effectiveness, however, will be the personnel selected by
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala,
probably in early February, to serve on it, these sources
say.
"People's views run the gamut from cynical to optimistic,"
says activist Derek Hodel with the AIDS Action Council in
Washington, D.C. "Those of us who are optimistic hope that
the task force will be effective at its charter in
identifying barriers to research and to drug development, of
which there are many. If it's well-appointed and well-
staffed, it's quite likely that it could have a major
impact."
If the task force is able to begin dismantling these
development barriers, laboratory scientists pursuing AIDS
therapies and vaccines--in industry and academia--may find
themselves part of a more coordinated approach, overall, to
conquering the disease, sources say. This new approach may
include better access to screening and trial information,
more standardization of data from those sources, and
improved laboratory services from the government.
The formation of the 15-member task force was announced at a
November 30 news conference by Shalala, with HHS assistant
secretary of health Philip R. Lee named as head.
Underscoring the importance placed on the new group, Shalala
was accompanied at the announcement by Harold Varmus,
National Institutes of Health director; David Kessler, Food
and Drug Administration commissioner; Anthony Fauci,
director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases; P. Roy Vagelos, chairman and chief executive
officer of Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehorse Station, N.J.;
Moises Agosto, National Minority AIDS Council; and White
House AIDS policy coordinator Kristine Gebbie.
A 30-day period of public nominations followed in which
about 200 individuals were suggested for membership on the
panel. During January, an internal planning group of about
30 representatives from various government groups
responsible for combating AIDS worked to select a task force
with balanced representation from the constituent groups:
industry, academia, government, and AIDS patient advocates.
The planning group's suggestions were to be forwarded to
Shalala for her approval early this month.
The task force's specific goals will be defined by the group
itself at initial meetings, expected in March. But, broadly,
the group's charter is clear.
"They're being asked to look at the entire spectrum of AIDS
drug development, everything from product screening through
clinical trial issues, and even regulatory issues," says
Randolph F. Wykoff, associate commissioner for AIDS and
special health issues at FDA. Wykoff's office has been
responsible for coordinating the nominations and staffing
process.
"They're going to be asked a fairly simple question," Wykoff
adds. "Are there any roadblocks that currently exist that
are prohibiting or delaying the rapid development of drugs
for HIV and HIV-related disease? Or, are there creative new
alternatives that should be tried, given that we're now 12
years into it and don't have curative agents?"
Many in the AIDS-affected community are supportive of the
new task force in concept, but are reserving judgment until
the panel is named and begins work, according to Greg
Gonsalves, a member of Treatment Action Group (TAG), an AIDS
activist organization in New York. Gonsalves is a coauthor
of the report, AIDS Research at the NIH: A Critical Review
(Amsterdam, the Netherlands, TAG, 1992), that found the AIDS
research effort at NIH to be uncoordinated and lacking in
leadership. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and others cited
the report's analysis in moving to strengthen the Office of
AIDS Research at NIH under the NIH Revitalization Act of
1993.
"Everything is not expedited in AIDS research," says
Gonsalves. "Maybe this committee can help speed things up
and improve some weaknesses in the clinical development
effort. But we're waiting to see who's going to be on it,
because that's going to drive the task force."
The Task At Hand
At the news conference, Shalala noted that government
funding for AIDS research continues to climb, with NIH, for
example, receiving $1.3 billion this year for research on
AIDS, a 21 percent increase over last year's figure. And
only a few days after Shalala's announcement, the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association in Washington,
D.C., released a survey of its members show- ing more than
100 AIDS-related drugs in development; other estimates
suggest as many as 500 such drugs may be in testing in
industry.
"But the sad fact remains that not a single New Drug
Application for an antiretroviral drug is currently before
the FDA," Shalala said. An antiretroviral drug, in this
context, would be one that successfully attacks HIV.
There are only three antiviral drugs on the market today to
fight HIV infection: AZT from Burroughs Wellcome Co.,
Research Triangle Park, N.C.; ddI from Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co., New York; and ddC from Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Nutley,
N.J. Each of the three is limited in its effectiveness,
partly because of HIV's ability to quickly mutate and
acquire drug resistance.
"Unfortunately, none of the drugs we have today are
curative," Lee said at the conference.
Since the news conference, on January 5, Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. announced that it had filed a New Drug
Application for an antiviral, anti-AIDS compound called d4T,
although it, too, is not a curative therapy.
"The three drugs currently approved are all nucleoside
antiretrovirals, in that they go after reverse
transcriptase, which is the enzyme the virus needs to grow,"
says Susan Yarin, a company spokeswoman. "d4T is also among
that class of drugs."
The effort being expended nationally and internationally to
find a cure for AIDS is enormous, scientists and government
officials agree. If the task force can raise the level of
information sharing among those involved in AIDS drug
discovery and development, AIDS investigators say, it will
serve an important purpose.
"Certainly, to facilitate communication among investigators
as well as among drug companies would be a big help," says
Flossie Wong-Staal, Florence Riford Professor in AIDS
Research at the University of California, San Diego. "At the
same time, if the FDA can simplify the regulatory process,
that would make it easier for a potential therapy to reach
the clinic."
Wong-Staal, whose laboratory is working to develop both
therapies and vaccines for HIV infection, adds: "Drug
discovery is a challenge, but translating a discovery to the
clinic is an even greater challenge."
An Industry Model
At Shalala's November 30 news conference, only one person
was named to the task force: the man who will head the
group, Philip Lee. But most observers will be surprised if
Edward Scolnick, the president of Merck & Co.'s Merck Sharp
& Dohme Research Laboratories, is not also selected.
Scolnick spearheaded an unprecedented cooperative effort
among 15 of the largest pharmaceutical companies that is, at
least partly, the model for the national task force.
Scolnick currently heads the group, formed last April and
called the Inter-Company Collaboration for AIDS Drug
Development.
Under the terms of the collaboration, company scientists
have met to share information on compounds under
development, at least through the early human effectiveness
phases of investigation. Companies are also sharing drug
supplies and discussing ways they might standardize the
testing of isolates and compounds, so that data can more
easily be compared.
The national task force may be able to offer similar kinds
of help to AIDS researchers, says FDA's Wykoff.
"I don't want to sound like I know where the task force is
going, because I don't," Wykoff says. "But there might be a
way that a researcher in the field can find out everything
that's been done with a given product through a variety of
screens. There might also be some sort of standardization
process, where every potential candidate [drug] would go
through a pattern of four or five different screens. Perhaps
folks in the field would be able to send in samples to the
government for that screening. The idea is that there could
be a greater reservoir of information available to the
researchers and a greater amount of government service
available to them."
One hopeful area of cooperation for the industry
collaboration centers on combination therapies, that is,
using simultaneously administered batteries of drugs under
development--presumably at different companies--to
circumvent HIV's adap- tive capabilities. The industry task
force effort, as a whole, is expected to streamline AIDS
drug development and lessen redundant efforts.
"If you have all the scientists in one room who are involved
with the different compounds," says Gail Levinson, a
spokeswoman for Hoffmann-La Roche, "it can have an impact on
whether you continue to develop [a given compound], develop
it in conjunction with another compound, or, perhaps, make a
decision to terminate it completely."
At least one Inter-Company Collaboration member has recently
decided to leave AIDS drug discovery research to others in
the future. Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Co. announced
last month that, while it would continue research in some
AIDS syndrome areas, such as the bacterial and fungal
infections that afflict people with AIDS, it would no longer
pursue new AIDS antivirals.
Lilly currently has one promising antiviral compound,
LY300046, that it hopes to continue developing with the help
of a collaborator, according to spokesman Fritz Frommeyer.
Partly for this reason, the firm intends to remain part of
the industry collaboration group for the foreseeable future.
Following its meetings, the industry group has met with
members of the AIDS-affected community to share information
with them, as well, according to Jennifer Mc-Millan, a
spokeswoman for Glaxo Inc., Research Triangle Park, N.C.
The national task force, while including industry
representatives, is not expected to duplicate the efforts of
the Inter-Company Collaboration.
"Industry, by itself, has somewhat different priorities than
the whole task force will have," says David Barry, senior
vice president of research, development, and medical affairs
at Burroughs Wellcome Co. "The industry task force is
extremely focused on drugs that have gone through Phase II
and the issues surrounding combination drug therapy trials.
The national task force, which will have government people
and activists, as well as industrial people, will be looking
at a broader range of issues, including drugs to treat
opportunistic infections, regulatory hurdles, preclinical
requirements, and the like."
Data concerning new drug development are often among the
most closely guarded information at pharmaceutical
companies. While there are no plans to share results at the
discovery research level, the fact that the companies have
agreed to share valuable screening and development data is a
reflection, perhaps, of the frustration level among AIDS
researchers.
"We entered AIDS research in 1986," says John Doorley, a
spokesman for Merck. "We're the world's largest drug
company, and this is the largest discovery research project
we have ever had.
"Last year, we spent $1.2 billion on research, and AIDS was
our biggest research project. And, like the rest of the
world, we have failed repeatedly."
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : THE MINORITY VIEW
AU : FRANKLIN HOKE
TY : NEWS
PG : 7
At least one researcher does not believe that the new
National Task Force on AIDS Drug Development will be able to
speed the development of cures for the disease. And he does
not believe that it will be bureaucratic sloth that
confounds the task force. Nor will it be because HIV, the
virus thought to be responsible for AIDS, changes and
mutates beyond the reach of scientists, he predicts.
The task force will fail, says Peter Duesberg, a professor
of molecular and cell biology at the University of
California, Berkeley, because HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
"Would it help to pour in ten more billions of dollars to
send a man to the moon if there is no moon?" asks Duesberg.
"Money and the task force and more input help if you know
the enemy. But--if you ask me--we have not identified the
cause of AIDS, and you can't get good public health on the
basis of bad science."
Very few other investigators agree with Duesberg's notion
that the scientific world has come too soon to consensus on
the hypothesis that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Even fewer
accept his alternative explanation for AIDS, that
recreational drug use is responsible. But Duesberg insists
that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS, because it is not
present in a high enough proportion of the T cells of people
with AIDS to account for the disease. "A virus that doesn't
infect more than one in a thousand T cells can hardly be
responsible for the loss of those cells," he says. "Viruses
are obligatory intracellular parasites. They can't work from
a distance. They can't sit on a couch and send a message to
a distant cell: `Please die.' A virus is a piece of
chemistry that can only kill or affect a cell by entering
it. If it's not in the cell, nothing's going to happen. Now,
there are not enough HIV viruses around [in the body] to
explain AIDS....So, HIV is a totally inadequate explanation
for one of the hallmarks of AIDS, which is
immunodeficiency."
Duesberg says he has paid dearly for his out-of-the-
mainstream views on AIDS. It is his opinion that the lack of
peer approval for his ideas cost him his National Institutes
of Health funding. He also feels that his experimental
science has been effectively stifled as a result, because he
cannot adequately support a laboratory and students
financially.
"I've sacrificed my whole damned career for this thing now,"
he says, "and I still think I'm trying to contribute
something to--not hurt--American science."
The reason AIDS researchers everywhere have been frustrated
over 12 years of intense efforts, Duesberg says, is that the
hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS is simply wrong.
"No matter how hard you hit the virus," Duesberg says, "if
it is not responsible for AIDS, no matter how big and how
smart the task force, you won't get anywhere."
--F.H.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Observers Laud Research Council Report On Scheme To
Restructure Science At U.S. Interior Department
AU : KAREN YOUNG KREEGER
TY : NEWS
PG : 1
Environmental scientists are joining with Secretary of the
Interior Bruce Babbitt in hailing a National Research
Council (NRC) report that contains guidance on how to
structure a new Department of the Interior (DOI) agency. The
researchers say that suggestions outlined in the report
provide a solid base for designing the direction the agency
should take. The new agency, the National Biological Survey
(NBS), composed of personnel formerly from seven existing
DOI agencies, is the first federal agency devoted solely to
inventorying and monitoring United States biological
resources.
However, it remains to be seen whether the report and
operations at NBS in the next year will completely allay the
concerns of critics. Before A Biological Survey for the
Nation, the independent report by NRC's Committee on the
Formation of the National Biological Survey, came out in
late September, they questioned the wisdom of creating the
survey (R. Kaufman, The Scientist, Sept. 20, 1993, page 3),
saying it would not be an improvement over existing schemes.
The critics were primarily concerned that the reorganization
would cause inefficiency and weakening of operations at the
newly created NBS and existing DOI agencies, a decoupling of
basic information from resource managers, and a possible de-
emphasis on state and regional issues in favor of a more
national agenda.
At least one observer, Arnett C. Mace, Jr., dean of the
Daniel B. Warnell School of Forest Resources at the
University of Georgia in Athens, says he finds the NRC
report favorable overall, yet will maintain a wait-and-see
attitude about how operations at NBS will sort out the
sometimes different research priorities at local and
national levels. "Overall, I'm satisfied with the report,
but...it is certainly premature at this time to determine
what the total impact of the NBS is going to be on state,
regional, and national objectives," says Mace. He says that
the report has addressed his concerns, but "the question is,
will those [suggestions] be implemented" by the NBS staff.
On the other hand, Babbitt, in the preface to the NRC
report, compared the importance of the creation of NBS to
that of the U.S. Geological Survey: "Just as the U.S.
Geological Survey gave us an understanding of America's
geography in 1879, the National Biological Survey will
unlock information about how we protect ecosystems and plan
for the future."
In February 1993, Babbitt turned to NRC, an arm of the
National Academy of Sciences, to prepare the report, which
suggests a path for NBS to follow in gathering and
communicating the scientific information needed to
effectively manage U.S. biological resources.
Many NBS staffers feel that the NRC report, which was
published after NBS became a functioning federal bureau, is
fully consistent with their goals and objectives. "It's an
easy one for us to deal with and implement because we're
very much in agreement with the major findings," says F.
Eugene Hester, deputy director of NBS and former chief of
research for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
The NRC report, which addressed the broader scope and
direction of NBS, not its day-to-day ac- tivities, contains
the following suggestions for the biological survey:
* Creating the National Partnership for Biological Survey--a
consortium of federal, state, and local agencies; museums;
academic institu- tions; and private organizations to share
and provide information for decision-makers and users.
* Creating the National Biotic Resources Information System,
a database of reliable biological information.
* Structuring a research agenda that is broader than
currently exists and that focuses on immediate and long-term
needs of NBS data users.
* Guiding the development of NBS by a single strategic
implementation plan, under the leadership of DOI.
Victoria Tschinkel, a senior consultant for environmental
affairs at the environmental law firm Landers and Parsons in
Tallahassee, Fla., and a report author, explains that much
attention was paid to integrating the needs of resource
managers at all levels when the concepts laid out in the
report were developed.
"To be useful, the NBS, even though it has the word
`national' in its name, has to be extremely responsive to
the needs of [state and local] people making decisions
[about land- and water-based resources]," says Tschinkel.
Although the report does not specifically address the
concerns of some critics that the reorganization will cause
inefficiency and disruption in routine operations within
DOI, report authors and independent observers agree that
there are many benefits in having a coordinated survey under
one roof. The "value of the survey is that it provides
information for us as a country and certainly to federal
agencies to make decisions that anticipate issues and
problems, rather than trying to react to problems once they
occur," says Paul Risser, president of Miami University in
Oxford, Ohio, and another report author. He cautions that
DOI should also "retain efficient expertise in each of the
departments" from which NBS staff members have been drawn.
As stated in DOI's justification to Congress to approve
funds for NBS in 1994, the mission of NBS is "to gather,
analyze, and disseminate the information necessary for the
wise stewardship of our Nation's natural resources, and to
foster an understanding of our biological systems and the
benefits they provide to society." The proposed partnership
and the information system will be set up to accomplish
this.
Hester describes the tasks ahead for NBS as addressing five
interrelated questions that the report also mentions: who
has which data, what format are the data in, how accessible
are the data, how can the data be aggregated (such as in a
geographical information system), and what are the research
gaps.
Hester responds to criticism that the reorganization will
cause inefficiency by noting the partnership concept
suggested in the NRC report: "One of the advantages of
having inherited resources from the [DOI] bureaus is that
these bureaus have different strategies" for collecting
information about biological resources and that NBS can
"look across that and pick [strategies] from several bureaus
that work well."
According to other NBS staffers, they have already
incorporated some of the concepts in the NRC report into
their strategic plan, such as the partnership. Overall, they
view the NRC report as a blueprint for how to make NBS a
clearinghouse of information for decision-makers.
Suzanne Mayer, acting assistant director for research at
NBS, a wildlife management expert, and past deputy regional
director at FWS, says that NBS will facilitate the bringing
together of information from disparate sources: "In some
cases, there are areas of the country where research has
been going on by all different sorts of entities . . . and
it's all scattered and dispersed."
NBS And Environmental Science
Even though NBS is working with an almost 15 percent
increase in its budget for 1994--$163 million, compared with
$141 million reappropriated from existing DOI agencies in
1993--a comparable increase in hiring is not expected to
follow in the near future. However, no jobs have been lost
in DOI as a result of the reorganization. Mayer adds that
"had the research programs remained in the separate bureaus
there probably would not have been [separate] comparable
increases." She also does not foresee NBS as ever being a
big contract-awarding agency like the National Science
Foundation. However, in the future, when research gaps have
been identified, NBS staffers agree that there will probably
be collaborative contracts.
Michael Ruggiero, acting chief of the inventory and
monitoring divisions of NBS, thinks that the creation of the
agency will encourage a greater recognition of contributions
by the inventory and monitoring area of biological sciences.
For example, he says, groups with large datasets--museums
with taxonomic databases, for example--that do not now have
a clear outlet to disseminate their work to potential users
could contribute to their field and others by lending their
data to the database NBS will create. He also hopes NBS will
develop into an agency that produces credible standards for
inventorying and monitoring biological resources, much as
the Environmental Protection Agency has done with water- and
air-quality standards.
Jane Lubchenco, a marine ecologist with the department of
zoology at Oregon State University in Corvallis, feels that
the move to create a nationwide biological database is long
overdue. Ecologists and others would "benefit tremendously
by having an accurate database that would not only inventory
what's there, but allow people to see trends and to evaluate
the status of different groups--be they species or higher
levels of taxonomic groupings or whole ecosystems," says
Lubchen-co. However, she also points to the challenging task
of making sure that the science that bolsters management
decisions stays in close contact with decision-makers.
Mayer explains that "some synergism [in information sharing]
will occur because of the consolidation: There is research
that takes place on national parks, Bureau of Land
Management lands, and FWS refuge lands that are applicable
to all three [agencies], but may be only going on one." This
information can be shared, she says, and NBS is seen as the
facilitating agency to make this happen. Although this does
occur now, the technical capabilities NBS will develop will
make information sharing easier and more accessible, and, as
Mayer puts it, "we will get a bigger bang for the buck."
NBS has a full plate for 1994. In addition to dealing with
the administrative details a massive bureaucratic
reorganization entails and incorporating the NRC report's
recommendations into a strategic plan, the NBS staff is
currently involved in identifying likely customers and
gauging workable boundaries for their diverse information
needs.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Environment And Biotechnology To Be Big Draws At ACS
AU : NEERAJA SANKARAN
TY : NEWS
PG : 3
Fuel, silk, sunscreens, clean air, law, and the job market
are just a smattering of the wide variety of topics on the
agenda at the 207th meeting of the American Chemical Society
(ACS). The national spring meeting, scheduled to run from
March 13 to 17 in San Diego, will offer its 11,000-plus
attendees more than 5,700 papers over 625 technical sessions
sponsored by various divisions of the society.
"Some of the `hot button' items have to do with
environmental issues," says ACS president Ned Heindel, a
professor of pharmaceutical chemistry at Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, Pa. "One symposium titled `Benign by Design' has
to do with retooling industrial processes chemically, so as
to make the byproducts less polluting and more `green.'
"There will also be a session on oxygenates--gasoline
additives [added to reduce lead] that have come under a lot
of fire lately because of their believed health hazards."
Scheduled at the conference is a presentation dealing with
the health implications of oxygenates and a discussion of
some recent data from the Environmental Protection Agency
that report insufficient evidence to support claims of any
health risk.
Given the uncertain climate surrounding the job market for
chemists (B. Spector, The Scientist, Nov. 15, 1993, page 1),
professional development and employment will receive a lot
of attention this year. "There is a bevy of activities for
chemists searching for jobs," says Heindel. "The job market
is quite obviously sour now, but I see very little
difficulty in placing people with environmental and
analytical backgrounds and people in process research.
"There is an increased amount of temporary and contract
employment, particularly by the larger companies like Merck
and Kodak," says Heindel, referring to Rahway, N.J.-based
Merck & Co. Inc., and Eastman Kodak Co. of Rochester N.Y.,
which were major employers of chemists in the past. "One
bright spot in the employment scene are the start-up
companies," he adds. "We at ACS are trying to identify the
high-tech firms with less than 30 employees and make them
aware of the employment services we have to offer." The
employment services include a clearinghouse of names of
professional chemists and a job database for ACS members.
Another subject to receive extensive coverage at the 1994
conference is biotechnology, the focus of about 175 papers
in 28 different symposia sponsored by the biotechnology
secretariat. An ACS secretariat is a group of symposia
encompassing talks from several different divisions that
pertain to some common thematic material. Polymer chemistry,
the law, biosensors, and the environment are just a sample
of the topics that will be covered in the symposia of the
biotechnology secretariat.
"The theme is the industrial applications of biotechnology,"
says Charles G. Gebelein, one of the chairmen of the
biotechnology secretariat this year and an adjunct professor
at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton.
"Based on past performances, I expect that the session on
legal aspects will be a big one," predicts Gebelein, who
also holds an emeritus professorship at Youngstown State
University in Ohio.
Patrick Turley, cochairman and moderator for the symposium
titled "Legal and Regulatory Issues in Biotechnology,"
explains that the popularity of this session is due to the
growth of the biotechnology industry.
"With so many cutbacks, people are increasingly looking to
their intellectual property as a primary source of funding.
They are thus interested in issues such as patents, for
example," says Turley, a patent attorney with the Houston-
based law firm of Baker and Botts. "Also, biotechnology has
moved from the realm of basic research into that of actual
products, which raises interest in FDA licensing," another
topic to be covered in the day-long session (see story on
page 8).
"Personally, I would like to see more people at the sessions
on biotechnological polymers," says Gebelein, whose area of
expertise is polymer chemistry. "There is a tremendous
amount of good information about the uses of proteins from
rather unusual sources--spider silks, for example. Another
intriguing one is melanin, whose polymers are being used in
sunscreening agents to protect against the sun's radiation."
One of the presentations at this session will be by Joseph
Cappello, director of polymer research at Protein Polymer
Technologies Inc., a biotechnology company in San Diego.
Cappello will be talking about the potential uses of a
synthetic polymer being developed by his company that
contains blocks of commercial silk in its structure. "Silk
is a very robust protein, and the addition of these blocks
gives our protein high strength and the ability to withstand
very high temperatures of 180 to 200 degrees [Celsius]," he
explains.
He anticipates that the synthetic polymers will have
applications in surgical repair, particularly in cases of
abdominal and gynecological surgery. Ideally, surgical
material would prevent tissues from sticking to one another
during the healing process, but disappear eventually.
Currently used materials do not disappear and can thus cause
other complications in the body. "We are trying to produce a
resorbable material that will last for a predetermined time
in the body," says Cappello.
The symposium on industrially important biotechnological
polymers is scheduled to run over two days, Tuesday, March
15 and Wednesday, March 16. Complete details on all the
technical sessions, expositions, and workshops are published
in the February 7 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Policy Aspects Of Science Dominate 1994 AAAS Meeting
AU : FRANKLIN HOKE
TY : NEWS
PG : 4
"Science and a Changing World" is the theme of the 1994
annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), to be held February 18-23 in
San Francisco. The choice of theme extends a trend
established in recent years of focusing prominent symposia
on the social and political contexts in which scientists
work. Career development meetings are also scheduled, and
ongoing efforts to reform science education will be
reviewed.
Sessions discussing advances in traditional science areas
will be offered, including seminars on mapping and modeling
the brain, evolution and extinction, and the extracellular
regulation of cell behavior. About 5,000 scientists are
expected to attend 130 sessions with nearly 800 speakers at
the San Francisco Hilton and Towers at this year's AAAS
meeting, the 160th such gathering.
"We came to the theme--science in a changing world--because
of the readjustments that we as a nation are going through
now," says Eloise E. Clark, program chairwoman for the
meeting and vice president for academic affairs at Bowling
Green State University in Ohio. Among these readjustments,
she says, are national policy changes in science support and
financial problems confronting the universities, which
represent much of the foundational support for science.
As a reflection of the meeting's emphasis on science policy,
Clark says, the keynote address will be given by John
Gibbons, presidential science adviser and director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. Gibbons's address
is entitled "Science, Technology, and the Clinton
Administration." Also, Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.),
chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, may speak at the meeting, according to Clark.
Chang-Lin Tien, cochairman of the program committee and
chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley,
concurs that changes in society, domestically and
internationally, will affect the way science operates.
"With the new administration and post-Cold War adjustments,"
Tien says, "I hope this meeting will have a good exchange of
information, providing a basis for decisions in the coming
decade."
Post-Cold War changes in the world will be addressed
specifically in a symposium called "Regional and
International Security and Defense Conversion." Several
speakers will discuss the conversion of nuclear arms
laboratories to other purposes, in the former Soviet Union
as well as in the U.S.
Symposia topics that will address social questions include
"Health Care Reform and Advances in Medicine," "Industry,
Policy, and the Changing Infrastructure of Science," and
"Science, Ethics, and the Law."
Health care is, perhaps, one of the strongest examples of an
area in which social policy and science are likely to
interact dynamically, both Clark and Tien agree. Clinton
administration officials are focusing on cost-cutting and
restructuring in health care, including a stronger emphasis
on preventive measures. Several sessions at the AAAS meeting
will discuss these and related issues.
One session of the "Health Care Reform and Advances in
Medicine" symposium, for example, is entitled "Increasing
the Healthy Life Span: Advances in Health and Aging," and
will include a talk on health-status assessment and
preventive interventions. One seminar, "Eating and Health,"
will include a session on nutrition and disease prevention.
Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Harold Varmus, now director
of the National Institutes of Health, will participate in
the meeting. His presentation will be part of the seminar
"Half the Secret of Life Is Outside the Cell," a full-day
session cosponsored by the American Society for Cell Biology
and aimed at undergraduate life sciences majors and graduate
students. The seminar will focus on understanding how
extracellular cues regulate cell behavior, with emphasis on
development, the nervous system, and cancer.
An employment exchange, through which those seeking or
offering research work can register, will also be offered.
Individuals who are AAAS members may register for free,
while nonmembers will be asked to pay a $10 fee. On-site
interviews will be conducted.
In addition, a career development seminar called "Changing
Scientific Careers" organized by Catherine Didion, executive
director of the Association for Women in Science, will
include a session exploring alternative careers that may be
open to those with science degrees and research training.
Potential new career tracks will be the focus of several
talks, including "Scientists as Consultants," "Environmental
Law," and "Science, Women, and Technical Trades." Science
journalism as a job option also will be discussed.
One symposium, "Communicating Science," includes a likely-
to-be-jammed session called "The Science of Star Trek:
Bringing Science to a Different Public." The aim is to look
into how science is treated in science fiction, using the
popular television show as a example. The session will also
suggest ways that the show might be used as an informal
science learning tool.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : AT A GLANCE
1994 AAAS MEETING: SCIENCE AND A CHANGING WORLD
About 5,000 scientists are expected to attend the 1994
annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, to be held in San Francisco February
18-23.
Keynote Speaker:
* John Gibbons, Assistant to the President of the United
States for Science and Technology, and Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy: "Science,
Technology, and the Clinton Administration."
Symposia Highlights:
* "Health Care Reform and Advances in Medicine": Sessions
will focus on the discovery of AIDS therapies in an era of
health care reform, ethical issues in the testing of
preventive HIV vaccines, and information technology
supporting research, health care, and the AIDS-affected
community.
* "Industry, Policy, and the Changing Infrastructure of
Science" One session, "Building a U.S. Technology Policy,"
will target the efforts of the Clinton administration to
develop a set of policies linking technology development,
technology utilization, and U.S. economic competitiveness.
* "Science, Ethics, and the Law": Sessions will include
"Scientists and Human Rights: Activists, Victims, and
Advocates," with presentations by former dissident
scientists Yuri Orlov of the former Soviet Union and Fang
Lizhi of China.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
NOTEBOOK
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Bound For Glory
TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK)
PG : 4
Rachel Fuller Brown and Elizabeth Lee Hazen, New York State
Department of Health researchers who collaborated in the
1940s and 1950s on the world's first antibiotic against
fungal infection--nystatin, named after the department--were
posthumously inducted into the National Inventors Hall of
Fame. The pair, only the second and third women to be so
honored, will be inducted in a ceremony in Akron, Ohio, site
of the hall, on April 23. Brown and Hazen were among the
numerous scientists caught up in the post-World War II rush
to develop antibiotics after the discovery of penicillin.
They made their discovery from a bacterium found in a clump
of dirt--picked up by Hazen on a farm where she was
vacationing in Virginia--and produced a practical antibiotic
in 1954. It cured many disfiguring and disabling fungal
infections of the skin, mouth, throat, and intestinal tract,
and eventually was used in over-the-counter drugs and
veterinary preparations. Brown and Hazen donated royalties
from their invention--more than $13 million by the time the
patents ran out--to academic science.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Scientific Responsibility
TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK)
PG : 4
The Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American
Institutions at Indiana University will sponsor a conference
on the relationship between scientific misconduct and
broader issues of social responsibility on Indiana's
Bloomington campus on May 24. The goal of the conference,
entitled "Scientific (Mis)Conduct and Social
(Ir)Responsibility," is to foster discussion between
scientists and ethicists and generate interest in teaching
scientific responsibility in graduate classes, according to
Kenneth Pimple, a research associate at the Poynter Center.
The keynote address will be delivered by Rosemary Chalk, a
senior program officer at the National Academy of Sciences
and the Institute of Medicine, who has directed academy
studies on integrity in science, conflict of interest, and
health and rights issues. The conference will also include a
panel discussion on teaching research ethics; other sessions
are being planned. The conference is free, but
preregistration is required by April 15. For more
information, contact Pimple at the Poynter Center, 410 N.
Park Ave., Bloomington, Ind. 47405; (812) 855-0261. E-mail:
pimple@indiana.edu.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Bully For Herman
TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK)
PG : 4
Herman, the world's first transgenic bull, is the proud
father of eight transgenic offspring, all of whom carry, as
he does, a gene for human lactoferrin, an antibacterial
protein produced in human milk, officials for GenPharm
International Inc. announced last month. The calves were the
first births from among 55 pregnancies produced through in
vitro fertilization with Herman's semen at GenPharm's
European facilities in Leiden, the Netherlands. GenPharm
officials hope the transgenic breeding program will enable
large-scale production of lactoferrin--which provides
protection against bacterial infections of the
gastrointestinal tract--to be produced in cow's milk.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Expanded Wellcome Funding
TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK)
PG : 4
Bolstered by $400 million endowment from their London-based
sister foundation, the Wellcome Trusts, the Burroughs
Wellcome Fund of Morrisville, N.C., has announced expanded
program initiatives in biomedical research. The Career
Awards in the Biomedical Sciences provide medical faculty in
their initial years $500,000 grants to help them make the
transition to independent investigators. Deadline for
applications is October 1. The Hitchings-Elion Fellowship
Program, named after Nobel laureates George H. Hitchings and
Gertrude B. Elion, provides $135,000 for three years of
postdoctoral support in biomedical and behavioral sciences
for researchers seeking experiences in laboratories in the
United Kingdom. Applications are due March 10 and September
10. The Burroughs Wellcome Fund is also increasing support
to $150,000, from $60,000, for its three-year New
Investigator Awards in Molecular Parasitology. These awards
are for researchers at the instructor or early assistant
professor level engaged in parasitology research.
Applications are due in January of each year. For
information on all of these awards, contact the Burroughs
Wellcome Fund, Morrisville, N.C., 27560-9771; (919) 991-
5100. Fax: (919) 941-5884.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : `You Are Getting Healthy...'
TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK)
PG : 4
A University of Florida study suggests that hypnosis can
help boost the immune system. Psychoneuroimmunologist Beree
R. Darby's investigation analyzed different levels of
lymphocytes, the cells that make up the immune system. Blood
samples were taken from 22 female and six male graduate
students, both before and after self-hypnosis training. In
the training sessions, the subjects were instructed in the
biochemical details of the immune response and research
findings in immunology, as well as direct and indirect
suggestions for increased self-confidence and improved
immune response. The study found a significant difference in
the level of lymphocytes in the group taught self-hypnosis
vs. a control group.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : When More Is Less
TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK)
PG : 4
U.S. universities and colleges spent more on research and
development in 1992 than the year before, but the increase
was smaller than the average growth rate of the past decade,
according to figures from the National Science Foundation.
Total R&D expenditures reached $19 billion in 1992, up 7
percent from the year before, but only 4 percent when
adjusted for inflation. Yearly increases from 1982 to 1991
averaged 6 percent when adjusted for inflation.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Following Women's Footsteps
TY : NEWS (NOTEBOOK)
PG : 4
The Center for Research on Women has released Pathways for
Women in the Sciences: The Wellesley Report Part I, the
first phase of a study of why women choose to enter science
and what promotes or impedes their success. The study, which
focused on Wellesley College students, follows women's
science career trajectories from undergraduate through
graduate and early career years, and examines the personal
and professional factors that encourage women to persist in
science or choose other career paths. Among the report's
central findings are: Interest in pursuing science or math
is developed before college; neither undergraduates nor
alumnae favored employment for mothers of young children,
but anticipated being employed when they themselves had
children; factors such as race/ethnicity, class, and
historical cohort make a difference in women's experiences
in the sciences; and the majority of alumnae experienced
discrimination, harassment, or both in graduate school and
the workplace.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
OPINION
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Global Science Needs Better `International
Marketplaces'
AU : JESSE H. AUSUBEL
TY : OPINION
PG : 11
***
Editor's Note: Jesse H. Ausubel, director of the Program for
the Human Environment at New York's Rockefeller University,
is concerned about the challenges facing the international
science community as it moves toward the 21st century and
beyond. He expressed these concerns last month in a
Washington, D.C., address before the Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), a panel created by
the national academies of sciences and engineering and the
Institute of Medicine.
Central to Ausubel's apprehensions regarding the global
scientific community are some very serious problems facing
United States science; in his talk he cited, for example,
the soaring costs of research, the confused mission of the
country's national laboratories, uncontrolled growth of its
academic research enterprise, and the dubious track record
of its industrial research sector. Ausubel believes that
recent debates surrounding the superconducting supercollider
and space station Freedom have boldly underscored the fact
that frustrating challenges and conflicting interests do
indeed exist--and that the pursuit of remedies through
productive dialogue is a matter of consequence and urgency.
To a great extent, he noted in his talk, the problems are
byproducts of U.S. science's increasing involvement in a
much larger arena: the global research community, which he
elects to term "Science International." If America now
suffers these problems, Ausubel believes, so, in one way or
another, do all other nations. And progress toward
resolution, he contends, can be achieved only through the
establishment of dynamic, effective international
organizations--both governmental and nongovernmental--that
are chartered to address them within a global context.
The following essay is drawn from his talk before the
committee.
***
Science has lived until now with ad hoc arrangements for
international dealings in each of its fields. The time has
come to create better meeting places for all concerned--
marketplaces, in a sense--in which potential participants in
international scientific cooperation can gather, trade
information, and, should they so choose, do business. We do
not need to create bureaucracies to create science
internationally, but as the volume of global transactions in
science increases, we need frameworks that allow us to
conduct our affairs reliably and efficiently.
In referring to the global science community, I choose to
use the term "Science International." This phrase, which
happens also to be the name of the newsletter of the
International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), sounds
stronger than the more common reference, "international
science." And--perhaps because it echoes the term "Socialist
International"--it even sounds somewhat conspiratorial. It
should: Science, worldwide, is a single cognitive formation,
and always has been.
Of course, over time, the locations of its clubhouses have
changed. At one time, the largest were in Athens and
Alexandria; at another in London and Leiden. Now they are in
such places as La Jolla and Geneva. That Science
International has historically functioned as a cognitive
unity is graphically displayed in the systematic discovery
of the elements of the periodic table, a process that began
in the 18th century: Chemists searching from Uppsala to
Edinburgh, from Transylvania to Castile, and in the New
World functioned as one coherent, multinational entity.
So, scientists are dual citizens--of their own countries and
also of what sociologist Michael Polanyi more than 30 years
ago termed "the Republic of Science." My concern here is
with the role that United States scientific institutions
should be playing in this planetary republic. The health of
Science International is always worth examining; and it is
natural to explore those factors that are impairing the
health of its wealthiest, largest, and most capable
subsidiary.
Danger Signals
I believe three factors dominate:
* Cost. In some fields (particle physics and astronomy are
clear examples), research results are costing much more to
obtain than ever before. Derek de Solla Price--the late,
great, and usually prescient historian of science--
conjectured in 1963 that scientific results grow as the cube
root of the expense of research and that costs of science
would increase as the square of the number of scientists. If
true, this is discouraging. However, science is a service
industry, and let us hope that information technology will
reduce the cost of our business, as it promises to do in
other service industry sectors. If not, we have deep reasons
for concern.
* Conjunctural crisis. We are living through one of the
periods of simultaneous economic, political, and
technological fluctuation that profoundly restructure the
world every 50 years or so. If the society shivers, science
feels it. World War II and the Cold War drew or refigured a
set of institutions that have been important for science. In
the U.S., they included the Atomic Energy Commission, the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National
Science Foundation. Internationally, they included the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, and the International Atomic
Energy Agency. These organizations generated tens of
billions of dollars for science and successfully justified
the expenditures in the political system. As the missions of
all these organizations come into question, science looks
for new patrons, partners, and goals.
* Overcapacity of the U.S. scientific infrastructure.
Although it is unpopular to say it--especially in the halls
of the National Academy of Sciences--I believe we now suffer
from overcapacity in the nation's R&D establishment. I refer
to the three major performers of research--government,
industry, and academia.
In government, the most easily recognizable excess is
associated with the $20 billion set of national
laboratories. It is hard for anyone to argue that those labs
are now responding to felt needs or opportunities.
Meanwhile, although industry is frequently criticized for
underinvestment in R&D, one cannot overlook, for example,
the mismatch now apparent in the pharmaceutical industry.
The 10 or so of this sector's largest firms support enormous
in-house R&D efforts; those giant firms are producing few
new products or insights of significance while, fortunately,
some 1,400 U.S. biotech firms are bubbling with ideas.
As for America's universities, their population and research
activities have expanded to the point at which they now are
financially dependent for survival on the export of services
and the import of talent. If other nations truly begin to
compete in advanced research and graduate education, U.S.
universities may experience in the next 50 years some of the
pains stemming from the imprudent growth and uneven product
quality that our steel and auto industries have suffered in
the past 50.
Addressing Needs
Given the pressures of rising costs, conjunctural change,
and overcapacity, it is appropriate that Americans examine
the framework that supports Science International. We must
explore the implications of these factors for individual
disciplines, programs, and projects; strategies for
individual institutions; and the restructuring of national
scientific enterprises.
In this context, I suggest that there are two paramount,
long-term needs that NAS can play a major role in
addressing. On one hand, there is the need for
nongovernmental organizations that are able to convene
scientists from around the globe as individual experts and
also in professional groupings, generally established
according to scientific discipline. On the other hand, there
is the need for a mechanism to bring together the
individuals within national governments who control the bulk
of the resources for science.
Nongovernmental Infrastructure
An appropriate point of departure for considering the
international nongovernmental structure in science is the
Paris-based International Council of Scientific Unions.
ICSU, established in 1931, is an organization of
organizations. It includes 23 international scientific
unions, which are largely disciplinary, and 92 national
bodies, which are academies of sciences and like
organizations. ICSU also operates some 20 interdisciplinary
bodies in fields such as water and ocean research.
ICSU shows promise of progressing as an effective mechanism
for convening and networking the international scientific
community. In principle, ICSU connects hundreds of thousands
of scientists worldwide; in practice, few scientists know of
ICSU itself, although many know particular adhering
organizations. At the same time, familiarity with ICSU is
growing among its principal partners, national governments,
and international organizations. The main reason is ICSU's
contributions to the development of global research programs
in the field of environment.
ICSU must continue to demonstrate its utility. The best way
is to expand its role in both assisting the formation of
policies and plans for scientific research and education
within the scientific community itself and in providing
scientific information and advice to governments and
industry for policy-making.
A useful proposal is for ICSU to carry out a comprehensive,
globally consistent study on human resource flows in science
and engineering. Such a study requires participation by the
science and engineering communities in all countries; it
must address the professional interests of the participants;
and it must serve governments, industry, and
intergovernmental organizations. If ICSU is to grow into the
international counterpart of the National Research Council,
it will be through testing itself on such substantial
questions of science and technology policy as international
flows of talent.
Even as ICSU grows--particularly as ICSU grows--a serious
evaluation of that organization is needed. ICSU has not
matched its accomplishments in environment in other fields--
for example, genetics and high-energy physics. It also has
weak links in engineering, medicine, and the social
sciences.
A 12-member executive board with elected officers now
governs ICSU. The nature of the roles and commitment of its
elected officers, potentially key spokespersons for the
international scientific community, must be reconsidered.
The positions of president and secretary- general of ICSU
should probably become full-time, compensated positions, and
the other officers should probably become part-time
compensated positions. Consideration must also be given to
enlarging the organization's small, permanent secretariat
(now only seven persons) and, perhaps, to changing and
decentralizing it.
ICSU must also reinforce relationships with nongovernmental
scientific organizations that are, or can be, strong in
geographic regions or other meaningful subsets of the world
community. These include the Third World Academy of
Sciences, the African Academy of Sciences, and the
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, as
well as Academia Europaea and other nongovernmental
scientific organizations emerging on the European level.
Science International also must be able to reach out to
organizations that are effective in concentrating global
talent in engineering and technology. (The rapidly growing
Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences [CAETS], which assembles national academies of
engineering and like organizations, shows great promise in
this regard.) More broadly, the bridges between
international science and international industry need to be
enhanced. Industrial organizations share concerns with the
scientific community ranging from mathematics, science, and
engineering education at all levels, through environmental
quality, to such matters as the disposition of
pharmaceutical products that are critically needed in
developing countries but for which market demand may not
support a supplier's cost of development and distribution.
Former NAS foreign secretary Walter Rosenblith raised many
of these issues in a pair of ICSU conferences on
"International Science and Its Partners" held at Ringberg,
Germany, in 1985, and in Visegrad, Hungary, in 1990.
Momentum for further analysis and action needs to be
regained.
Now is the time to consider, comprehensively, the hierarchy,
or perhaps network, of effective organ- izations, including
national associations for the advancement of science,
national academies of sciences, regional institutions, and
global organizations that are ultimately required for
effectiveness at the global level. I am unaware of any well-
drawn visions of the nongovernmental side of Science
International. The Carnegie Commission on Science,
Technology, and Government made a few rough sketches, as has
NAS from time to time. The American scientific community,
singly and in cooperation with its counterparts, should try
depicting some visions more fully and identify the steps
needed over the next 10 to 20 years to achieve them.
The exercise will involve abstract debate about models of
consent, rationality, and decision-making; it also will
involve haggling over specific issues, including membership,
financing arrangements, and bylaws.
Intergovernmental Bodies
The question of ICSU's counterpart on the intergovernmental
side is more difficult. The leading figures for science in
each national government can include a minister for science
and technology, the president of a national science
foundation or research council, a science and technology
adviser to the president or prime minister, and others.
There is at present no congenial and constructive context in
which these individuals, representing at least the 20 or so
leading scientific powers, regularly convene.
I see at least four possibilities to create such an
organization:
* Make the "S" in UNESCO work better. Over the last couple
of decades, the leading governmental figures in science
have rarely used UNESCO as the venue for their high-level
consultations.
* Take the "S" out of UNESCO and form a new science
organization within the United Nations context. The success
of the World Meteorological Organization demonstrates that
it is possible to sustain a high-quality, technically
oriented institution within the U.N. system.
* Start a new intergovernmental organization for science.
Such an organization could nucleate around the quasi-
periodic meetings of heads of major national science
foundations or science and technology advisers to heads of
state. One of the promising consequences of the Carnegie
Commission has been the formation of the "Carnegie Group" of
science advisers, including the science advisers of the G-7
nations, Russia, and the top science and technology figures
in the European Union. This group, however, does not include
Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Israel, China, India,
or Brazil, to name a few, all of which are significant
members of Science International. Another entity around
which to build productive intergovernmental exchange is the
Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD)--the "economic club" of the 30 or so
leading industrialized nations--which has established a
"Forum on Megascience." Unfortunately, China, India, and
Brazil do not belong to OECD, either.
* Form a "bicameral ICSU," as proposed by Robert M. White,
president of the U.S. Academy of Engineering, more than a
decade ago. In this model, ICSU would have a "governmental
council" of its own. The World Conservation Union in Geneva-
-the leading international organization for biodiversity
preservation--is an example of an international group that
has a governmental council as well as a nongovernmental
structure. This organization, while predominantly
nongovernmental, nevertheless has some 60 "state" members
that pay dues; its dual character has enhanced its ability
to stimulate intergovernmental action and conventions in
areas such as protection of endangered species.
Each of these options and others should be explored
thoroughly. In any case, the broad question of science in
the U.N. system is badly overdue for examination. Science
and technology have again come to the fore in the U.N.
because of interest in sustainable development. The U.N. is
not, however, carrying out its ongoing reorganization with
attention to science and technology per se. But
consideration of the U.N. will probably not be fruitful
except in a larger context embracing NATO, OECD, the
European Union, and other intergovernmental organizations
important to science--and all currently in turmoil.
A Matter Of Urgency
Now is the right time to begin to set in place the
infrastructure for Science International for the next 50
years--for the science of the 8 billion who will inhabit the
planet by 2020, and for the billions more who will follow.
There is no alternative for solving many of our the globe's
problems than to do more and better science, and, if nothing
else, everyone needs to be prepared for the costs. Some
fields, such as international agricultural research, have
established mechanisms to debate priorities, evaluate
performance, and improve dialogue among researchers,
funders, and potential practitioners. Many others have not.
To define the set of needed changes and build support for
them, Science International should explore, with government
and industry, the creation of a major international
commission to assess and make recommendations about the
global infrastructure of science, both nongovernmental and
governmental, across all fields. Such a commission needs to
be independent of ICSU and the U.N. system, in part because
it must examine and address these bodies.
The U.S. scientific community can do much to set the process
in motion. Moreover, a comprehensive, ambitious, long-range
review of the international infrastructure for Science
International can succeed only if the U.S. science and
technology community and the U.S. government provide strong
support.
We, as citizens of both Science International and America,
have much to gain.
Jesse H. Ausubel is director of Rockefeller University's
Program for the Human Environment.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
COMMENTARY
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Research!America: Big Plans For 1994
AU : MARY WOOLLEY
TY : OPINION (COMMENTARY)
PG : 12
"Medical research is a slow and painstaking process, but the
fulfillment that comes when one is able to save lives and
alleviate suffering makes it all worthwhile." This statement
by Nobelist Gertrude Elion, gracing the cover of
Research!America's 1993 annual report, sums up our
organization's fundamental mission. Research!America is
determined to increase public awareness of medical
research's value--of its role in improving the quality of
life for everyone.
In late November, we released the results of a nationwide
Harris poll--commissioned by our organization--showing that
the American public overwhelmingly considers medical
research to be the single most valuable type of scientific
research, with two-thirds of respondents ranking it as their
top priority. The poll indicated that nine of 10 Americans
feel the nation should spend more than it already spends to
diagnose, prevent, and treat disease. And three-fourths of
those surveyed said they are willing to support additional
research by paying a dollar a week more in taxes, a dollar a
week more in health insurance, and a dollar more per
prescription drug.
The survey data provide us--and should provide all citizens-
-with strong indications that the nation's governmental
decision-makers are not making medical research a high
enough priority. I testified to that effect before the
United States Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources
on December 8. Members of this committee were clearly
alerted to the priorities of their constituents: Americans
want a greater national commitment to medical research.
Research!America is dedicated to making biomedical research
a higher national priority. The commissioning of the poll
and my congressional testimony marked a new level of
visibility for Research!America's work and set the stage for
our efforts this year.
On March 9, our organization will hold its annual meeting in
Washington, with Harold Varmus--the new director of the
National Institutes of Health--serving as our keynote
speaker. In conjunction with the meeting, Research!America
will convene a forum to forge a consensus agenda and action
plan for 1994 to those who are concerned that research and
health care reform may be on a collision course. The value
of a unified message can hardly be overemphasized as we
mount a campaign to ensure that health care is being driven
by research, rather than driving research away.
The annual meeting is to serve as a rallying point for
action toward achieving our organization's 1994 advocacy
goals. Members will be called on and will be given the tools
to translate rhetoric into reality. In partnership with such
groups as the American Medical Association, the Federation
of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the
Association of American Medical Colleges, the National
Health Council, and the National Pharmaceutical Council,
Research!America will convene a summit meeting this spring
to develop a shared vision of research and health,
endeavoring to get beyond the annual, incremental, crisis-
driven approach to support that has characterized the last
decade.
Consistent with our goal of significantly broadening the
public constituency for research, half of those invited to
this summit will be drawn from outside the research
community. By involving a wider spectrum of stakeholders to
participate alongside the members of the research "family,"
we expect to develop strategies, tactics, and programs that
can be used nationwide to immediately activate strongly felt
but rarely expressed public support for research.
Research!America will quickly transmit the outcomes of both
our forum on research and health care and the summit on
research and health to citizens and elected officials across
the nation. We will also use the lessons of those sessions
in hands-on fashion as we scale up our grass-roots efforts
with a campaign designed for metropolitan New York City.
Given the popularity and sustained effectiveness of outreach
programs in previous years (Maryland in 1992 and North
Carolina in 1993), our organization is now ready to focus on
one of the world's largest metropolitan areas. With the
support of the medical, biotechnology, academic, voluntary,
and philanthropic communities, "Research!New York City" will
establish a powerful coalition to deliver the message to
citizens, opinion shapers, and decision-makers that it's
time to increase and sustain government and private-sector
funding for research into cures, treatments, and preventions
for physical and mental disorders.
Like the promise of medical science, advocacy for medical
research has unlimited potential. Research!America is
dedicated to tapping that potential.
Mary Woolley is president of Research!America, a research
advocacy organization. For information on membership and
other matters, write 1522 King St., Second Floor,
Alexandria, Va. 22314; or call (703)-739-2577.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
-----------------------------------------------------------
TI : History Of Science
AU : PHILIP SIEKEVITZ
TY : OPINION (LETTERS)
PG : 12
The article on the history of science (F. Hoke, The
Scientist, Nov. 15, 1993, page 1), a good one indeed,
omitted what I think is an important aspect of science
history. If one examines many biology or biochemistry
textbooks, one finds a woeful omission of the historical
aspects of any particular subject. The student comes away
feeling that, all of a sudden, insight sprung from Zeus's
head, knowledge without a precedent. There is nothing to
indicate that many past discoveries, some going back 100
years, have formed the foundations for any particular
subfield.
The history of experimental research is conspicuously
missing, and is becoming lost to today's students. If I may
say so, a singular exception to this is the third edition of
a biology, biochemistry, and molecular biology textbook,
Cell Structure and Function, by A. Loewy, P. Siekevitz, J.
Menninger, and J. Gallant (Philadelphia, Saunders College
Publishing, 1992), in which, at the beginning of each
chapter, a few pages are devoted to the past important
discoveries, and how they had led up to the present-day view
of the science in that subfield.
PHILIP SIEKEVITZ
Rockefeller University
1230 York Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10021-6399
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Animal Research Protection
AU : BRANDON L. MILLETT
TY : OPINION (LETTERS)
PG : 12
Thank you for your Oct. 18, 1993, article regarding the
Department of Justice (DoJ) report on animal rights
terrorism [R. Kaufman, page 1]. I'm pleased The Scientist
gave the report coverage and called attention to animal
rights extremists' attempts to target researchers with
vandalism, death threats, and other acts of intimidation.
Readers may be interested to know that in response to the
DoJ report and recent animal rights attacks in Montgomery
County, Md., Congressman George Gekas (R-Pa.) has introduced
legislation that would further protect researchers. Called
the Animal Enterprise Personnel Protection Amendment, the
bill would extend existing federal protection from the
animal enterprises to the individuals who work for them.
Gekas's bill would give federal authorities another tool to
investigate and prosecute animal rights terrorists and
strengthen criminal investigators by creating a federal
central intelligence network for these crimes. The bill
would also send a strong public message that Americans value
the contributions to society by biomedical investigators,
and will not tolerate attacks on these dedicated men and
women.
BRANDON L. MILLETT
Americans for Medical
Progress Inc.
1735 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Va. 22202-3401
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Animal Models
AU : JEROD M. LOEB
TY : OPINION (LETTERS)
PG : 12
Neal D. Barnard's letter to the editor (The Scientist, Nov.
15, 1993, page 12) concerning the recent commentary by
Frederick K. Goodwin and Adrian R. Morrison (The Scientist,
Sept. 6, 1993, page 12) is telling. Once again, Barnard
cleverly zooms in on grains of truth and uses highly
selective data, ignoring completely the vast body of
information that does not support his ideological bias.
While Barnard comments on anecdotal evidence relating to
several cases in which data derived from animal experiments
were not applicable to human clinical situations, he
completely misses critical points. For example, according to
the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, each year
approximately 5,000 new chemical entities are synthesized.
Of these 5,000 new chemical entities, 500 are tested in
isolated systems, 250 are tested in animals, five are tested
in human clinical studies, and only one is ultimately
approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Obviously, the
important lesson in these data is the protection afforded to
society by these rigorous testing processes. At issue is not
what we have failed to learn, but rather what we have
learned.
We must all beware of pronouncements made by an individual
whose scientific acumen is driven by personal philosophy
that ignores valid research data.
JEROD M. LOEB
American Medical Association
515 N. State St.
Chicago, Ill. 60610
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Citation Records Indicate Leaders In Ecology Research
Editor's Note: The newsletter Science Watch, published by
the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information
(ISI), last year decided to devote more attention to a
research arena that, clearly, was attracting more attention
among scientists worldwide: ecology and environmental
science. After analyzing ISI's Science Indicators Database,
the newsletter published last November (Science Watch,
4[9]:7-8, 1993) its first-ever list of leading papers in
this burgeoning field--a compilation focusing on research
productivity in the late 1980s.
Following is Science Watch's report, written for the
newsletter by Peter D. Moore, who is reader in ecology and
chairman of human and environmental sciences in the Division
of Life Sciences, King's College, London. The report is
presented here with the permission of Science Watch and ISI.
Science Watch has decided to add ecology and environmental
sciences papers to its regular roundup of the Top 10 in
research. The first grouping of the Top 10, listed in the
accompanying table, features papers published in 1987, 1988,
and 1989 that were most cited by the end of 1992.
For this field of research one might well ask, "Just how hot
is hot?" If one compares ecology with, say, molecular
biology, the answer is, "Not very, on the whole." But such a
comparison is hardly fair, since each field exhibits its own
characteristic publication pattern and citation profile. In
this group, the peak citation count for any single paper in
any single year rarely exceeds 40, but that is often
achieved within a two-month period in disciplines such as
immunology and biochemistry. So citations as measured here
are lower by a factor of five or six when compared with
those in other biomedical disciplines. The number of
investigators active in a field, the average number of
references listed in a paper, the degree to which interest
of researchers is either focused on a few universal
physiological mechanisms or diffused broadly across a wide
variety of phenomena--all of these and more help shape a
field's bibliometric nature.
It is also very clear, from a glance at the annual citation
counts for ecology and environmental-sciences papers, that
they take a longer time to accumulate citations than other
papers do. Of the top 15 papers, 12 have only just peaked or
are still rising three to four years after their
publication. Of the journals that are most cited in this
field, Nature is far and away in the lead, having four of
the top 10 papers. No other journal has more than one in the
Top 10, and only Ecology placed two in the top 15.
Despite recognizing differences such as these, one is still
able to distinguish--among this less flamboyant population
of papers--which ones have attracted the most attention. Of
the topics covered by these 10 papers, three are
particularly prominent: population ecology and genetics of
birds, aquatic productivity and carbon cycling, and trace
metal distribution and biological response.
Spying On Sparrows
The application of genetic fingerprinting techniques in bird
populations has evidently generated considerable interest.
The two most cited papers for the period were published side
by side in Nature in 1987. Both groups of United Kingdom
researchers, the first from Queens Medical Center in
Nottingham (paper No. 1) and the second from the Zoology
Department of Leicester University (No. 2), use DNA
fingerprinting in a study of house sparrow populations and
find the technique adequate for the tracing of family
relationships within the birds and therefore of value for
studying extra-bond copulation (infidelity), sexual
selection, egg dumping, breeding behavior, and other aspects
of the social life of these vulgar, communal little birds.
The subsequent success of the techniques, incidentally, is
demonstrated by the fact that a further paper in 1989 by T.
Burke and his Leicester group reaches No. 15 in the ranking
(despite its late publication in the period under review
here) and concerns the sexual behavior of another small,
brown British bird, the dunnock, which has the added
behavioral complication of being polyandrous (T. Burke, et
al., Nature, 338[6212]:249-51, 1989; total citations: 91).
Do the males feed the young of those other males who share
their partner? DNA fingerprinting shows that they do. But,
on the other hand, those that have most access to the female
also do most of the feeding; presumably they reckon that
they are most likely to be the father anyway.
Beneath The Waves
Aquatic productivity and carbon cycling certainly has a grip
on the chart, with three in the Top 10 concerned with this
subject. Paper No. 10, by S.R. Carpenter and his colleagues,
has wide general implications in both theoretical and
applied ecology. This group wanted to document the
controlling factors in determining plankton productivity and
balance in fresh-water lakes. In particular, they were
interested in the impact of higher trophic levels on the
plankton, so they increased the level of fish removal from a
test lake, and the outcome was an increase in the
zooplankton and a decrease in algal biomass. When piscivory
was decreased, on the other hand, zooplankton decreased and
algal biomass increased. In the unaltered, control lake,
fluctuations in plankton levels resulted from abiotic
variables, such as climate. Such findings are not of
themselves surprising, but the experimental demonstration of
population controls by predation levels higher in the food
chain is reassuring to some theoretical ecologists.
The role of oceanic bacterioplankton in productivity and
carbon cycling has a high interest rating. S. Lee and J.A.
Fuhrman's paper in the No. 3 spot describes a technique for
estimating the biomass of bacterioplankton, which is
necessary for the assessment of the importance of this group
in carbon cycling. A further paper by S.W. Chisholm and
colleagues, describing a new group of prochlorophyte
organisms that occupy and photosynthesize at the base of the
euphotic zone, just fails to make it to the Top 10, coming
in at No. 11 (S.W. Chisholm, et al., Nature, 334[6180]:340-
3, 1988; total citations: 103).
Heavy-Metal Menace
Trace metals supply a predictable source of interest for
environmental research, and two papers in the Top 10 deal
with them. In paper No. 7, J.A. Nriagu and J.M. Pacyna's
work provides an extensive and detailed survey of a range of
metals in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. They
conclude from their studies that human activities currently
dominate the global biochemical cycling of these elements.
The problems that the heavy metals pre-sent to plants has
then been investigated by Grill and coworkers in paper No.
8, and they report the pre-sence of compounds in plants
(phytochelatins) that chelate with heavy metal ions and
render them nontoxic. These compounds are found in a wide
range of plants, from algae to orchids, and are more
abundant in forms that demonstrate an ecological tolerance
of heavy metals in nature. Physiologically, they are
equivalent to the metallothioneins in animals, but the
chemical solution to the heavy metal problem has evidently
taken plants and animals along different evolutionary
tracks.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : WHAT'S HOT IN ECOLOGY/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
RANK PAPER CITATIONS
THROUGH 1992
===== ====== ============
1 J.H. Wetton, R.E. Carter, D.T. Parkin, D. 170
Walters, "Demographic study of a wild house
sparrow population by DNA fingerprinting,"
Nature, 327(6118):147-9, 1987.
(Queens Medical Center, Nottingham, U.K.)
2 T. Burke, M.W. Bruford, "DNA fingerprinting in 148
birds," Nature, 327(6118):148-52, 1987.
(University of Leicester, U.K.)
3 S. Lee, J.A. Fuhrman, "Relationships between 133
biovolume and biomass of naturally
derived marine bacterioplankton,"
Applied Environmental Microbiology,
53(6):1298-1303, 1987.
(State University of New York, Stony Brook)
4 J.H. Martin, G.A. Knauer, D.M. Karl, W.W. 123
Broenkow, "VERTEX: Carbon cycling in the
northeast Pacific," Deep-Sea Research Part A,
1484(2):267-85, 1987. (Moss Landing Marine
Labs, Calif.; University of Hawaii, Honolulu)
5 J. Gomez, D. Sanchez-Martinez, V. Stiefel, J. 119
Rigau, P. Puigdomenech, M. Pages, "A
gene induced by the plant hormone abscisic
acid in response to water stress encodes a
glycine-rich protein," Nature, 334(6179):
262-4, 1988. (CSIC, CIF, Barcelona, Spain)
6 K.A. Nagy, "Field metabolic rate and food 116
requirement scaling in mammals and birds,"
Ecological Monographs, 57(2):111-28, 1987.
(University of California, Los Angeles)
7 J.O. Nriagu, J.M. Pacyna, "Quantitative 113
assessment of worldwide contamination of air,
water, and soils by trace metals," Nature,
333(6169):134-9, 1988. (National Water
Research Institute, Ontario, Canada;
Norwegian Institute of Air Pollution
Research, Lillestrom, Norway)
8 E. Grilli, E.L. Winnacker, M.H. Zenk, 113
"Phytochelatins: a class of heavy-metal-
binding peptides from plants, are
functionally analogous to metallothioneins,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA, 84(2):439-43, 1987.
(University of Munich, Germany)
9 J.J. Cole, S. Findlay, M.L. Pace, "Bacterial 110
production in fresh and saltwater
ecosystems: a cross-system overview,"
Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 43(1-2):1-10,
1988.
(New York Botanical Garden, Millbrook, N.Y.)
10 S.R. Carpenter, J.F. Kitchell, J.R. Hodgson, 105
P.A. Cochran, J.J. Elser, M.M. Elser, D.M.
Lodge, D. Kretchmer, X. He, C.N. Vonende,
"Reputation of lake primary productivity by
food web structure," Ecology, 68(6):1863-76,
1987.
(University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Ind.;
University of Wisconsin, Madison; Northern
Illinois University, De Kalb; St. Norbert
College, De Pere, Wis.)
Source: Science Watch/ISI's Science Indicators
Database, 1987-1992
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
RESEARCH
HOT PAPERS
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : MEDICINE
TY : RESEARCH (HOT PAPERS)
PG : 16
W.O. Spitzer, S. Suissa, P. Ernst, R.I. Horwitz, B. Habbick,
D. Cockcroft, J.-F. Boivin, M. McNutt, A.S. Buist, A.S.
Rebuck, "The use of bETA-agonists and the risk of death and
near death from asthma," New England Journal of Medicine,
326:501-6, 1992.
Samy Suissa (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,
McGill University, Montreal): "Asthma is a common disease
that affects 5 percent to 10 percent of people. Numerous
effective medications have been developed to treat this
disease, by way of either bronchodilation or inflammation
reduction.
"In the 1980s, the mainstay of asthma therapy was based on
bronchodilators, which included theophyllines and b-
agonists. Extremely effective, these latter drugs were used
rather liberally, to the point at which they were available
without prescription in some countries. Unexpected increases
in asthma mortality in several parts of the world have
induced investigations of the possible role of drug
therapies in these mortality patterns.
"In 1989, a case-control study from New Zealand suggested
that one of these b-agonist bronchodil-ators, namely
fenoterol, was associated with a higher risk of death from
asthma, while the other popular one, salbutamol, was not. We
and other scientists were puzzled by this premise that two
drugs from the same class could show different risk
profiles. Conscious of the limitations of this type of
epidemiologic study design, we decided to conduct our own
investigation.
"Using a more rigorous population-based design, we found
that the excessive use of any or all inhaled b-agonists,
including fenoterol and salbutamol, was associated with
fatal and near-fatal asthma. A significant number of the
12,300 asthmatics studied were using inordinate amounts of
inhaled b-agonists, much more than the maximum recommended
quantity, and these formed the basis for the elevated risks
we found. It was clear that these drugs had become victims
of their remarkable effectiveness.
"Our study generated great attention primarily because it
put in question the current practice of asthma therapy.
Instantly, the uncontrolled use of inhaled bETA-agonists became
no longer admissible. Physicians and patients were now to
monitor the use of these drugs and, if this use increased,
indicating worsening disease, to supplement therapy with
anti-inflammatory inhaled corticosteroids. The latter
indication has since been confirmed by our subsequent
analyses of the data (P. Ernst, et al., Journal of the
American Medical Association, 268[24]:3462-4, 1992), which
suggest that the use of inhaled corticosteroids reduces the
risk of fatal or near fatal asthma 10-fold. Our study has,
in essence, substantiated the recent international
guidelines on the management of asthma."
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : VIROLOGY
TY : RESEARCH (HOT PAPERS)
PG : 18
L.A. Donehower, M. Harvey, B.L. Slagle, M.J. McArthur, C.A.
Montgomery, Jr., J.S. Butel, A. Bradley, "Mice deficient for
p53 are developmentally normal but susceptible to
spontaneous tumours," Nature, 356:215-21, 1992.
Larry Donehower (Division of Molecular Virology, Baylor
College of Medicine, Houston): "The p53 tumor suppressor
gene has recently received a great deal of attention because
its loss or mutation occurs in more than half of all human
tumors. Despite all this attention, the normal role of p53
in regulating cellular processes is only beginning to be
understood.
"The work described in this paper was an attempt to provide
insights into the role of p53 in mammalian development and
tumorigenesis by a `knockout' of the gene in the mouse germ
line using some of the novel gene-targeting techniques that
our collaborator Allan Bradley had developed.
"Our hypothesis was that knockout mice missing both normal
p53 alleles would die early in their development, since it
had been known that p53 had important effects on the cell
cycle. In fact, the surprising result was that these null
p53 mice appeared normal in every measurable way.
"However, it soon became clear that all was not normal when
the null animals began developing tumors as early as eight
weeks of age and three-quarters had succumbed to cancer by
the age of six months.
"I think the major impact of this paper was that it helped
people to reassess the function of p53 in the normal cell.
Thriving p53-deficient mice indicated that p53 played no
essential role in normal cell proliferation and
differentiation.
"Where p53 might be important is in the response of the cell
to DNA damage events. Mike Kastan's group showed that
ionizing radiation stimulated p53 activity in irradiated
cells, and this resulted in cell division arrest (S.J.
Kuerbitz, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 89:7491-5, 1992).
"A model was outlined that postulated that the role of p53
might be to arrest cells following DNA damage, allowing time
for the damage to be repaired so that the affected DNA would
not be propagated as mutations or chromosome abnormalities
in progeny cells (D.D. Lane, Nature, 358:15-6, 1992).
"Therefore, without the p53-facilitated correction
mechanism, our p53-deficient mice would be more likely to
incur genetic lesions in cancer-associated oncogenes and
tumor suppressor genes and develop tumors.
"Two groups have provided elegant support for this
hypothesis by showing that cells missing p53 are much more
prone to certain types of genetic rearrangements than normal
cells are (L.R. Livingstone, et al., Cell, 70:923-35, 1992;
Y. Yin, et al., Cell, 70:937-48, 1992).
"Consequently, a secondary impact of the paper is that it
introduces a potentially powerful tool for carcinogenesis
studies. Animals deficient in p53 (and cells derived from
them), which are more sensitive to the effects of mutagens
and carcinogens, might be useful to cancer researchers and
toxicologists."
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : PLANT BIOLOGY
TY : RESEARCH (HOT PAPERS)
PG : 16
E. Lopez-Juez, A. Nagatani, K.-I. Tomizawa, M. Deak, R.
Kern, R.E. Kendrick, M. Furuya, "The cucumber long hypocotyl
mutant lacks a light-stable PHYB-like phytochrome," Plant
Cell, 4:241-51, 1992.
Enrique Lopez-Juez (Laboratory of Plant Biological
Regulation, Frontier Research Program, Riken Institute,
Wako, Japan): "Through light signals, plants can decide when
to germinate, to stop elongating underground and start
expressing genes for leaf components (de-etiolate), or in
which season to flower. The modification of growth pattern
to avoid shading by competing neighbors (shade-avoidance
reaction) is one such response. Characterized for more than
20 years, it is a function of phytochrome, a key plant
photoreceptor. Enrichment in far red light in shade, through
selective filtering/reflectance, lowers the proportion of
active phytochrome, triggering the response.
"During the 1980s it became clear that, besides the `bulk'
phytochrome very abundant before de-etiolation, now known as
PhyA, some other phytochromes existed. In previous
physiological work on the cucumber lh (long hypocotyl), a
mutant having normal `bulk' phytochrome and able to de-
etiolate, we showed that this plant displays a constitutive,
saturated shade-avoidance reaction. This suggested that such
a response depends on a new phytochrome type, inactive or
missing in the mutant. What we show here is that, in fact,
different antibodies raised against a phyB gene, which
detect a minor phytochrome-like polypeptide in the wild
type, distinct from PhyA, all failed to recognize any
protein in the mutant. The message is that PhyB is the main
actor in the shade-avoidance reaction, and can dramatically
affect plant development.
"This result was the fruit of a collaborative effort of
those who sequenced a phyB cDNA, set up the protein
expression and antibody production techniques, and produced
the antibodies and used them to characterize the mutant.
Since the paper was published, intensive work in several
labs has continued. It has been found that a lh-like mutant
in Arabidopsis is indeed mutated in the phyB gene itself.
But a new major question has been opened: Now that we have a
role for PhyB, the phenotype of new PhyA-specific mutants
tells us that PhyA does very little of what we thought it
might do, and that we must find what controls the de-
etiolation responses."
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Uses Of Enzyme Immunoassays Growing In Laboratories
And Clinics
AU : HOLLY AHERN
TY : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY
PG : 17
Many biological researchers who need to identify an
interesting protein or determine its concentration in a
sample say that enzyme immunoassays are their tool of
choice. Using these versatile detection tests, they can, for
example, pinpoint a specific gene from an organism's genome
or analyze the kinetics of an enzyme. Clinical investigators
can use enzyme immunoassays to detect circulating antibodies
to disease-related antigens, distinguish among different
Salmonella cell wall proteins, or identify substances in
body fluids that signify the occurrence of a heart attack.
Also, new automated enzyme immunoassay systems can now speed
the diagnosis process dramatically.
Researchers in both the clinic and the lab are calling
enzyme immunoassays a major improvement over
radioimmunoassays, widely used in past years for many of the
same purposes. Users who are changing their systems cite the
elimination of radioisotopes with their inherent health
risks and disposal problems as a key advantage.
"Enzyme immunoassays are at least as sensitive as
radioimmunoassays," says Keld Sorensen, a senior research
scientist for Pierce Chemical Co. in Rockford, Ill. "And any
time you can change a procedure to get radioactivity out of
the lab without affecting sensitivity, it's an improvement."
The essential components of an enzyme immunoassay are an
antibody specific to a target substance and an enzyme that
makes detection of the bound antibody possible. Immunoassays
performed in a solution, for example, respond to the initial
reaction of the antibody and its target antigen, which then
modulates the catalytic activity of the enzyme, allowing
detection.
Enzyme immunoassays combine the specific recognition of
antibodies for their targets with the catalytic power of
enzymes into a single sensitive and relatively simple test.
The sensitivity of an enzyme immunoassay depends on the
ability of antibodies to home in on a particular antigenic
target, such as a protein, a bacterial or viral antigen, or
other antibodies. Coupling this specificity to the catalytic
ability of some enzymes to convert colorless chemicals to
brightly colored products results in a detection system that
can be adapted to a wide range of applications.
ELISA Leads The Pack
With the growing emphasis on nonradioactive detection in
molecular biology applications, enzyme immunodetection kits
are becoming increasingly popular for use with Western blot
(protein detection), Southern blot (DNA detection), and
other procedures. In these tests, researchers first separate
their samples by gel electrophoresis and then blot them to a
support matrix made of nitrocellulose or nylon. After
applying a primary antibody specific for the target, an
enzyme-conjugated second antibody binds to the primary
antibody, catalyzing a chromogenic reaction that leaves
behind a dark precipitate on the support membrane.
The sensitivity of these nonisotopic detection systems--such
as the Genius kit for DNA detection from Indianapolis-based
Boehringer Mannheim Biochemicals and the Immun-Blot assay
kits from Bio-Rad Laboratories of Hercules, Calif., used in
Western blotting procedures--is comparable to that of the
more conventional radioisotopic detection schemes.
By far the best known of the enzyme immunoassay techniques
is ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). Because most
ELISAs involve several washing steps to remove excess
reactants before the next reagent is added, the tests are
performed in the solid phase, which means that some
component of the system is hooked to a solid support
material. An investigator's choice of solid phase varies
with the application, but the choices include microtiter
plate wells, plastic or glass beads, emulsions of latex
particles, and paper or nylon membranes.
Scientists can design ELISAs in various ways to accommodate
their specific application. The initial step is to adsorb
one of the reactants--either the primary antibody, in order
to capture the target antigen, or the antigen itself--to the
solid phase. After the excess is washed away, the second
component is added and reacts specifically with the first.
"Linking the test system to a solid phase allows for the
sequential amplification of the initial antibody's
recognition of the target substance," says Paulette
McCormick, a cell biologist at the State University of New
York, Albany.
The final step is the chromogenic reaction of the enzyme
with its substrate that identifies the complex bound to the
solid phase. The amount of colored end product is
proportional to the amount of target substance in the test.
In what is called an ELISA sandwich assay, a suitable
antibody is adsorbed first to the solid phase, often the
wells of a microtitration plate, and the excess washed away.
Then a sample, which might be a patient's serum or a mixed
solution of proteins, is applied to the wells. If the target
substance is present in the sample, it will be specifically
bound by the antibody on the well's surface. Unbound
substances are washed away. Next, a second enzyme-labeled
antibody is added, which binds to another epitope on the
antigen, leaving an enzymatic tag. When the chromogenic
substrate is added, the enzyme converts it to a brightly
colored product that signifies the antigen's presence.
Variations on the sandwich theme abound. Antigen can be
bound to the solid phase in an antibody capture assay, where
it competes with a sample antigen for recognition of the
enzyme-labeled antibody. Capture assays can also be used in
reverse, with the primary antibody attached to the solid
phase competing for sites on the antigen with a labeled
second antibody.
To detect antibodies rather than antigens in an ELISA
system, a sample antibody reacts with an antigen attached to
the solid phase. In this method, termed an indirect antibody
capture assay, a second antibody carrying the enzymatic tag
is added, which binds to the captured target antibody. This
form of ELISA is typically used by scientists screening
clones for important antibody-secreting hybridomas.
Laboratories that screen for specific antibodies in serum
from immunized animals also use this technique.
The choice of ELISA enzyme label is highly dependent on an
investigator's application. The two most common enzyme
choices are horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and alkaline
phosphatase (AP).
"Approximately 80 percent of all commercial ELISAs
incorporate HRP in the system, and most of the rest use AP,"
says Pierce's Sorensen.
A few other enzymes, such as acetylcholine esterase or a-
galactosidase, are sometimes used. The popularity of HRP and
AP, however, stems from their stability and the wide range
of chromogenic substrates available for each enzyme.
According to Sorensen, HRP is preferred over AP because, as
a plant product, it is more easily produced and less
expensive.
Most ELISA kits developed are for use in human diagnostics.
Using ELISA, investigators can detect hepatitis C virus in
samples of body fluids, for example; discover contaminants
such as Salmonella in foods before they are consumed;
determine if a woman is pregnant; and identify people at
risk for certain cancers. Physicians can perform diagnostic
tests in their offices or clinics. Other types of enzyme
immunoassays offer tests for therapeutic drugs or drugs of
abuse or to assess a patient's thyroid function.
Recently, enzyme immunoassays have been incorporated into
automated testing systems, leading to additional
applications.
"Enzymatic immunoassays lend themselves to automation," says
immunologist Gary Kitos, laboratory director at Allergy
Testing Laboratory in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. "Most of the
assay steps can be completed with robotics."
A number of companies, including Ciba-Corning Diagnostics in
Norwood, Mass., and Tosoh Medics Inc. in Foster City,
Calif., have developed random-access immunoassay analyzers
that automate the various enzyme immunoassay steps.
Automated immunoassays for drugs, antigens, and hormones are
already on the market, with more expected to follow shortly.
Customizing Assays
Investigators also are finding that ELISA can be made to
order. The only qualifier is the requirement for a suitable
antigen or an antibody, which can be conjugated to an enzyme
label in the lab. Companies like Pierce and Bio-Rad market
various ELISA components, including primary and enzyme-
conjugated antibodies, blocking reagents, and conjugating
reagents and enzymes, which enable individual researchers
and commercial manufacturers to design their own specific
immunoassay systems.
For many applications, a large array of kits containing all
of the necessary components is available. A number of kits
that are small and self-contained have allowed investigators
to take ELISA into the field. One area in which the
simplicity and lower cost of enzyme immunoassays have
resulted in the availability of many new tests is
environmental analysis. Using enzyme immunoassays,
environmental scientists can detect contaminants such as
pesticide residues, industrial chemicals, and microbial
toxins in samples of water, soil, or air. Many of these
types of tests are portable enough to take directly to a
suspected hazardous waste site.
For environmental testing to detect the presence of
pesticide residues, including triazines such as atrazine,
propazine, and simazine, in water samples, Millipore Corp.
in Bedford, Mass., markets the EnviroGard test kit, used
either in the laboratory or in the field. The kit, developed
by Millipore subsidiary ImmunoSystems Inc. of Scarborough,
Maine, is "complementary to the conventional methods of gas
chromatography and HPLC," according to Jim Fecteau, group
manager at ImmunoSystems.
The test, which is based on an antigen-capture method, is
performed in antibody-coated test tubes. Using the kit,
field investigators can detect the presence of contaminants
at a site and determine their approximate concentration
simply by adding a sample and kit reagents to the supplied
test tubes. "In some cases we can detect chemical
contaminants in the parts-per-trillion range," adds Fecteau.
Animal scientists can benefit from compact ELISAs in their
field work, as well. Idexx Corp. in Westbrook, Maine,
produces membrane-based ELISA kits that allow such
specialists to perform diagnostic ELISAs in the field--a
barn, for example--as well as in their clinics.
Enzyme immunoassays are also being used in quality and
safety testing of foods. Immunoassays that detect numerous
food components and contaminants--including amino acids and
sugars, pesticide residues, and antibiotics--are becoming
increasingly available. Current methods of testing for
microbial contaminants in foods based on conventional
microbiological techniques can take up to five days to
complete. To speed the detection of bacterial agents in
food, Organon Teknika/Biotechnology Research Institute in
Rockville, Md., has developed an ELISA in which whole
bacterial cells are captured by antibodies attached to a
solid phase. Tests for Listeria species and E. coli are also
in developmental stages at Organon Teknika.
Use of ELISA tests by the food industry could decrease the
time necessary to identify a bacterial contaminant to 24 to
48 hours. Although testing of this kind is not yet widely
accepted by food-safety critics, enzyme-based immunoassays
are clearly a positive step.
In-solution assays, an alternative to the solid phase
testing, are limited mostly to analyses of small molecules
to maximize the effect of the reaction between the antibody
and the enzyme. The best known of these is EMIT (enzyme-
multiplied immunoassay technique) from Syva Co. in San Jose,
Calif., often used by clinicians to detect drugs of abuse
and for therapeutic drug monitoring.
Holly Ahern is a freelance science writer based in Albany,
N.Y. She teaches cell and molecular biology at the State
University of New York, Albany.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : SUPPLIERS OF ENZYME IMMUNOASSAY KITS AND PRODUCTS
TY : TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY
PG : 19
The following vendors develop and/or market enzyme
immunoassay kits and products for a variety of research and
clinical laboratory uses.
For more information about products, services, and prices,
please contact these companies directly.
5 Prime - 3 Prime Inc.
5603 Arapahoe Rd.
Boulder, Colo. 80303
(303) 440-3705
Fax: (303) 440-0835
AAI-Abtech
P.O. Box 376
Yardley, Pa. 19067
(800) 233-2197
Fax: (215) 321-7099
AMAC Inc.
160 B Larrabee Rd.
Westbrook, Maine 04092
(207) 854-0426
Fax: (207) 854-0116
American Qualex
14620 E. Firestone Blvd.
La Mirada, Calif. 90638
(714) 521-3753
Fax: (714) 994-1203
Amersham Corp.
2636 South Clearbrook Dr.
Arlington Heights, Ill. 60005
(708) 593-6300
Fax: (708) 437-1640
Bio-Rad Laboratories
Life Sciences Group
2000 Alfred Nobel Dr.
Hercules, Calif. 94547
(510) 741-1000
Fax: (510) 741-1055
BioSource International Inc.
887 Mitlen Rd.
Burlingame, Calif. 94011
(415) 698-4015
Biotecx Laboratories Inc.
6023 South Loop East
Houston, Texas 77033
(713) 643-0606
Fax: (713) 643-3143
BioWhittaker Inc.
8830 Biggs Ford Rd.
Walkersville, Md. 21793
(301) 898-7025
Fax: (301) 845-4491
Boehringer Mannheim
Biochemicals
9115 Hague Rd.
Indianapolis, Ind. 46250
(800) 428-5433
Fax: (317) 845-2000
Calypte Biomedical
1440 Fourth St.
Berkeley, Calif. 94710
(510) 526-2541
Fax: (510) 526-5381
Cayman Chemical Co.
690 KMS Place
Ann Arbor, Mich. 48108
(313) 662-6756
Fax: (313) 662-6896
Ciba-Corning Diagnostics
115 Norwood Park South
Norwood, Mass. 02062
(508) 359-7711
Fax: (508) 359-3599
Cistron Biotechnology
10 Bloomfield Ave.
Pine Brook, N.J. 07058
(201) 575-1700
Fax: (201) 575-4854
Endogen Inc.
68 Fargo St.
Boston, Mass. 02210
(617) 439-3250
Fax: (617) 439-0355
Exocell Inc.
3508 Market St.
Suite 420
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104
(800) 234-3962
Fax: (215) 222-5325
Genzyme Diagnostics
Division of Genzyme Corp.
One Kendall Square
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
(617) 252-7744
Fax: (617) 252-7600
Granbio Inc.
P.O. Box 392140
Temecula, Calif. 92589
(909) 676-0049
Human Biologicals Inc.
P.O. Box 50862
Phoenix, Ariz. 85076
(602) 893-8817
Fax: (602) 893-8817
Hycor
18800 Von Karman
Irvine, Calif. 92715
(714) 440-2000
Fax: (714) 440-2222
ICN Pharmaceuticals
ICN Plaza
3300 Hyland Ave.
Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626
(714) 545-0113
Fax: (714) 641-7275
Idexx Laboratories
One Idexx Dr.
Westbrook, Maine 04092
(207) 856-0300
Fax: (207) 856-0346
Immuno-Dynamics
Inc.
P.O. Box 766
La Jolla, Calif. 92038
(619) 452-1270
Fax: (619) 458-3515
ImmunoSystems
Inc.
4 Washington Ave.
Scarborough, Maine 04074
(207) 883-9900
Fax: (207) 883-8088
ImmunoVision
1506 Ford Ave.
Springdale, Ariz. 72764
(800) 541-0960
Fax: (501) 751-7002
Integrated Biosolutions
Inc.
4270 U.S. Route 1
Monmouth Junction, N.J.
08852
(908) 274-1778
Fax: (908) 274-1733
Kronus
1000 Calle Amanecer
San Clemente, Calif. 92673
(714) 366-9100
Fax: (714) 366-9300
Lampire Biological
P.O. Box 170
Pipersville, Pa. 18947
(215) 795-2838
Fax: (215) 795-0237
Life Technologies
P.O. Box 6009
8451 Helgerman Court
Gaithersburg, Md. 20884
(301) 840-4150
Fax: (800) 331-2286
MGM Instruments Inc.
925 Sherman Ave.
Hamden, Conn. 06514
(203) 248-4008
Fax: (203) 288-2621
Nordic Immunological
Labs
Drawer 2517
Capo Beach, Calif. 92624
(714) 498-4467
Fax: (714) 361-0138
Organon Teknika/
Biotechnology Research
Institute
1330 Piccard Dr.
Rockville, Md. 20850-4396
(800) 354-0809
Fax: (301) 840-2161
Oxford Biomedical
Research Inc.
P.O. Box 522
1858 Starr Batt Dr.
Rochester Hills, Mich. 48309
(810) 852-8815
Fax: (810) 852-4466
Paracelsian
222 Langmuir Laboratories
Cornell Technical Park
Ithaca, N.Y. 14805
(607) 257-4224
Fax: (607) 257-2734
Perceptive Diagnostics
735 Concord Ave.
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
(617) 499-1433
Fax: (617) 497-6927
Pharmacia Hepar Inc.
160 Industrial Dr.
Franklin, Ohio 45005
(800) 447-3846
Fax: (513) 746-8055
Pierce Chemical Co.
P.O. Box 117
Rockford, Ill. 61105
(800) 874-3723
Fax: (815) 968-7316
R & D Systems
614 McKinley Place, N.E.
Minneapolis, Minn. 55413
(612) 379-2956
Fax: (612) 379-6580
Repligen Corp.
1 Kendall Square
Building 700
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
(617) 225-6000
Fax: (617) 494-1786
Scimedex Corp.
400 Ford Rd.
Denville, N.J. 07834
(201) 625-8822
Fax: (201) 625-8796
Serex Inc.
203 West Passaic St.
Maywood, N.J. 07607
(201) 368-5700
Fax: (201) 368-7850
Syva
P.O. Box 4901
San Jose, Calif 95161-9013
(800) 227-8376
Fax: (408) 239-2206
TAGO Inc.
887 Mitten Rd.
Burlingame, Calif. 94010
(415) 692-4015
Fax: (415) 692-9004
Takara Biochemical Inc.
719 Allston Way
Berkeley, Calif. 94710
(510) 649-9895
The Binding Site Inc.
5889 Oberline Dr.
Suite 101
San Diego, Calif. 92121
(619) 453-9177
Fax: (619) 453-9189
Tosoh Medics Inc.
373 Vintage Park Dr.
Foster City, Calif. 94404
(415) 578-2600
Fax: (415) 578-2626
USA Scientific Plastics
P.O. Box 3565
Ocala, Fla. 34478
(904) 237-6288
Fax: (904) 351-2057
Vector Laboratories
30 Ingold Rd.
Burlingame, Calif. 94010
(415) 697-3600
Fax: (415) 697-0339
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
===================
NEXT :
------------------------------------------------------------
PROFESSION
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Literary Agents Offer Assistance To Scientists Writing
For The Public
AU : RICKI LEWIS
TY : PROFESSION
PG : 21
The writing that is a major part of a scientist's
professional life does not usually languish unread. Rarely,
for example, is a go-between needed to direct a paper or
grant proposal to the appropriate journal or agency. And
attention and encouragement are intense for those who
respond with in- terest to a textbook publisher's quest for
authors. But for a researcher trying to sell a popular
science book to a potential publisher, it's another matter
entirely. In such instances, it is essential for the writer
to have a literary agent who will smooth the way, scientist-
authors say.
Agents Open Doors
"Most major trade publishers will not consider unsolicited
material. You can be an MIT professor and Simon & Schuster
will send you a form letter telling you to get an agent,"
says Michael Snell, a literary agent in Truro, Mass. Snell
spent a dozen years in academic publishing as an executive
editor at Wadsworth Publishing Co. of Belmont, Calif.,
before becoming an agent in 1979. He represents scientist
and physician writers, many of whom come to him after
unsuccessfully trying to attract publisher interest on their
own.
"The trade book situation is so different from academic
publishing. You have to use an agent to get them to look at
anything," says William Calvin, an associate professor of
psychiatry and neurobiology at the University of Washington
in Seattle. He has published seven popular science books,
including How the Shaman Stole the Moon (New York, Bantam
Books, 1992), a neurobiology book. Calvin says his agent,
New York-based John Brockman, has been invaluable. "A
writer's first priority is to find an agent, for they are
the essential gatekeepers," Calvin says.
Writer's Market (Cincinnati, Writer's Digest Books,
published annually), a bible of sorts for writers, defines a
literary agent as part sales representative, part business
manager. An agent screens proposals for those that are
publishable, and attempts to place them with publishers. The
agent typically receives 15 percent to 20 percent of the
author's income from advances or royalties.
Robert Pollack, a professor of biology at Columbia
University, raves about his agent. "She was professional,
efficient, clear-minded, and I knew that she was implacably
on my side," he says. "I went from a poor shlep trying to be
taken seriously by publishers to a person who would be
revealed to the appropriate person at the appropriate time
and to the appropriate publishing house." Pollack's book,
Signs of Life: The Language and Meanings of DNA, is
scheduled for publication this winter by Houghton-Mifflin
Co. of Boston.
What An Agent Does
A literary agent first helps a scientist-author find a niche
for the type of book he or she has in mind. "Is it cutting-
edge science, or a review of a traditional field? If the
topic is genetics, will the writer zero in on a particular
aspect, or present an overview?" says Regula Noetzli, an
agent specializing in science trade books at the Charlotte
Sheedy Agency in New York. Writing to a particular audience
on a level it can understand is crucial, too. A book to
introduce an area of science to other scientists in
different fields, for example, would use a style quite
unlike that of a health-oriented book for consumers with
little scientific savvy.
Agents also help writers polish their proposals before they
are sent to publishers. In trade publishing, the proposal is
de rigueur: An author submits a proposal and perhaps a
sample chapter or two. A proposal must be concise, clear,
and riveting; moreover, the idea that is described must have
an identifiable market.
The art of proposal writing involves more than just putting
words on a page, says Snell: "It is developing and
organizing the proposal, studying the competition, and
identifying the audience and market." Here is where a
scientist should accept an agent's suggestions--a concept to
which some academic researchers find it hard to adjust,
since "professors are so used to telling their students
what's right," Snell says. "I tell scientists, `I can't tell
you about vertebrate physiology, but you can't tell me much
about publishing,'" he says.
Once a proposal is fine-tuned, it begins the rounds of
publishers. "An agent knows which publisher is likely to be
interested, and has entre to an editor," says Calvin.
If a publisher is interested in the scientist's proposal,
the agent helps negotiate a contract. "There are a lot of
things a publisher can slip past an author who lacks
contract experience," says Snell. Many novice authors, for
example, are not aware that the cost of artwork will be
deducted from royalties or the advance--unless they haggle
at contract time for the publisher to pick up this expense.
"Half of the items on a contract are routinely crossed off,
but some things publishers won't budge on. Agents know that,
and because they deal with the same editors over and over,
they do not have to win the same argument over and over,"
says Calvin, who retained electronic publishing and
translation rights to his books.
In addition to knowing what a publisher is likely to
compromise on and what is written in stone, an agent brings
a distancing that an author cannot, agents say. "Most
writers are unprepared to negotiate on their own behalf,"
Snell says. "It is your work, so you are emotionally
involved. It's hard to be objective, as you need to be in
this business."
A successful proposal earns a lump-sum advance against
royalties. Since royalties usually do not amount to much--
and in fact often come to less than the advance--the advance
is often the only income the author sees. But advances can
be quite impressive. "You'd think a publisher wouldn't buy a
book until it was written, but that's absolutely not true.
They pay a $100,000 advance on the basis of a four- to five-
page prospectus," says Calvin. Prospective authors should
realize, however, that only the most successful scientist-
turned-authors command such fees. A first-timer is more
likely to get between $25,000 and $50,000, he says.
Setting Up Collaborations
A major obstacle in moving from grant writer or article
author to trade publishing is the fact that many scientists
are not skillful writers. "If they try to write a popular
science book, they do not know what they can expect in the
basic knowledge of the audience," says Noetzli.
Agents and editors pinpoint a major problem in many
scientists' attempt at popular writing--the stilted, remote
passive voice that pervades scholarly journals. "Scientists
seem to be hesitant to write a simple, direct, declarative
sentence," says Bob Kalish, coauthor of Global Alert, a book
on ozone (New York, Plenum Publishing Corp., 1992).
Snell offers an example of a scientist's prose passed on to
him by an editor at Wadsworth: "The small quadruped effected
its descent from the arboreal habitat to engage in the
ingestion of sustenance." The editor crossed it out and
penciled in: "The squirrel came down from the tree to eat."
To combat the problems caused by the scientist who has a
great idea and an impeccable background--but who also tends
to discuss quadrupeds in arboreal habitats--some editors
offer yet another service: They hook up the aspiring
scientist author with an established writer who can
effectively communicate the researcher's ideas to the
public. Such help can come from several sources.
A coauthor contributes original chapters or polishes the
scientist's writing, or both. "The main thing I contribute
is a sense of style," Kalish says of his part in this
literary symbiosis. "I make it interesting." A coauthor
splits the advance or royalties, the percentage reflecting
the amount of work involved.
A ghostwriter is generally paid a fee by the author, but
relinquishes the credit that a coauthor would retain.
Another option is for the author to hire a developmental
editor. This is someone who coaches the author in how to
rewrite a garbled or overly technical manuscript--a service
that was once provided by the publisher after an author
submitted a manuscript (see story on page 21).
Writing teams are formed in various ways. Noetzli, for
example, keeps a list of writers on staff at a well-known
mass-market science magazine who are available for
collaborations.
Jack Fishman, an atmospheric scientist at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration in Langley, Va., found
his own coauthor--Bob Kalish, who is his cousin. Together,
they produced Global Alert.
"Fishman had done research on surface ozone, and written
articles for professional journals that he felt the general
public should be aware of, but he knew that what he wrote
was too technical," says Snell, their agent. "But he had a
cousin who was a professional writer, who had a couple of
successful novels, and who had ghostwritten a few books with
doctors. When put together, they could create a book that
neither could have done alone."
How To Find An Agent
Many authors find their agents by word of mouth. This was
the case for Pollack. He originally sent his book about DNA
sequences to university presses where he had contacts,
although he sought a broader readership. These publishers
sent his manuscript to other biology professors for review,
hardly a valid test of how the book would fare among the
shopping-mall bookstore set.
"So I contacted Horace Judson, who wrote The Eighth Day of
Creation [New York, Simon & Schuster Inc., 1979], also about
DNA," Pollack recalls. "Coincidentally, he had already read
my manuscript for one of the university presses, and said,
`It's not a university press book. You need an agent.'" So
Pollack approached Judson's agent, who took him on.
For those without personal tips, the best place to look for
an agent is a book available in libraries, Literary Market
Place, or LMP (New York, R.R. Bowker Co., published
annually). "For an agent to obtain a listing in LMP, he or
she must establish credentials of having sold three books
for advances in the past 12 months--and they check it out.
If you're not listed, you have no track record," says Snell.
Another good source for finding an agent is Writer's Market.
Agents offer the following tips for aspiring authors: Once
you find an agent who specializes in science trade books,
send a one-page query letter describing your planned book,
why it will sell, and why you are qualified to write it.
Submit a publication list, including both professional and
popular articles. Pollack, for example, mentioned an op-ed
piece he had written that was published in the New York
Times. Swamping an agent with reprints from the Journal of
Experimental Zoology may not help you plead your case. If an
agent is interested in representing you, he or she will then
ask to see a proposal and perhaps a sample chapter or two.
Calvin managed to sell his first book, Inside the Brain (New
York, New American Library, 1980), without an agent--and
with a lot of luck, he says. But his editor quickly put him
in touch with an agent, and his writing career has been much
easier ever. "As far as I can see, you need an agent all the
time," he says.
Ricki Lewis is a freelance science writer based in Scotia,
N.Y.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : THINGS THAT CAN GO WRONG AFTER THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED
AU : RICKI LEWIS
TY : PROFESSION
PG : 21
Once a scientist signs a contract to write a trade book, the
agent usually fades into the background, handling payments
and other business matters while the writer writes. But
having a contract isn't a guarantee that you'll have a book.
Your book may never see the light of day if it isn't
adequately developed.
"At many publishing houses, editors are overloaded from all
the mergers and downsizing, so they no longer have the time
to nurture a book," says Michael Snell, a literary agent
specializing in science books in Truro, Mass. "Ten years ago
an editor may have had four or five books per season. Now
it's 20 to 25 books per season. Therefore, a lot of what
gets turned in is ultimately abandoned," Snell says. And if
a publisher decides to drop its science line, the firm can
back out of contracts, says William Calvin, an associate
professor of psychiatry and neurobiology at the University
of Washington in Seattle and author of seven trade books.
Another author's nightmare is seeing his or her prized book
on the discount table at K-Mart. This is what happens when
a book is "remaindered," says Calvin. "In the mid-1970s,
federal tax law provided a large incentive if books don't
sell well to get rid of them. This is how they end up on
clearance tables in bookstores," he says.
Calvin is most disturbed about the short lives of his books,
only one of which has gone beyond an initial printing.
"Books from academic presses and textbook publishers tend to
remain available for half-a-dozen years. But in trade
publishing, if it isn't big, in two years, it is
unavailable," he says. Calvin is now in the frustrating
position of having his books that are out of print in the
United States being published in Dutch and German. A
professor who wanted to assign one of Calvin's books to his
students couldn't, because the book was no longer for sale.
A financial hedge against a book's being abandoned
is to secure a hefty advance. And agents say that means
having one of them on the author's side. "The trade
publishers expect an agent to filter material," says Snell.
--R.L.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
PEOPLE
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Russian Scientist Takes Sabbatical With U.S. Biotech
AU : NEERAJA SANKARAN
TY : PROFESSION (PEOPLE)
PG : 23
Vladimir A. Efimov, head of the Laboratory of Gene
Engineering at the Shemyakin Institute of Bioorganic
Chemistry, Moscow, is spending a year's sabbatical as a
visiting scientist at Triplex Pharmaceutical Corp. in The
Woodlands, Texas.
The four-year-old biotechnology company is working on
producing novel drugs to inhibit the onset of certain viral
disease and cancers. Its approach is based on using
oligonucleotides--short sequences of DNA building blocks--
that form triple helical complexes with specific regions of
DNA, thereby preventing the genes from expressing
themselves. Efimov was invited to help in designing the
specific oligonucleotides.
"This approach is very promising for the future of
pharmaceuticals," says Efimov, whose expertise is in nucleic
acid chemistry and recombinant DNA technology. "We are
trying to produce oligonucleotides that can bind tightly and
specifically to the regulatory regions of genes causing
viral diseases or oncogenes."
"Dr. Efimov will lend his expertise to the chemical
modification program, to improve the DNA-binding
capabilities of the oligos, and to ensure their uptake by
cells," says Krishna Jayaraman, head of the
oligonucleotide chemistry group at Triplex.
"We have to be able to reduce the quantity [of
oligonucleotide] needed 100 times in order for it to be used
as a drug," says Efimov. "My approach involves modifying the
structure of the backbone so as to improve binding and
uptake."
Efimov received his Ph.D. in bioorganic chemistry from the
Shemyakin Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow, in
1974, and, in 1989, a doctor of sciences (Sc.D.) degree from
the same institute. He has been associated with the
Shemyakin Institute since 1971, first as a student and later
as a researcher and teacher. He has received numerous awards
in his home country, including the Order of Honour for
Scientific Achievements, and the USSR Medal for Outstanding
Achievements in Labor; in addition, he holds three patents.
Although he has visited the U.S. before, this is his first
extended stay; previously, he came for symposia and
meetings.
"I hope to organize a bridge between the U.S. lab and my lab
in Moscow," he says.
--Neeraja Sankaran
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Two Researchers From France, Australia Receive U.S.
Nobel `Predictor' Award
AU : NEERAJA SANKARAN
TY : PROFESSION (PEOPLE)
PG : 23
Nicole Le Duarin, a developmental biologist and a professor
at the College de France, Nogent-sur-Marne, and Donald
Metcalf, a research professor of cancer biology at the
University of Melbourne in Australia, were the recipients of
Columbia University's 1993 Louisa Gross Horwitz Prize,
presented in December. The two scientists shared the $22,000
prize, which has been awarded annually since 1967 for
outstanding research in biology or biochemistry.
Both Le Douarin and Metcalf were cited for their discoveries
of how different types of cells in the body develop from a
single type of precursor cell. Their work established that,
in addition to the genes that code for various functions,
environmental influences play an important role in
determining cellular fate.
The primary focus of Le Douarin's research has been the
development of nerve cells in the embryo. She tracked the
migratory routes of the precursor cells in the embryo to
discover the precise point at which they begin to change.
She discovered two growth hormones that determine whether
these precursor cells become neural cells or cartilage or
pigment cells.
Le Douarin, 63, obtained her doctoral degree from the
University de Paris. She taught high school from 1954 to 1960
and worked at the Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique (CNRS) from 1960 to 1965, as well as at the
University de Clermont-Ferrand and the University de Nantes
from 1965 to 1975. In 1975 she became the director of the
Institut d'Embryologie at CNRS, a position she still holds.
Metcalf's major contributions have been in studying the
development of blood cells, and applying this knowledge to
cancer therapy. He identified, purified, and found the genes
for various factors that control the development of blood
cells. Most recently, he isolated a new factor, called the
leukemia inhibitory factor, that has powerful effects in
precursor cells and adult liver and bone-forming tissues.
Metcalf, 64, received a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney
in Australia in 1953. Since 1954 he has been associated with
the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research at
Melbourne, where he is currently a research professor of
cancer biology and head of the institute's cancer research
unit. Last year, he received the Albert Lasker Clinical
Medical Research Award (B. Spector, The Scientist, Oct. 18,
1993, page 1).
More than half of the Horwitz prize winners--28 out of 51--
have gone on to receive the Nobel Prize.
--Neeraja Sankaran
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
NEXT:
OBITUARY
------------------------------------------------------------
TI : Bernard D. Davis
TY : PROFESSION (OBITUARY)
PG : 23
Bernard D. Davis, a professor at Harvard Medical School
since 1957 and a pioneer in microbial genetics research,
died of prostate cancer at his home in Belmont, Mass., on
January 14. He was 78 years old.
Davis, who had been Adele Lehmann Professor of Bacterial
Physiology at Harvard and director of the Bacterial
Physiology Unit there, did ground-breaking work on the
regulation of genes in bacteria, membrane transport systems,
and the action of antibiotics. He established a technique to
isolate mutant bacteria using penicillin.
Davis also was widely known for his writings on social
issues in science, such as the uses of recombinant DNA, the
dangers of genetic engineering, and the Human Genome Project
(The Scientist, Oct. 29, 1990, page 13).
In 1976 he was at the center of a heated controversy over
the publication of his opinions on affirmative action and
medical school admissions. At the time of his death he was
working on a book about another public controversy: that
surrounding Nobel laureate David Baltimore. Baltimore had
coauthored and then later defended a paper published in the
journal Cell (45:247, April 1986) against claims of fraud
and faked data. Davis had come out strongly in defense of
Baltimore.
Davis received an M.D. from Harvard Medical School in 1940.
(The Scientist, Vol:8, #3, February 7, 1994)
(Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)
================================
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.