A Golden Era of Nobel Laureates.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PERSPECTIVES HISTORY OF SCIENCE What conditions in the 1960s enabled nine physicians who trained at NIH to A Golden Era of Nobel Laureates win Nobel Prizes? Joseph L. Goldstein and Michael S. Brown he award of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Robert Lefkowitz brings to nine the number of Nobel laureates T Year of who trained in research at the United States Nobel laureate NIH mentor Institute Nobel Discovery National Institutes of Health (NIH) between Prize 1964 and 1972—a remarkable outpouring Michael S. Brown Earl Stadtman NHLBI 1985 LDL receptors over such a short period from a single bio- Joseph L. Goldstein Marshall Nirenberg NHLBI 1985 LDL receptors medical institution (see the figure). Was J. Michael Bishop Leon Levintow NIAID 1989 Cellular oncogenes there something particular about these recip- ients, the time, and the place that account for Harold E. Varmus Ira Pastan NIDDK 1989 Cellular oncogenes this unprecedented record? Alfred G. Gilman Marshall Nirenberg NHLBI 1994 G proteins We were among the nine, and the paral- Stanley B. Prusiner Earl Stadtman NHLBI 1997 Prions lels in our experiences are striking. All of Ferid Murad Martha Vaughan NHLBI 1998 Nitric oxide signaling us graduated from medical school before Richard Axel Gary Felsenfeld NIDDK 2004 Odorant receptors entering NIH, and all (except Alfred Gil- Robert J. Lefkowitz Jesse Roth and NIDDK 2012 G protein–coupled receptors man) took residency training. Gilman and Ira Pastan Ferid Murad were the only M.D.-Ph.D.s in the group. For the rest of us, NIH pro- on February 6, 2013 vided our fi rst intense research experience. The Nobel nine. Listed are the Nobel Prize winners who trained at NIH in the years 1964 to 1972. NHLBI, Some of our mentors were Ph.D.s and some National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NIAID, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; were M.D.s, but they all worked in reduc- NIDDK, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. tionist systems focused on fundamental mechanisms. The nine of us studied prob- (LDL) receptors, G protein–coupled recep- been honored with Nobel Prizes: Marshall lems ranging from protein synthesis in bac- tors, and odorant receptors], and two were Nirenberg (1968), Julius Axelrod (1970), teria to hormone receptors in animal cells. honored for discovery of receptor-signaling Christian Anfi nsen (1972), D. Carlton Gaj- Despite our clinical training and the fact mechanisms (G proteins and nitric oxide). dusek (1976), and Martin Rodbell (1994). that some of us had patient care duties, our In the nonreceptor arena, two laureates elu- Four of them were Ph.D. basic scientists, and www.sciencemag.org science was far removed from the bedside. cidated a basic mechanism of cancer, and one (Gajdusek) was a physician-scientist. The sharp contrast between the uncertain- one discovered a new form of infectious neu- All fi ve were dominant forces at NIH when ties of the bedside and the relatively “pris- rologic disease. Although none of us per- we nine were there. tine” world of the laboratory provided the formed “translational research,” as currently Scores of distinguished scientists were stimulus that drove us to pursue careers in in vogue, our discoveries infl uenced drug dis- trained at NIH in the 1960s, including many fundamental research. covery, medical practice, and human health. who earned election to the U.S. National The research experience at NIH in the It is not a coincidence that the 1960s was Academy of Sciences. Others achieved dis- Downloaded from 1960s was intense. Distractions were few. the decade of the Vietnam War and the doc- tinction in other ways. Indeed, a substantial Many of us knew each other, had heated dis- tor draft. Service at NIH substituted for mili- portion of the faculties of American medi- cussions about our research, and wondered tary service in Vietnam, which led some of cal schools trained at NIH in this remark- whether we had the ability to succeed in a us to apply to NIH instead of an academic able period. laboratory-based career. institution. The draft exemption evoked a Will a single biomedical institution ever After fi nishing our training, it is surpris- huge increase in the number of applicants again train nine Nobel laureates in a sin- ing that none of us stayed at NIH. We either for NIH fellowships. As a result, NIH had its gle decade? Under the current conditions, joined clinical departments or basic science pick of fellows with the strongest academic it seems unlikely. The focus of medical departments in medical schools. Regard- records. While these factors were impor- schools in the United States has changed. In less, we all addressed fundamental problems tant, they would have amounted to nothing if the 1960s, basic science was at the core of that were relevant to medicine, making pri- we had not encountered the excitement and medical education. The brightest graduates mary use of the tools of biochemistry, sup- rigor then in place at NIH. were expected to advance their discipline plemented with molecular biology as those As research fellows at NIH, we trained through scientifi c investigation. Today, med- methods became available. It is noteworthy with brilliant scientists who had been ical school curricula tend to condense basic SCIENCE that four of us received our prizes for dis- appointed in previous years. Credit is due to science teaching to a few months instead of covery of receptors [low-density lipoprotein the courageous leaders of the various insti- the traditional two preclinical years, and the tutes who chose to appoint basic scientists courses focus on a restricted set of disease- Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Texas even when their work did not deal directly relevant “facts” with little to no discussion Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390–9046, USA. E-mail: [email protected]; joe. with the disease-oriented mission of the about where those facts came from or that CREDIT: Y. HAMMOND/ Y. CREDIT: [email protected] institute. Five NIH-career scientists have facts will change as science advances. The www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 338 23 NOVEMBER 2012 1033 Published by AAAS PERSPECTIVES joy of fi nding new facts or overturning old logical mechanisms. Current emphasis on and be inspired by brilliant mentors? If it ones is no longer transmitted to students. “translational research” relegates basic sci- were to happen, it would require NIH to sup- As well, clinical departments have ence to a back burner. What has been lost port teaching and research at a concentrated expanded geometrically as medical schools is the conviction that progress in medicine depth in the basic sciences to open the eyes compete with private hospitals by amass- rests ultimately on a fundamental under- of medical school graduates to the joy of sci- ing huge clinical programs. The few scien- standing of physiology. Individual curiosity- entifi c study. tifi cally oriented faculty in clinical depart- driven science has been replaced by large There is a lesson from this golden era ments have been diluted to irrelevance by consortia dedicated to the proposition that of NIH: Ambitious young physicians jux- pure clinicians. No wonder that few medi- gathering vast amounts of correlative data taposed to cutting-edge basic scientists can cal students are choosing to follow paths in will somehow provide the answer to life’s themselves make fundamental discoveries. basic research. fundamental questions. Hopefully, this lesson will help to reconfi g- The research emphasis of NIH has grad- Is it likely that the best and brightest ure the future. ually shifted. The primary focus is no longer medical students can be funneled into set- on acquisition of knowledge in basic bio- tings where they can reinforce each other 10.1126/science.1231699 AGRICULTURE Biochar—a material related to charcoal—has Carbon Storage with Benefi ts the potential to benefi t farming as well as mitigate climate change. Saran P. Sohi iochar is the solid, carbon- and displace the use of fossil fuel. rich product of heating For biochar to become the better on February 6, 2013 Bbiomass with the exclusion option, the effi cient stabilization of of air (pyrolysis or “charring”). carbon into biochar must be com- If added to soil on a large scale, bined with the recovery of energy biochar has the potential to both from pyrolysis gases and residual benefit global agriculture and heat ( 2, 4). Pyrolysis systems that mitigate climate change. It could connect continuous biochar pro- also provide an income stream duction (for example, in rotating from carbon abatement for farm- kilns) with power generation from ers worldwide. However, biochar coproducts remain scarce. www.sciencemag.org properties are far from uniform, Without financial incentives and biochar production technolo- Biochar variation. The diverse properties of biochar have led to widely vary- for carbon abatement by stabili- gies are still maturing. Research is ing results. A more systematic understanding is now emerging, helping to zation, biochar has to be worth beginning to point the way toward defi ne its value in crop production and carbon storage. money in the soil. However, bio- a targeted application of biochar char materials are diverse (see the to soils that maximizes its benefi ts. humans ( 1). Diverting a few percent of this fi gure), and maximizing the benefi ts gained Incentives for using biomass to mitigate growth into biochar production could sus- from their use depends on matching them Downloaded from climate change currently focus on replacing tainably expand biosphere carbon stocks by a to the right situation ( 5). This diversity is fossil fuels in combustion. Biochar produc- gigatonne [109 metric tons (t)] each year ( 2).