EUGENE GARFIELD IN ST ItUTE FoR SCIENTIFIC IN FOe M.4T10N@ 3501 MARKET ST PHILADELPHIA PA 19104 A Tribute to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 011 Its IO(MI Biih(ky: Jan A. Witkowski Reviews Its HisEory and the Highest Impact Sympsia Publications Number 28 July 9, 1990 In March of this year, i%e Scienrist@pre- University of Southampton in 1968 and a sented a survey of small, independent re- PhD in biochemistry from the University of search institutions in the US. 1Twenty such London in 1972. Between 1972 and 1982 institutions were ranked by the citation im- he was a research fellow at the Institute of pact of their papers published between 1973 Child Health, London, and at the Mayo and 1987. Although the Salk Institute for Clinic, Rochester, Mimesota. From 1982 Biological Studies and the Scripps Clinic and to 1986, he was a lecturer in the Department Research Foundation, both of San Diego, of Pediatrics, Royal Postgraduate Medical California, received the most citations (over School, University of London. He then 124,000 each), the institution that topped the served as director, Kleberg DNA Diagnostic list by citation impact was the Cold Spring Laboratory, and assistant professor, Institute Harbor Laborato~, New York. As David for Molecular Genetics, at Baylor College Pendlebury observed, papers published from of Medicine, Houston, Texas. Cold Spring Harbor had a citation impact Witkowski came to Cold Spring Harbor more than five times greater than the average in 1987. As director of the Banbury Center, for the entire Science Citation Indexm data- he determines topics for conferences at the base. Furthermore, the impact factor for this center, arranges meetings for congressional lab was nearly twice that of the average for staff and science journalists, and assists with the 20 institutions listed. I (The entire list the publication of meetings. His own major appears in Table 1.) research interest is in human genetics, but The following guest essay, however, does Witkowski notes that he has a long-standing not really concern Cold Spring Harbor’s interest in the history of science—especially current preeminence in life-sciences re- topics relating to the development of ex- search, but rather its dk.tinguished past— perimental biology in this century. He has specifically, the yearly symposia in experi- also published papers discussing significant mental biology that have taken place there studies in biochemistry, embryology, tissue for more than a half-century: Jan A. culture, and molecular biology.2 Witkowski, director of the laboratory’s Ban- The papers discussed in this study span bury Center, discusses the 51 most-cited ar- 40 years of research, from 1940 to 1982. ticles in the Cold Spn”ng Harbor Symposia Although there is a predominance of papers on Quantitative Biology. His account in- from the 1960s-the period Witkowski re- cludes a brief history of the laboratory itself, fers to as’ ‘the fist golden age of molecular from its beginnings as a summer school at genetics’ ‘—dtisstudy demonstrates the con- the end of the last century to its current sistency with which the symposia have pro- renown. The evolution of the symposia is duced highly cited works over the years. As ako described, tlom the fust meeting in Witkowski notes, this year marks Cold 1933, with 16 scientists in attendance, to Spring Harbor’s 100th birthday, and as the what Witkowski calls the” frenetic, action- symposia continue to address the latest packed meetings that we know today.” topics in biological research, this output of A mtive of Birmingham, UK, Witkowski important and influential work is certain to received a BS degree in zoology from the continue. 253 .. ........ ... .. Table 1: The too 20 I&h immwt Asanciation of lndeuendent Research Institutes (A13Ul members (among those &at pub~shed-more than lCO papers, 1673-1987) Citation Name Papers Citations 1. Cold Spring Harbnr L&ratory, Cold Spring Harbnr, NY 839 49,217 58.7 2 Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 2,834 124,942 44.1 3. Fred Hutchinson Csncer Research Center, Seattle, WA 1,756 59,800 34.1 4. Whitehead Jnstitufe for Biomedical Research, Csmbridge, MA 208 6,624 31.8 5. Roche Institute of Molemdar Biology, Nuttey, NJ 1,731 53,450 30.9 6. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Baftimore, MD, snd 1,695 51,8% 30.6 Wsahington, DC 7. Trudeau Institute, Sarsna.c Lake, NY 288 8,358 29.0 8. Scripps Ctinic and Research Foundation, La JoOa, CA* 4,972 124,323 25.0 9. Wisrar Institute, Philadelphia, PA 1,586 38,758 24.4 10. New York Blnod Center, New York, NY 734 17.620 24.0 11. La Jolts Csncer Research Foundation, La Jolla, CA 405 8,915 22.0 12. Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA 304 6,437 21.2 13. American HeaJth Foundation, New York, NY 820 17,127 20.9 14. Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harhnr, ME 994 19,872 20.0 15. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Shrewsbury, MA 1,347 26,807 19.9 16. Public HeafUr Research Institute of the City of New York, NY 796 15,769 19.8 17. Forsyth Dental Center, Ekuston, MA 617 1I,270 18.3 18. Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Pako Alto, CA 539 9,808 18.2 19, Boston Biomed]czd Research Institute. Boston. MA 6% 12,075 17.3 20. Center for Bleed Research, Boston, MA 180 3,088 17.2 *Scripps is no longer an AIRf member. Source: Mm’s ScienceIndicators fde, 1973-1987. Although the laboratory’s research flour- already provided the ultimate commentaries. ished under earlier directors, notably Although I am hopeful that other authors Milislav Demerec and John Cairns, it is the listed in the Bibliography that follows the present director who has played the major essay will have contributed commentaries role in the growth of the laboratory’s in- on their papers by the time we go to press, fluence. He is, of course, Nobel laureate the main reason for their absence is our James D. Watson, who has been director at failure to invite them until now. Severrd of Cold Spring Harbor since 1%8. Previously, them have written commentaries on papers in a broad discussion of Citation Ce’assicsW, published in other journals. Success in ob- I’ve noted that perhaps the most influential taining commentaries depends upon the right paper of the century-Watson and Francis timing-it is preferable to invite authors to H.C. Crick’s 1953 publication on the write Citation Classic commentaries before double-helix structure of DNAq—has been they receive the Nobel Prize or other major cited “only” about 1,000 times. ‘f This recognition, lest they be too preoccupied seemed to me to indicate an upper limit on with other pressing obligations. citations that one could expect for such a ***** work. It is also understandable that neither Watson nor Crick would provide us with a commentary on this paper. You might say My thanks to Christopher King and Eric that with the publication of Watson’s Z7te i%urschweli for their help in the prepara- Double ffeh.d and Crick’s recent autobi- tion of this essay, ography, WhatMad Pursuit, 6 they have RmERaNct?s 1. Pemtfebrrry D. Cold Spring Harbor tops among ind~dent labs. 7SICScmntut 4(6):20, 19 March 1990. 2. WltkowakdJ A. Personal communication. 10 May 1990 3 Wataon J D & Crkk F H C. MoiecuIaImucture of nucle~cacids: a structure for deoxwibose nudtic acid Na-mre171:737-8, 1953. 4 Garfisld E. The arricles most cited in tk SCI from 1%1 !O1982.7. Awther IW Cimlion Classics: tie Watson-Crickdouble klix bas its rum. E.wavsof m infonnaion scientist: rhosr.witine and ocheressavx Pbitadelphrw1S1press, 19S6 Vol 8. p (87-%; - 5 Watson J D. J’fIedouble h.lu. New York: Norron. 1980.298 p. 6. Crick F H C. J+’?wmad pursuit. New York Basic, 1988. 182 p. 254 The 51 Most-Cited Articles in the Cold SpriDg Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology Jan A. Witkowski The Banbury Center Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724 The Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on preach.z As Loeb wrote with Winthrop Quantitative Biology are a venerable and J. V. Osterhout, Harvard University, Cam- venerated part of experimental biology. bridge, Massachusetts, and Thomas Hunt Established in 1933, the symposia have since Morgan, Columbia University, New York, that time charted progress in research in a in the editors’ announcement to the series wide range of sui&cm, subjects chosen for Monographs on Experimental Biology, their excitement, me need for dispassionate “Biology, which not long ago was purely and critical review, and above all by the descriptive and speculative, has begun to belief that they were rhe subjects that would adopt the methods of the exact sciences, continue to define the leading edge of re- recogui2ing that for permanent progress not search in biology. However, as John Cairns, only experiments are required but quan- director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory titative experiments.”3 Indeed, Loeb went from 1963 to 1968, has written on the sym- so far as to define “scientific biology” as posia: “any catalog of the virtues of the the attempt to reduce Iife phenomena ‘‘com- various Symposia, even if perfectly done pletely to physiochemical terms.’ ‘d and in the liveliest style, would miss the FoUowing the work of the physical chemists, whole point of the exercise. These meetings a colloidal theory of living matter became have meant much more to many people than very popular and experiments were per- could possibly be guessed at from looking formed to determine the effects of changes at the contents of the books .