As recently outlined in
SCIENCE and other journals, as well as in the general media, President Obama’s
announcement of the BAM has caused quite a stir. While many scientists welcome this
large new thrust in neuroscience, others question the technological feasibility
of the project. It is interesting that much of the initial energy and
organization for this concept came from non-neuroscientists and from private
groups such as the Kavli Foundation rather than arising from the NIH’s
neuroscience mainstream.
Whether or not the BAM
project becomes a major scientific success, it is a notable example of how
science policy decisions are made. A relatively small group of scientists and
foundation people were able to create a compelling vision and then ‘sell’ it to
senior policy makers. This will entrain a significant new investment in
neuroscience and in the technology needed to pursue the project’s goals.
In the broadest sense it
will be good to see any new investment in basic science. However, is the BAM
the very best use of the ~ $100M/year research investment? In terms of overall
global good would the money be better spent on malaria research? On better
antibiotics for drug resistant bacteria? On early detection of tumors?
The BAM episode highlights
the fact that we do not have a systemic approach to assessing the nation’s need
for research and development. While such approaches have been suggested (1)
they have never really been implemented. For the most part, science policy,
especially in the biomedical arena, is driven by pressures from interest
groups, primarily patient advocacy organizations. The enormous investment in
HIV research is a paramount example of this. While the interests of patients
clearly need to be represented, sometimes disease-focused research is not the
most rapid path to progress. That
is why the BAM project is so interesting; like its Genome Project predecessor,
it is primarily driven by basic research issues rather than having a disease
focus.
Thus the BAM project may
provide a model for scientists in other areas to energize their fields with new
funding. Unfortunately it also exemplifies the lack of a logical, systemic approach
to public funding of science.
(1) Guston,
D. & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-Time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1-2), 93-109.
No comments:
Post a Comment