• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

- - , COLD SPRING HARBORLABORATORY ANNUAL REPORT 1982 COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Box 100, Cold Spring Harbor, New York 11724 1982 Annual Report Editors: Annette Kirk, Elizabeth Ritcey Photographers: Herb Parsons, Joan James Cover: Reginald G. Harris Building, dedicated May 27, 1982. Photo by Ross Meurer. COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY COLD SPRING HARBOR, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION Walter H. Page, Chairperson Dr. Bayard Clarkson, Vice-Chairperson Dr. Norton D. Zinder, Secretary Robert L. Cummings, Treasurer Roderick H. Cushman, Assistant Treasurer Dr. James D. Watson, Director William R. Udry, Administrative Director BOARD OF TRUSTEES Institutional Trustees Individual Trustees Albert Einstein College of Medicine John F. Carr Dr. Matthew Scharff Robert L. Cummings Roderick H. Cushman Columbia University Walter Frank, Jr. Dr. Charles Cantor Mrs. Mary Jeanne Harris Amb. John P. Humes Duke University Dr. Ralph Landau Dr. Robert Webster Mrs. Mary Lindsay Walter H. Page Long Island Biological Association William S. Robertson Mr. Edward Pulling Alexander C. Tomlinson Dr. James D. Watson Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Boris Magasanik Honorary Trustees Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Dr. Bayard Clarkson Dr. Harry Eagle Dr. H. Bentley Glass New York University Medical Center Dr. Alexander Hollaender Dr. Claudio Basilico The Rockefeller University Dr. Norton D. Zinder State University of New York, Stony Brook Dr. Thomas E. Shenk University of Wisconsin Dr. Masayasu Nomura Wawepex Society Mr. Townsend J. Knight Yale University Dr. Charles F. Stevens Officers and trustees listed are as of December 31, 1982 DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1982 Now 30 years have passed since Francis Crick and I remember the first decade of the double helix as a discovered the double helix. We knew from the mo- period of happy winners and unlucky losers. Of ment we first put together our two-stranded modelcourse, here I am referring only to those scientists for the precise arrangement of the atoms in DNA who, after the double helix was found, stopped that we had found a uniquely wonderful molecule, thinking about whether DNA was important, know- the knowledge of which would transform the nature ing that from 1953 on the only sensible way to at- of biological research, if not of man's perception of tack genetics was to start with the base pairs of his own meaning within our universe. Our spring ofDNA. There was, of course, a small coterie of 1953 thus was filled with the exhilaration that camemalcontents who disliked the double helix from the from the winning of a very big race as well as the start. Given that bias, they had little chance for thrill that came from the realization that we were future success, and to judge by their later bitter ob- the first to perceive the key secret of the gene thatjections, first to the general validity of the central gave it the power of accurate self-replication. dogma (DNA-RNA-protein) and then much later Soon we moved on to worrying about how theto any use of recombinant DNA, they must have key features of the double helix could be definitive- known that real science was passing them by. ly proved correct and then how we might determine And while the fundamental significance of many the way in which the genetic information within it newly reported experiments was often debatable, was used to order the amino acids within polypep-the experimental facts themselves were seldom that tides. Solving these problems was clearly not goingcontroversial. To be sure, certain results were to be easy, and never did we see the need to fan- misinterpreted long enough to reach the print of a tasize as to where DNA research might take us over respectable journal, but such errors were few and the long haul. The genetic engineering tricks of to-far between and through them the course of DNA day were beyond our wildest imagination, with research has probably not suffered more than a neither Francis nor I having the slightest addiction month or two delay. to science fiction when our science itself could be Of even less consequence has been actual fabri- so immensely rewarding. cation of false data. For the most part, these Now I can only feel very fortunate to have lived forgeries were reported as semi-anticipated exten- during the era that already by its 20th birthday sions of the conventional scientific wisdom of the (1973) had given us an elegant, practical way to moment. For example, the recent claim that a pro- make recombinant DNA and through it a virtually tein kinase cascade gives rise to the cancerous unlimited power to probe the remaining key phenotype built upon the prior discovery that the mystery of life. What has been learned about DNAoncogenic protein coded by the Rous sarcoma virus in just 30 years perhaps only has a parallel in the in-was a protein kinase. But almost from the moment tellectual achievements that marked the revolution the cascade was proposed, an undercurrent of in atomic physics which began with Rutherford and rumors arose that no graduate student, much less Bohr in 1912 and culminated with the building by mature scientist, had ever accomplished that much Fermi and Szilard of the first atomic pile in 1942. science in such a short time. And when the trou- And like with that grand era of physics, the early bling fact became known that key experiments days of DNA involved the participation of a small could not be repeated in other labs, the burden of group of highly perceptive scientists. For the most proof quickly passed back to the lab making the sen- part, they were close friends and took real pleasure sational claims. To be sure, the protein kinase in the accomplishments of their peers even when at cascade dominated the conversations of retro- times it meant that another had first achieved the virologists for several months, but the only real sci- objective they had also keenly wanted. entist seriously harmed was the supervisor of the Fortunately, there were so many good discoveries now revealed to be long-term compulsive faker. to be made that virtually all the pioneers with DNA Massive fakeries of the protein kinase cascade did experiments of great importance, and I do notvariety have been very rare occurrences in the world of molecular biology. The most sensational ofhighly paid consultant to the chemical or securities these soon generated skepticism from labs doingindustries. similar research which desired independent confir- We must take care, however, not to be dominated mation before accepting the claims at face value. Inby petty jealousy of our new breed of molecular each such case the putative facts were too importantbiologist-entrepreneur. I am not among those who to be ignored, and of necessity other labs began tobelieve that poverty enriches the soul and re- repeat the experiments. On the other hand, whenmember well how my American fellowship in a still only marginally interesting claims are made, no oneimpoverished, just post-war Europe let me virtually is likely to repeat them. Scientifically irrelevantcommute between the best labs in England and on fakes, however, could be more common occur-the continent. My scientific career was thus greatly rences, since advancement in many academic in-advanced. At worst I anticipate that my now much stitutions depends upon the number of publishedmore affluent peers will at least share the costs of a papers. Unfortunately, libraries, like our own, alljoint dinner and at best dream that they will soon too often subscribe to many effectively unreadsense the virtues of enlightened philanthropy and periodicals which serve as sitting ducks for inven-see the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory which tors of irrelevant data. By so subscribing, we keep inhelped shape their scientific careers as the obvious existence journals whose only honest justification isinstitution for buildings that bear their names. their availability for the occasional important article I also do not believe we should be that much con- that has been mistakenly rejected by the major jour-cerned about the fact that a large number of senior nals of the moment. academic molecular biologists will be spending a It has thus made good sense to accept as correctnoticeable fraction of their time consulting with in- the facts that we read in journals like Nature, Cell,dustry. Such arrangements have for decades been or the Journal of Molecular Biology. To be sure, wethe norm with chemists, and I have never heard the may sometimes reject the way some of these factsargument convincingly made that chemistry would are interpreted, and it is often by such questioningbe a more exciting subject if it could be divorced that we move science forward. But we should notfrom industry. That chemistry today lacks much of make too much of a point about where we have oc-the excitement that it had 30 years ago more likely casionally gone wrong. The past 30 years of DNAreflects the fact that important new discoveries in research have not been dominated by frequentchemistry are much harder now to make. As a con- reversals of scientific direction. Instead, it has beensequence, many of the better graduate students who an era of decisive experiments that rightfully havein the past would have gone into chemistry now opt virtual immediate acceptance. for careers in molecular biology-biochemistry. During the early days of DNA research there was We should, moreover, take note of the fact that no way to guarantee that practical benefits formuch, if not the majority, of high-quality science mankind would emerge, and there were indeedteaching is done by younger scientists not yet well-known scientists, like the celebrated Australianknown to the outside world.

Load more

  304

Copy Link