As a retired scientist, with past faculty appointments at Rockefeller University and Weill Cornell Medicine and over 35 years of experience in the field of biomedical sciences, I am greatly disturbed by the shortsighted dismissal of science by White House executive orders that target science in general and the National Institutes of Health in particular.
When I first entered the laboratory of Dr. Henry Kunkel at Rockefeller University, I was instructed to “find the T cell antigen receptor” (or TCR). At the time, around 1979, this was the holy grail in immunology: It was the receptor at the very base of any immune response, responsible for recognition of foreign antigens and an immune response to a virus like the flu, or a vaccine like the Covid vaccine.
I was lucky, along with a list of other investigators in this field, and I published some early papers on the subject. The importance of the finding earned Jim Allison a Nobel Prize. Rightfully so.
The N.I.H. was the main source of funding for all the competing laboratories. The money funding my postdoc salary ($17,000 per year) and consumables (approximately $10,000 per year) came from research grants funded by the N.I.H. Monoclonal antibodies against T cell antigen receptors were the tools we used, and they led to a lifetime of work and funding of a laboratory at Weill Cornell with junior faculty, postdocs, and technicians, all of them paid by N.I.H. grants.
The discovery of the TCR led to major breakthroughs in medicine and patient care. For instance, “immunotherapy” for various cancers is now a term that we read about in the lay press and recognize as an exciting novel cancer treatment. The molecules that are targeted by immunotherapy are related to the TCR. Think of them as accelerators or brakes for the immune system, just like in a car. The new immunotherapy drugs can inhibit the brakes of the immune system and thus boost a dormant immune response to cancer cells. All of this was not known back in 1979. But in 2016, Time magazine named immunotherapy the most important discovery of the year.
Many people’s lives have been saved by immunotherapy, but few of us realize how early investments, by the N.I.H., for example, have paid off. A current A.I.-generated overview states: The immunotherapy industry, particularly in cancer treatment, is experiencing rapid growth driven by advancements in technology, increased research and development, and supportive government initiatives. Key players include companies like Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and BioNTech, with collaborations and partnerships fueling innovation.
I am not the only one who has noted the frankly unfriendly reception science and scientists are receiving these days.
There are two related issues. First, N.I.H.-funded grants and other government grants are simply being cut, stranding research personnel and universities. Supposedly this is, in line with the Department of Government Efficiency, namely, to cut “wasteful” spending?
Second, the State Department is revoking J-1 visas often issued to foreign workers on a temporary basis, and mostly for postdocs and junior faculty. Lack of funding and a hostile work environment imposed by the government are the main reasons that talented young scientists are considering leaving for Europe. A recent Reuters report by Olivia Le Poidevin, et al., dated April 11, reads “Brain drain? Trump cutbacks force scientists to seek jobs in Europe” and describes how E.U. countries are attempting to attract U.S. researchers.
A Cornell colleague, who is a world expert on epigenetics as related to cancer and leukemia, currently in New York, is moving to Barcelona, Spain, with his entire laboratory. Another friend is retiring and moving to Europe. Other scientists are leaving or thinking of leaving in droves.
I am most disturbed by the exodus of young aspiring scientists, the next generation.
After finishing undergrad studies at Berkeley in math and computer sciences, a friend’s gifted son is moving to Zurich, Switzerland, to pursue graduate studies at the top-notch ETH Zurich, where Albert Einstein studied.
“U.S. scientists’ lives and careers are being upended. Here are five of their stories.” So reads the title of a special article by Sara Reardon, et al., in the journal Science, published on May 2. “I don’t think I can do a career where there’s no future,” says Barbara Benowitz, who studies brain mechanisms underlying pain. Hers is one of the five stories.
In regard to visas for foreign researchers in the U.S., I suggest a simple glance at the names of the authors on a random scientific paper such as a paper in the prestigious journals Nature or Science or Cell. The majority of these names suggest they are foreign students, often with J-1 visas, working at American universities. They generate the primary data that is the engine of scientific progress. These people are now leaving their U.S. jobs because of a toxic environment in the host country, lack of funding, or fear of losing funding.
What to do about this? Scientists are not usually interested in sharing their political views. It can only get them into trouble. However, there is an interested pharma industry. I should know, as we collaborated with major pharma companies for much of my career. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry contributes significantly to the nation’s gross domestic product, accounting for 1.6 percent. Globally, the pharmaceutical industry’s contribution is 0.7 percent of the G.D.P. I imagine the pharma industry, too, will be looking to transfer grant operations to more science-friendly countries.
The damage done is not easily reversible. Think of the scope of the damage. According to a Harvard spokesperson, the university will stop funding of 570 awards for research at affiliated institutions across 32 states, with ramifications across the country.
Mass terminations of federally funded grants by the Trump administration total $2.7 billion since April. Researchers at the Mass General Brigham hospital system, probably the top hospital system in the country, have been instructed to stop all activity and spending.
Consider for a moment the contribution of N.I.H. funding to new drug approvals. From 2010 to 2016, there were 210 new molecular entities (or NMEs) discovered and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. N.I.H. funding contributed to every one of the NMEs approved, resulting in 84 first-in-class drugs.
Do we really want to discard such a productive engine of new drugs?
Most readers of The East Hampton Star will not be scientists, but many are accomplished in their own fields and many have received an education at our top universities. It is my hope that they will see the madness of the current direction this country has taken.
David Posnett, M.D., is emeritus professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in Manhattan. He lives in Springs.