This may not be an affront that is political in nature, though maybe that is how it was devised. It is a direct affront on basic science. The simple truth is that NCRR and NIGMS are the last places in the NIH who do not have either a disease focus, or an area of the body focus. Put in a much stronger way, they are the only two centers that do not primarily fund what I would call 'contract science.'
What is contract science? It's when NIH gives grants for research that looks like a foregone conclusion. This model, widespread among all NIH centers, works against basic science. The extreme logic flaw of contract science is that it destroys the creativity and capability for scientists to make groundbreaking discoveries. Instead, it harnesses the university research enterprise and turns it into large collections of technicians doing boring experiments, and generating grant proposals tailored to the study sections, not tailored towards new discovery.
That Dr. Collins would put NCRR on the chopping block is no surprise. This is a man who helped create a center (NHGRI). The work and model of NHGRI is entirely contract. It was initially a large contract to sequence the human genome. A technological marvel for sure, but more of an engineering question than a basic science question (and don't get me wrong, a worthwhile and difficult engineering question at that). What this does is create a feeding frenzy amongst the other NIH center directors. Everyone will want a piece of what NCRR has.
What stinks is that the capabilities and the protection for the most basic infrastructure for basic scientists and the support system for all the other centers will be destroyed if NCRR goes. Instead, the big clouted political figures like Harold Varmus (former NIH director and currently the head of the extremely bloated NCI) will merely snatch up large swaths of NCRR and put them into use in their center, forsaking all others.
Ok, I've gone on enough with this. Here's some points for the discussion. Hopefully someone will raise these to Dr. Collins. However, I doubt he'll listen. He's clearly already made up his mind.
1. NCRR is one of two centers out of the thirty plus centers at NIH whose sole focus is on basic science. Taking that away is an affront on basic science
2. NCRR has an infrastructure component that supports not only all other centers at NIH, but funds necessary infrastructure for basic and applied sciences across the United States.
3. Dismantling NCRR and giving pieces of it to others will result in an increased inter-center bureaucracy.
4. Dismantling NCRR and giving pieces of it to others will result in budget hogging and a political battle over the remains of the center.
5. Nearly 1100 letters and comments, many of which oppose this move, are being flatly ignored by Collins. This includes misrepresenting the level of support for this move in the NY TImes article.
There is one simple question that needs to be asked of Dr. Collins, and I anxiously await an answer....
What factual evidence and arguments does Dr. Collins have that supports getting rid of NCRR?
That query needs to be answered, and to the satisfaction of the scientific community before any other movements or agreements to set this in motion occur.
I will tell you this, I'm calling my Congressman and telling him about this.
Additional Links to more on this story...
An excellent blog post about Collins from a friend of mine
Interview with Science (the one where he looks like a jerk)
Original article from Science on breaking up a center
The New York Times article that serves as a PR campaign for Collins
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/health/policy/23drug.html?src=me
0 comments:
Post a Comment