Stand
Up and Be Counted
IT IS NOW ESSENTIAL THAT THE SCIENTIFIC community become far more involved in issues concerning its future. Based on my experience, first serving on the AAI Public Affairs Committee and now as a member of FASEB’s Executive Committee on Public Affairs, I know that scientists are far too complacent. Let me cite a recent example: FASEB mailed more than 31,000 letters urgently requesting a response from the scientific community regarding proposed regulations from the Office of Scientific Integrity. How many responded? At last count, about 1600. Yet these regulations, which most scientists I’ve spoken with feel are onerous, have gone almost unchallenged by the scientific community. When it came to funding, immunologists did better. AAI asked its membership to flood Washington with letters concerning funding from NIH. We did that, urging a restoration in funding to competing and new grants to 6000. We are now at an estimated 5768 new and competing grants, still far from a satisfactory level for all of us involved in basic and clinical work. The Congress does respond to pressure when it is acute enough. Since most of you are voters, and certainly you pay taxes, you are the constituency that returns senators and members of the Congress to the Hill. Yet few of you saw fit to visit your representatives when FASEB met in Washington in 1989- FASEB’s best estimate is 8 out of about 10,000 scientists who attended the meetings. To those of you who are reading this and saying, “I’m too busy/disgruntled/indifferent or disillusioned,” let me point out that excellence in science will never become a national priority unless we convince the Congress and the American people that it really is important. From extensive meetings I have had with Senators, members of Congress and their respective staffs, I know that the old blanket argument “We need more” is no longer persuasive. One fact that emerged over the past year is that societies fighting with each other over strategies for funding does not help any of us. Rather than presenting a united front, chaos reigned. A good example is the continuing debate over the merits of the human genome project and whether or not AIDS-related research is sapping financial resources from other areas of research. Instead of internecine battles, we must define, as a group, what it is we really need to sustain excellent, peer-reviewed investigator-initiated research in this nation and present a realistic model to the Congress. In fact, how many scientists are needed by the year 2000? And where? In academics, biotechnology, the public sector? Another point I have learned is not to underestimate the power of grass-roots efforts in local communities. As an example, the city of Worcester, Mass., suffering a slump in revenues from the manufacturing sector, set aside land, created local tax incentives, and aggressively sought funds to develop a biotechnology park. The result, thus far, is a thriving science park with 18 dedicated biotechnology firms. Ten of these firms have resulted from the efforts of the Park’s incubator activities and investments. Total employment in the Park is projected to reach 2000 jobs, which will represent an annual payroll of more than $60 million. These firms, in turn, not only provide employment for scientists but also are becoming increasingly involved in the educational process in
continuing a dialogue with administrators on indirect cost recovery and how funds charged to indirect costs are used; our commitment to the training of young scientists from all backgrounds; integrity in science, and the application of the extraordinary knowledge gained around the world to benefit humans and the planet we inhabit. Where to begin? Many of us are in positions where we are responsible not only for our own careers, but also are heavily involved in training postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students. We teach students in professional schools, lecture to undergraduates, and are responsible for the development of younger faculty. In our leadership roles, we must continue to develop and sustain equal opportunities for people regardless of their sex, ethnic background, sexual preference, or disa-
Worcester.
Dr. Reinisch (AAI) is a member of the Public Affairs Executive Cornmittee of FASEB, co-chair of AAI’s Committee on Public Affairs, and a member of AAI’s Frederick B. Banks Scholarship Committee.
There are extremely urgent issues that confront ethical and humane use of animals in biomedical
us:
the
research;
bility.
“One fact that is that societies over strategies any of us.”
emerged fighting
over the past year with each other
for funding
does
not
help
However, despite time constraints imposed by research, teaching, and administrative duties, the scientific community must pick up some of the slack and not wait for government leadership. I am reminded of physicians who are volunteering their services to treat men and women who are incarcerated, veterinarians who donate one day a week to treat animals belonging to shut-ins, and scientists who tutor inner-city children. Several trends are encouraging. Biotechnology firms are now funding educational programs in secondary schools, universities are becoming involved in the educational process outside the campus, societies such as the American Cancer and Leukemia Society of America are funding peer-reviewed proposals, and foundations such as Howard Hughes, Pew, and Mellon are funding major training programs. Women re-entering the work force are being supported by institutes such as the Bunting at Radcliffe. Special programs exist for minority schools and individuals to give them access to similar programs most of us have taken for granted. There are no easy solutions. I firmly believe, however, if we do not assume responsibility for our actions and take the initiative concerning science in the U.S., future generations will not be well served. I ask that the FASEB societies debate among their members the issues I have raised, identify programs for volunteerism, and set agendas for the upcoming year during the FASEB meeting in April 1992.
Carol L. Reinisch, Professor and Chair Department of Comparative Medicine Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine North Grafton, MA 01536-1895, U.S.A.
2255 0892-6638/92/0006-22551$01.50. © FASEB w.fasebj.org by Iowa State University Serials Acquisitions Dept (129.186.138.35) on January 19, 2019. The FASEB Journal Vol. ${article.issue.getVolume()}, No. ${article.issue.getIssueNum
Up and Be Counted
IT IS NOW ESSENTIAL THAT THE SCIENTIFIC community become far more involved in issues concerning its future. Based on my experience, first serving on the AAI Public Affairs Committee and now as a member of FASEB’s Executive Committee on Public Affairs, I know that scientists are far too complacent. Let me cite a recent example: FASEB mailed more than 31,000 letters urgently requesting a response from the scientific community regarding proposed regulations from the Office of Scientific Integrity. How many responded? At last count, about 1600. Yet these regulations, which most scientists I’ve spoken with feel are onerous, have gone almost unchallenged by the scientific community. When it came to funding, immunologists did better. AAI asked its membership to flood Washington with letters concerning funding from NIH. We did that, urging a restoration in funding to competing and new grants to 6000. We are now at an estimated 5768 new and competing grants, still far from a satisfactory level for all of us involved in basic and clinical work. The Congress does respond to pressure when it is acute enough. Since most of you are voters, and certainly you pay taxes, you are the constituency that returns senators and members of the Congress to the Hill. Yet few of you saw fit to visit your representatives when FASEB met in Washington in 1989- FASEB’s best estimate is 8 out of about 10,000 scientists who attended the meetings. To those of you who are reading this and saying, “I’m too busy/disgruntled/indifferent or disillusioned,” let me point out that excellence in science will never become a national priority unless we convince the Congress and the American people that it really is important. From extensive meetings I have had with Senators, members of Congress and their respective staffs, I know that the old blanket argument “We need more” is no longer persuasive. One fact that emerged over the past year is that societies fighting with each other over strategies for funding does not help any of us. Rather than presenting a united front, chaos reigned. A good example is the continuing debate over the merits of the human genome project and whether or not AIDS-related research is sapping financial resources from other areas of research. Instead of internecine battles, we must define, as a group, what it is we really need to sustain excellent, peer-reviewed investigator-initiated research in this nation and present a realistic model to the Congress. In fact, how many scientists are needed by the year 2000? And where? In academics, biotechnology, the public sector? Another point I have learned is not to underestimate the power of grass-roots efforts in local communities. As an example, the city of Worcester, Mass., suffering a slump in revenues from the manufacturing sector, set aside land, created local tax incentives, and aggressively sought funds to develop a biotechnology park. The result, thus far, is a thriving science park with 18 dedicated biotechnology firms. Ten of these firms have resulted from the efforts of the Park’s incubator activities and investments. Total employment in the Park is projected to reach 2000 jobs, which will represent an annual payroll of more than $60 million. These firms, in turn, not only provide employment for scientists but also are becoming increasingly involved in the educational process in
continuing a dialogue with administrators on indirect cost recovery and how funds charged to indirect costs are used; our commitment to the training of young scientists from all backgrounds; integrity in science, and the application of the extraordinary knowledge gained around the world to benefit humans and the planet we inhabit. Where to begin? Many of us are in positions where we are responsible not only for our own careers, but also are heavily involved in training postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students. We teach students in professional schools, lecture to undergraduates, and are responsible for the development of younger faculty. In our leadership roles, we must continue to develop and sustain equal opportunities for people regardless of their sex, ethnic background, sexual preference, or disa-
Worcester.
Dr. Reinisch (AAI) is a member of the Public Affairs Executive Cornmittee of FASEB, co-chair of AAI’s Committee on Public Affairs, and a member of AAI’s Frederick B. Banks Scholarship Committee.
There are extremely urgent issues that confront ethical and humane use of animals in biomedical
us:
the
research;
bility.
“One fact that is that societies over strategies any of us.”
emerged fighting
over the past year with each other
for funding
does
not
help
However, despite time constraints imposed by research, teaching, and administrative duties, the scientific community must pick up some of the slack and not wait for government leadership. I am reminded of physicians who are volunteering their services to treat men and women who are incarcerated, veterinarians who donate one day a week to treat animals belonging to shut-ins, and scientists who tutor inner-city children. Several trends are encouraging. Biotechnology firms are now funding educational programs in secondary schools, universities are becoming involved in the educational process outside the campus, societies such as the American Cancer and Leukemia Society of America are funding peer-reviewed proposals, and foundations such as Howard Hughes, Pew, and Mellon are funding major training programs. Women re-entering the work force are being supported by institutes such as the Bunting at Radcliffe. Special programs exist for minority schools and individuals to give them access to similar programs most of us have taken for granted. There are no easy solutions. I firmly believe, however, if we do not assume responsibility for our actions and take the initiative concerning science in the U.S., future generations will not be well served. I ask that the FASEB societies debate among their members the issues I have raised, identify programs for volunteerism, and set agendas for the upcoming year during the FASEB meeting in April 1992.
Carol L. Reinisch, Professor and Chair Department of Comparative Medicine Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine North Grafton, MA 01536-1895, U.S.A.
2255 0892-6638/92/0006-22551$01.50. © FASEB w.fasebj.org by Iowa State University Serials Acquisitions Dept (129.186.138.35) on January 19, 2019. The FASEB Journal Vol. ${article.issue.getVolume()}, No. ${article.issue.getIssueNum
