NAT921-2Corres Ok Mx

correspondence M the middle of the twenty-first century the Typically, the reviewing process of …but young researchers world is going to face a food crisis, and that the DFG takes less than six months and agriculture will consequently put increased involves a large number of scientists feel disillusioned pressure on wildlife habitats. from foreign and German institutions In 1998, the UK Institute of Biology and and from senior as well as junior ranks. Sir — Your recent News report “German six affiliated societies (whose specialist Every attempt is made to support the best research agency stifles creativity” (Nature interests range from agricultural produc- and the most innovative scientific 404, 217; 2000) gives a negative impression tion to ecological conservation) produced proposals. In fact, time and again high- of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft a report on the social and ethical aspects of risk proposals are funded that, for (DFG) — but one that is, in our experience GM crops2. We cited half a dozen indica- example, would have no better chance at least, correct. tors of the forthcoming shortfall in global of support from the US National Nature claims that the process threatens food supply, including the following. Forty Institutes of Health. young researchers’ career opportunities in per cent of terrestrial primary productivity Of course, no system is free of errors, particular. Our last four applications for is already managed by humanity. The trend and occasional undeserved negative grants in the area of environmental for the past 15 years has been a reduction in judgements may be made. However, toxicology (mechanisms of microcystin grain production per capita. Global sea- continual efforts are made to improve the toxicity in the aquatic environment) were fish catches have been in steady decline system. Overall, we are impressed rejected, after an average delay of 10–12 since 1990 because of over-fishing. by the flexibility of the DFG, its unbiased months, as “irrelevant” or “dealing with World carry-over stocks of grain are support for creative, high-quality research non-existent problems”. We did, declining from one year to the next. The and its programmes for young scientists fortunately, receive support for a similar grain harvest area per person has been and interdisciplinary research even at grant from the European Union; the declining since the late 1970s, owing to times when its budget is tight. results of these studies have been or will be increasing population, growth in industry At this juncture, our most urgent published this year, and they form the basis and desertification. concern is to convince politicians to of an EU patent application. The increasing consumption of meat in increase funding to the DFG significantly. The referees of our unsuccessful DFG the rich nations has put more pressure on This is particularly important for the applications did not seem, to us, to be up- the poor, although reversing this trend support of young scientists. We are very to-date in their knowledge of the topic, or alone (even if it were realistic) would not proud of the DFG as a self-governing they had little understanding of environ- counter the pressures caused by a popula- body of the German scientific community mental toxicology. Indeed, the comments tion increase of 40 to 80 per cent over the and we believe it to be, by any standards, we received from the DFG made us wonder next four decades. The world shows no sign one of the best scientific funding agencies. whether the referees had even read the of turning vegetarian. Although I am sym- Reinhard Jahn grant. They were so contradictory of each pathetic to Latham’s conclusion that “what Max Planck Institute for Biophysical other as to provide us with no constructive is missing is the ‘purchasing power’ of the Chemistry, Am Fassberg, D-37077 advice on how to improve the application. poor”, the evidence is that when the poor Göttingen, Germany The upshot was that, while we were able to become a little richer they eat more meat. [email protected] demonstrate that our proposed research Given that agricultural inefficiencies Other signatories of this letter: could be done, and was publishable in and global inequalities are bound, sadly, to August Böck Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München peer-reviewed journals, it was not consid- continue, it is likely that genetic modifica- Klaus M. Breiner Emmy-Noether-Fellow, ETH Zürich ered fundable by the DFG. This kind of tion where appropriate will make a signifi- Karin D. Breunig Universität Halle-Wittenberg outcome may not seem devastating to sea- cant contribution to human well-being — Herman Bujard Universität Heidelberg soned scientists with established careers. José Campos-Ortega Universität zu Köln and to that of other species. Detlev Ganten Max-Delbrück-Zentum, Berlin-Buch But it impedes the careers of young Jonathan Cowie Ingrid Grummt Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg researchers dependent on DFG funding Institute of Biology, 20–22 Queensberry Place, Peter Gruss Max-Planck-Institut für biophysikalische Chemie, within Germany, and is demotivating. London SW7 2DZ, UK Göttingen A better approach would be for grants to 1. Nature 404, 222 (2000). Christo Goridis CNRS, Marseille be sent out for review internationally; for 2. GM Crops: The Social and Ethical Issues (Institute of Biology, Robert Huber Max-Planck-Institut für Biochemie, München referees’ comments to be sent to the appli- 1998). www.iob.org/gmocrops.html Michael Hoch Gerhard-Hess-Fellow, Universität Bonn cants in their original form, not rewritten Herbert Jäckle Max-Planck-Institut für biophysikalische Chemie, by DFG to maintain anonymity (we are Göttingen happy for peer-review to remain anony- Regine Kahmann Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität mous, but the rewriting leads to incompre- Distinguished scientists München Claudia Koch-Brandt Universität Mainz hensible comments); and, as proposed in back Germany’s DFG… Maria Leptin Universität zu Köln the Nature report, for applicants to be able Hartmut Michel Max-Planck-Institut für Biophysik, Frankfurt to attend referees’ meetings to answer ques- Sir — Your recent News report “German Angelika Noegel Universität zu Köln tions and defend their grants. research agency stifles creativity” (Nature Erwin Neher Max-Planck-Institut für biophysikalische Chemie, Daniel R. Dietrich, Bettina C. Hitzfeld 404, 217; 2000) gives a negative and Göttingen Department of Environmental Toxicology, incorrect impression of the Deutsche Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard Max-Planck-Institut für University of Konstanz, PO Box 5560 -X918, Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). Entwicklungsbiologie, Tübingen D-78457 Konstanz, Germany Nature claims that DFG’s inability to Nikolaus Pfanner Universität Freiburg Konrad Sandhoff Universität Bonn assess novel research areas and interdisci- Astrid Schoen Heisenberg fellow, Universität Würzburg Nature replies — The Nature report states plinary research areas threatens career Petra Schwille Biofuture junior group, Göttingen explicitly that the DFG reviewing process opportunities, especially for young Kai Simons Max-Planck-Institut für molekulare Zellbiologie und averages five to six months. The researchers. The cases mentioned in the Genetik, Dresden complaints discussed in the article Nature report, however, are neither Eberhart Zrenner Universität Tübingen concern the outliers to this average — representative nor described in an Signed on behalf of 1,164 other biomedical scientists. The full list of applications in new, interdisciplinary, not unbiased manner. names is available from R. J. traditional, areas of research. I 922 NATURE | VOL 404 | 27 APRIL 2000 | www.nature.com © 2000 Macmillan Magazines Ltd.

Load more