Not a slippery slope or sudden subversion: German medicine and national socialism in 1933.

The history of medicine this century is darkened by the downfall of the German medical profession, exposed during the doctors'' trial at Nuremberg in 1946. Relying largely on documents published during 1933 in German medical journals, this paper examines two widely accepted notions of those events, metaphorically termed "slippery slope" and "sudden subversion." The first connotes a gradual slide over infinitesimal steps until, suddenly, all footing is lost; the second conveys forced take over of the profession''s leadership and values. Both concepts imply that the medical profession itself became the victim of circumstances. The slippery slope concept is a prominent figure of argument in the current debate on bioethics. The evidence presented here, however, strongly suggests that the German medical community set its own course in 1933. In some respects this course even outpaced the new government, which had to rein in the profession''s eager pursuit of enforced eugenic sterilizations. In 1933 the convergence of political, scientific, and economic forces dramatically changed the relationship between the medical community and the government. That same convergence is occurring again and must be approached with great caution if medicine is to remain focused on the preservation of physical and medical integrity.     

Professional and popular views of chronic fatigue syndrome.

OBJECTIVE--To study the coverage of the chronic fatigue syndrome in the popular and professional press. DESIGN--Search of all original research papers on the chronic fatigue syndrome published in British journals from 1980 onwards and of professional trade papers, national newspapers, and women''s magazines. Interviews with six medical journalists. SETTING--British scientific, medical, and popular press. RESULTS--37 (49%) articles in research journals did not favour organic causes and 23 (31%) favoured organic causes. By contrast 31 (55%) articles in the medical trade press and 118 (69%) in national newspapers and women''s magazines favoured organic causes. CONCLUSIONS--Press coverage of chronic fatigue syndrome has amplified and distorted divisions in the research community concerning the chronic fatigue syndrome. Articles in the press concentrate on a simple medical model of illness reinforcing the stigma of psychological illness and dissatisfaction with traditional medical authority.     

Nuremberg lamentation: for the forgotten victims of medical science.

Fifty years after the Nuremberg medical trial there remain many unanswered questions about the role of the German medical profession during the Third Reich. Other than the question of human experimentation, important ethical challenges arising from medicine in Nazi Germany which have continuing relevance were not addressed at Nuremberg. The underlying moral question is that of the exercise of professional power and its impact on vulnerable people seeking medical care. Sensitisation to the obligations of professional power may be achieved by an annual commemoration and lament to the memory of the victims of medical abuse which would serve as a recurring reminder of the physician''s vulnerability and fallibility.     

如何指导医学生撰写医学综述

医学综述是在全面、正确理解文献的基础上,对某一段时间内的某一研究专题进展进行客观总结和论述。学会撰写医学综述可以进一步加强学生对研究领域最新发展动向的了解,对医学生临床诊疗及科研能力的提高有着非常重要的意义。作者结合自身及其导师多年来指导医学生的教学经验,将医学综述的撰写方法技巧进行总结归纳,包括在综述的写作过程中如何正确的选择研究专题、科学合理的检索和整理文献以及最终将自己的见解准确表述等。     

Bibliography of the living coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae,with comments on publication trends

Synopsis A list of published references on the coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae is provided. All known publications in the scientific literature are included as well as popular articles and press reports that are considered to provide new information or interpretations. Marked trends are noticeable in the literature as different disciplines have been applied to research on the coelacanth over the past five decades. The bibliography lists a total of 823 publications including 490 papers in journals, 37 books, 3 theses, 45 chapters in books, 166 popular articles, 22 reports and 60 newspaper articles. Studies on taxonomy and morphology initially dominated the literature followed by reports on research in the fields of physiology, behaviour, breeding biology, ecology and conservation as frozen and eventually live specimens became available for study. The literature on the living coelacanth is predominantly in English, French, Japanese and German but references in 12 other languages were also traced. The dominant authors in the first decades of coelacanth research were the French scientists J. Millot and J. Anthony and the South African describer of the first and second coelacanths, J.L.B. Smith. In subsequent years French, British, American, South African, Japanese, Canadian and German authors, among others, have made significant contributions.     

现代生物医学研究中医学研究生“大数据”利用能力的培养

科研能力的水平是我国研究生教育质量的重要指标。现代生物医学研究中呈现的"大数据"特点给研究生科研能力培养提出了新的要求。本文在分析"大数据"基本特点和总结医学科研思维模式在"大数据"影响下发生的转变的基础上,对提高医学研究生获取和利用"大数据"信息的能力提出一些具体建议,希望能够推动医学研究生科研能力的培养。     

医学院校本科生进行基础科研能力培养的意义

随着我国科学技术的迅猛发展,生命科学领域对专业人才的需求愈加迫切,要求亦愈加严格。部分医学院校为适应目前我国对基础科研工作者的需求现状,积极调整医学与生命科学专业本科生专业设置,改善完善课程设置,在本科生中有计划的进行科研训练,对学生毕业后的选择就业去向或者进一步深造具有重要指导作用,培养具有科研能力的高素质的医学从业人员,有助于推动医疗卫生事业的发展。     

The Medical Library Service of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

A unique provincial medical library service has been established in British Columbia. Under the direction of professional librarians, the central library in Vancouver is building an extensive, largely clinical collection while 30 smaller branch libraries in hospitals throughout the province are establishing basic, up-to-date collections. Financial support comes from an annual fee of $25.00 per doctor paid to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Photoduplication, mail and telephone services meet many reference needs. Reading is vital to continuing medical education. The library works closely with the University of British Columbia''s Department of Continuing Medical Education to bring current medical knowledge to every doctor in British Columbia.     

Raphael Meldola,his blue and his times

Raphael Meldola (1849–1915), English industrial and academic chemist, spectroscopist, naturalist, educator and lobbyist for science, is today almost a forgotten scientist whose life is celebrated only with a medal awarded by the Royal Society of Chemistry that honors achievement by younger chemists. In the 1870–80s, however, he invented a number of important synthetic dyestuffs including the cotton dyes isamine blue and Meldola's blue, and also naphthol green B, all of which have had application in biology and medicine. I describe here the early emergence of the synthetic dye industry, the first science-based industry, Meldola's role in its development, and his own inventions. Meldola's wide ranging achievements in science led to appointments as president of important professional scientific and manufacturers' societies. He was a fervent disciple of natural selection, a correspondent of Charles Darwin, and a prominent 19^th-century neo-Darwinian. In 1886, drawing on analogies with evolutionary theory, he warned the British that neglect of science, particularly chemistry, would lead to industrial decline and even extinction, though his message generally was ignored, at least until 1914.     

Commercializing medical technology

As medicine moves into the 21st century, life saving therapies will move from inception into medical products faster if there is a better synergy between science and business. Medicine appears to have 50-year innovative cycles of education and scientific discoveries. In the 1880’s, the chemical industry in Germany was faced with the dilemma of modernization to exploit the new scientific discoveries. The solution was the spawning of novel technical colleges for training in these new chemical industries. The impact of those new employees and their groundbreaking compounds had a profound influence on medicine and medical education in Germany between 1880 and 1930. Germany dominated international science during this period and was a training center for scientists worldwide. This model of synergy between education and business was envied and admired in Europe, Asia and America. British science soon after evolved to dominate the field of science during the prewar and post World War (1930’s–1970’s) because the German scientists fled Hitler’s government. These expatriated scientists had a profound influence on the teaching and training of British scientists, which lead to advances in medicine such as antibiotics. After the Second World War, the US government wisely funded the development of the medical infrastructure that we see today. British and German scientists in medicine moved to America because of this bountiful funding for their research. These expatriated scientists helped drive these medical advances into commercialized products by the 1980’s. America has been the center of medical education and advances of biotechnology but will it continue? International scientists trained in America have started to return to Europe and Asia. These American-trained scientists and their governments are very aware of the commercial potential of biotechnology. Those governments are now more prepared to play an active role this new science. Germany, Ireland, Britain, Singapore, Taiwan and Israel are such examples of this government support for biotechnology in the 21st century. Will the US continue to maintain its domination of biotechnology in this century? Will the US education system adjust to the new dynamic of synergistic relationships between the education system, industry and government? This article will try to address these questions but also will help the reader understand who will emerge by 2015 as the leader in science and education.     

T.H. Huxley's Criticism of German Cell Theory: An Epigenetic and Physiological Interpretation of Cell Structure

In 1853, the young Thomas Henry Huxley published a long review of German cell theory in which he roundly criticized the basic tenets of the Schleiden-Schwann model of the cell. Although historians of cytology have dismissed Huxley’s criticism as based on an erroneous interpretation of cell physiology, the review is better understood as a contribution to embryology. “The Cell-theory” presents Huxley’s “epigenetic” interpretation of histological organization emerging from changes in the protoplasm to replace the “preformationist” cell theory of Schleiden and Schwann (as modified by Albert vonKölliker), which posited the nucleus as the seat of organic vitality. Huxley’s views influenced a number of British biologists, who continued to oppose German cell theory well into the twentieth century. Yet Huxley was pivotal in introducing the new German program of “scientific zoology” to Britain in the early 1850s,championing its empiricist methodology as a means to enact broad disciplinary and institutional reforms in British natural history.     

Styles of scientific reasoning: Adolf Remane (1898–1976) and the German evolutionary synthesis

Adolf Remane is widely considered to have been one of the most influential German zoologists of the 20th Century, yet Ernst Mayr persistently characterized him as an idealistic morphologist, that is, a typologist unable to understand population genetics or indeed Darwinian theory. This stands in sharp contrast to Mayr's praise for Bernhard Rensch as one of the most important German contributors to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory. Remane's style of scientific reasoning is analysed in his writings on microsystematics, ecology, comparative morphology and phylogenetics and found to be highly consistent throughout these varied fields of research, while differing fundamentally from the eminently statistical foundations of both population genetics and natural selection theory that were embraced by Mayr. A comparative analysis of Rensch's understanding of science in general, and biology in particular, shows him to share core values with Remane, both authors rooted in the Mandarin tradition of the German professoriate. Biographical and socio‐political factors appear to have influenced Mayr's contrasting perception of Remane and Rensch, one that would influence later biologists and historians of science.     

The failure of the 1976 swine influenza immunization program

The program to immunize 210 million Americans against swine flu failed. It set back the Federal government''s relations with state health agencies, private physicians, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the insurance industry. It increased mistrust of immunization programs and of government health programs in general.The well-intentioned plan had far-reaching consequences because its scope and the speed with which it was implemented were overreactions to the threat. Its size magnified every one of its faults, legal, medical and political. Organizational and scientific capacity were less than expected. Local health agencies could not administer the program with the inadequate funds from HEW and pharmaceutical companies could not produce a safe, effective children''s vaccine.Because of the urgency given the program, Congress neglected the opposition of consumer advocates and state health officials, and did not spend time trying to include immunization against childhood disease in the swine flu program.The failure illustrates the dangers of hasty decisions, of considering only direct medical costs and benefits and not social and political effects on health policy, of launching a public health program whose scientific basis is weak and whose administrative requirements are untested.     

The view from America: comments on Banton

This article reflects on Michael Banton's thought-provoking essay on the state of ethnic studies, both in terms of teaching and conducting research. By focusing on the US in contrast to Banton's British emphasis, it offers a comparative reference for exploring the central points Banton makes about the need for conceptual clarification, the challenges posed by fusing scholarship and partisanship, and the desirability of expanding cross-national comparative research.     

The most important publications of the Polish histologist Henryk Fryderyk Hoyer (1834-1907) in German scientific journals

Henryk Fryderyk Hoyer (1834--1907) is rightly considered to be the father of Polish histology. Despite his major scientific achievements his work has undeservedly been overlooked in the medical historical literature outside Poland. Apart from the fact that Hoyer was the first to have conclusively proved on the basis of successful histological methods the existence of arteriovenous anastomoses, his innovations in the area of histological technique were of the greatest importance for histological research. Here the most important publications of Hoyer in German scientific journals are considered. Until now there has been no critical historical analysis of Hoyer's German works. This is the first attempt at such an analysis.     

The discovery of aniline and the origin of the term “aniline dye”

An historical background is provided for the term, “aniline dye,” which is still widely used as a synonym for “synthetic dye.” The discovery of aniline and the role of Hofmann in clarifying it are described. The subsequent discovery of mauveine (mauve) by a student of Hofmann's, William Perkin, and his difficulties in transforming an academic synthesis into a commercial product also are discussed. The key role of Scottish dyers, the Pullars of Perth and Thomas Keith in London, in this technology transfer is described. The subsequent ascendancy of the German dyestuff industry over British manufacturers is noted.     

An unethical trial and the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: The case of Prevent Senior

The Brazilian Federal Senate created a Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (CPI) to investigate the Bolsonaro government's irregularities in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the cases that drew attention was the research conducted by Prevent Senior, a private health insurance company, on the early treatment of COVID-19. The article analyzes the scientific validity of the research and the ethical problems related to its implementation. It is based on analysis of Prevent Senior's report of the clinical study, the Brazilian and USA clinical trial registries, the Senate's CPI report, and on the information reported by the media. This case of scientific fraud and political-ideological bias exemplifies how Prevent Senior, using a questionable protocol to enhance its reputation and gain government support, was instrumental in building the “early treatment” narrative for COVID-19, and shows how it served as a basis for a government public policy that promoted the use of ineffective drugs.     

The randomized controlled trial in studies using biomarkers

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is a scientific experiment during which observations on the effects of therapy or a preventive action are conducted by the researcher under rigorous control. The purpose of the experiment is to clear the uncertainties surrounding a clinical/research issue and involves isolating the 'treatment' and 'end result' variables from external influences. RCTs therefore make use of scientific method standards: measuring, which includes the possibility of reproducing observations; controlling factors unconnected to the cause-effect relationship of interest; and the external verification or 'falsification' of the cause-effect relationship. Many RCTs are now including biomarkers to answer scientific questions in a more accurate way. In the present methodological paper, the main aspects involved in the design and conduction of a trial are discussed, with special emphasis on the use of biomarkers. Aspects that are often overlooked by scientists involved in the design of trials include multiple comparisons, subgroup analysis, the duration of the observations, the use of surrogate endpoints, and ethical issues. This review summarizes the main issues that should be addressed in a protocol, and illustrates these with an example.     

Watching the ‘Eugenic Experiment’ Unfold: The Mixed Views of British Eugenicists Toward Nazi Germany in the Early 1930s

Historians of the eugenics movement have long been ambivalent in their examination of the links between British hereditary researchers and Nazi Germany. While there is now a clear consensus that American eugenics provided significant material and ideological support for the Germans, the evidence remains less clear in the British case where comparatively few figures openly supported the Nazi regime and the left-wing critique of eugenics remained particularly strong. After the Second World War British eugenicists had to push back against the accusation that their science was intrinsically dictatorial or totalitarian and, as a result, many of their early perceptions of the Nazis were ignored or rationalised away. Further, historians in recent years have focused more directly on the social reformist elements of eugenics, discussing the links between hereditary science and the birth control and feminist movements in addition to others. While undoubtedly making valuable contributions to the scholarly understanding of the eugenic milieu in the interwar years, these studies have neglected to recontextualize the sentiments of British eugenicists who did indeed view the Nazi government positively in the early years of the 1930s. This article argues that there was a significant, though not numerically sizable, faction in the British eugenics movement, though mostly outside the Eugenics Society itself, in the early 1930s that viewed the Nazi Germany as an admirable state for its implementation of eugenic principles. One of these figures was later interned by his own government for being too closely aligned with the German regime, though he argued that this affinity was driven by the quest for scientific truth rather than politics. Eugenics in Britain thus contained a greater diversity of views toward Germany than scholars have previously assumed, warranting more research into the individuals and organizations harbouring these views.     

Funding in the firing line

With large charities such as the Wellcome Trust or the Gates Foundation committed to funding research, is there a risk that politicians could cut public funding for science?Towards the end of 2010, with the British economy reeling from the combined effects of the global recession, the burst bubble of property speculation and a banking crisis, the country came close to cutting its national science and research budget by up to 25%. UK Business Secretary Vince Cable argued, “there is no justification for taxpayers'' money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding” (BBC, 2010). The outcry from UK scientists was both passionate and reasoned until, in the end, the British budget slashers blinked and the UK government backed down. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced in October that the government would freeze science and research funding at £4.6 billion per annum for four years, although even this represents about a 10% cut in real terms, because of inflation.“there is no justification for taxpayers'' money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding”There has been a collective sigh of relief. Sir John Savill, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (UK), said: “The worst projections for cuts to the science budget have not been realised. It''s clear that the government has listened to and acted on the evidence showing investment in science is vital to securing a healthy, sustainable and prosperous future.”Yet Britain is unusual compared with its counterparts elsewhere in the European Union (EU) and the USA, because private charities, such as the Wellcome Trust (London, UK) and Cancer Research UK (London, UK), already have budgets that rival those of their government counterparts. It was this fact, coupled with UK Prime Minister David Cameron''s idea of the ‘big society''—a vision of smaller government, increased government–private partnerships and a bigger role for non-profit organizations, such as single-disease-focused charities—that led the British government to contemplate reducing its contribution to research, relying on the private sector to pick up the slack.Jonathan Grant, president of RAND Europe (London, UK)—a not-for-profit research institute that advises on policy and decision-making—commented: “There was a strong backlash and [the UK Government] pulled back from that position [to cut funding]. But that''s the first time I''ve really ever seen it floated as a political idea; that government doesn''t need to fund cancer research because we''ve got all these not-for-profits funding it.”“…that''s the first time I''ve really ever seen it floated as a political idea; that government doesn''t need to fund cancer research because we''ve got all these not-for-profits funding it”But the UK was not alone in mooting the idea that research budgets might have to suffer under the financial crisis. Some had worried that declining government funding of research would spread across the developed world, although the worst of these fears have not been realized.Peter Gruss, President of the Max Planck Society (Munich, Germany), explained that his organization receives 85% of its more-than €1.5 billion budget from the public purses of the German federal government, German state ministries and the EU, and that not all governments have backed away from their commitment to research. In fact, during the crisis, the German and US governments boosted their funding of research with the goal of helping the economic recovery. In 2009, German Chancellor Angela Merkel''s government, through negotiation with the German state science ministries, approved a windfall of €18 billion in new science funding, to be spread over the next decade. Similarly, US President Barack Obama''s administration boosted spending on research with a temporary stimulus package for science, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.Even so, Harry Greenberg, Senior Associate Dean for Research at Stanford University (California, USA) pointed out that until the US government injected stimulus funding, the budget at the National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, Maryland, USA) had essentially “been flat as a pancake for five or six years, and that means that it''s actually gone down and it''s having an effect on people being able to sustain their research mission.”Similarly, Gruss said that the research community should remain vigilant. “I think one could phrase it as there is a danger. If you look at Great Britain, there is the Wellcome Trust, a very strong funding organization for life sciences and medical-oriented, health-oriented research. I think it''s in the back of the minds of the politicians that there is a gigantic foundation that supports that [kind of research]. I don''t think one can deny that. There is an atmosphere that people like the Gates family [Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation] invests in health-related issues, particularly in the poorer countries [and that] maybe that is something that suffices.”The money available for research from private foundations and charities is growing in both size and scope. According to Iain Mattaj, Director General of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL; Heidelberg, Germany), this growth might not be a bad thing. As he pointed out, private funding often complements government funding, with charities such as the Wellcome Trust going out of their way to leverage government spending without reducing government contributions. “My feeling is that the reason that the UK government is freezing research funding has all to do with economics and nothing to do with the fact that there are potentially private funders,” he said. “Several very large charities in particular are putting a lot of money into health research. The Gates Foundation is the biggest that has just come on the scene, but the Howard Hughes Medical Institute [HHMI; Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA] and the Wellcome Trust are very big, essentially private charities which have their own agendas.”…charities such as the Wellcome Trust [go] out of their way to leverage government spending without reducing government contributions​contributionsOpen in a separate window© CorbisBut, as he explained, these charities actually contribute to the overall health research budget, rather than substituting funds from one area to another. In fact, they often team up to tackle difficult research questions in partnership with each other and with government. Two-thirds of the €140 million annual budget of EMBL comes from the European states that agree to fund it, with additional contributions from private sources such as the Wellcome Trust and public sources such as the NIH.Yet over the years, as priorities have changed, the focus of those partnerships and the willingness to spend money on certain research themes or approaches has shifted, both within governments and in the private sector. Belief in the success of US President Richard Nixon''s famous ‘war on cancer'', for example, has waned over the years, although the fight and the funding continues. “I don''t want to use the word political, because of course the decisions are sometimes political, but actually it was a social priority to fight cancer. It was a social priority to fight AIDS,” Mattaj commented. “For the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, which are fighting tropical diseases, they see that as a social necessity, rather than a personal interest if you like.”Nevertheless, Mattaj is not surprised that there is an inclination to reduce research spending in the UK and many smaller countries battered by the economic downturn. “Most countries have to reduce public spending, and research is public spending. It may be less badly hit than other aspects of public spending. [As such] it''s much better off than many other aspects of public spending.”A shift away from government funding to private funding, especially from disease-focused charities, worries some that less funding will be available for basic, curiosity-driven research—a move from pure research to ‘cure'' research. Moreover, charities are often just as vulnerable to economic downturns, so relying on them is not a guarantee of funding in harsh economic times. Indeed, greater reliance on private funding would be a return to the era of ‘gentlemen scientists'' and their benefactors (Sidebar A).

Sidebar A | Gentlemen scientists

Greater reliance on private funding would return science to a bygone age of gentlemen scientists relying on the largesse of their wealthy sponsors. In 1831, for example, naturalist Charles Darwin''s (1809–1882) passage on the HMS Beagle was paid for by his father, albeit reluctantly. According to Laura Snyder, an expert on Victorian science and culture at St John''s University (New York, USA), by the time Darwin returned to England in 1836, the funding game had changed and government and private scientific societies had begun to have a bigger role. When Sir John Frederick William Herschel (1791–1871), an English mathematician, astronomer, chemist, experimental photographer and inventor, journeyed to Cape Colony in 1833, the British government offered to give him a free ride aboard an Admiralty ship. “Herschel turned them down because he wanted to be free to do whatever he wanted once he got to South Africa, and he didn''t want to feel beholden to government to do what they wanted him to do,” Snyder explained, drawing from her new book The Philosophical Breakfast Club, which covers the creation of the modern concept of science.Charles Babbage (1791–1871), the mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer who originated the concept of a programmable computer, was a member of the same circle as Herschel and William Whewell (1794–1866), a polymath, geologist, astronomer and theologian, who coined the word ''scientist''. Although he was wealthy, having inherited £100,000 in 1827—valued at about £13.3 million in 2008—Babbage felt that government should help pay for his research that served the public interest.“Babbage was asking the government constantly for money to build his difference engine,” Snyder said. Babbage griped about feeling like a tradesman begging to be paid. “It annoyed him. He felt that the government should just have said, ''We will support the engine, whatever it is that you need, just tell us and we''ll write you a check''. But that''s not what the government was about to do.”Instead, the British government expected Babbage to report on his progress before it loosened its purse strings. Snyder explained, “What the government was doing was a little bit more like grants today, in the sense that you have to justify getting more money and you have to account for spending the money. Babbage just wanted an open pocketbook at his disposal.”In the end the government donated £17,000, and Babbage never completed the machine.Janet Rowley, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, is worried that the change in funding will make it more difficult to obtain money for the kind of research that led to her discovery in the 1970s of the first chromosomal translocations that cause cancer. She calls such work ‘fishing expeditions''. She said that the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (White Plains, New York, USA), for example—a non-profit funder of research—has modified its emphasis: “They have now said that they are going to put most of their resources into translational work and trying to take ideas that are close to clinical application, but need what are called incubator funds to ramp up from a laboratory to small-scale industrial production to increase the amount of compound or whatever is required to do studies on more patients.”This echoes Vince Cable''s view that taxpayers should not have to spend money on research that is not of direct economic, technological or health benefit to them. But if neither charities nor governments are willing to fund basic research, then who will pay the bill?…if neither charities nor governments are willing to fund basic research, then who will pay the bill?Iain Mattaj believes that the line between pure research and cure research is actually too blurred to make these kinds of funding distinctions. “In my view, it''s very much a continuum. I think many people who do basic research are actually very interested in the applications of their research. That''s just not their expertise,” he said. “I think many people who are at the basic end of research are more than happy to see things that they find out contributing towards things that are useful for society.”Jack Dixon, Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer at HHMI, also thinks that the line is blurry: “This divide between basic research and translational research is somewhat arbitrary, somewhat artificial in nature. I think every scientist I know who makes important, basic discoveries likes to [...] see their efforts translate into things that help humankind. Our focus at the Hughes has always been on basic things, but we love to see them translated into interesting products.” Even so, HHMI spends less than US $1 billion annually on research, which is overshadowed by the $30 billion spent by the NIH and the relatively huge budgets of the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. “We''re a small player in terms of the total research funding in the US, so I just don''t see the NIH pulling back on supporting research,” Dixon said.By way of example, Brian Druker, Professor of Medicine at the Oregon Health & Science University (Portland, Oregon, USA) and a HHMI scientist, picked up on Rowley''s work with cancer-causing chromosomal translocations and developed the blockbuster anti-cancer drug, imatinib, marketed by Novartis. “Brian Druker is one of our poster boys in terms of the work he''s done and how that is translated into helping people live longer lives that have this disease,” Dixon commented.There is a similar view at Stanford. The distinction between basic and applied is “in the eye of the beholder,” Greenberg said. “Basic discovery is the grist for the mill that leads to translational research and new breakthroughs. It''s always been a little difficult to convey, but at least here at Stanford, that''s number one. Number two, many of our very basic researchers enjoy thinking about the translational or clinical implications of their basic findings and some of them want to be part of doing it. They want some benefit for mankind other than pure knowledge.”“Basic discovery is the grist for the mill that leads to translational research and new breakthroughs”If it had not backed down from the massive cuts to the research budget that were proposed, the intention of the UK Government to cut funding for basic, rather than applied, research might have proven difficult to implement. Identifying which research will be of no value to society is like trying to decide which child will grow up to be Prime Minister. Nevertheless, most would agree that governments have a duty to get value-for-money for the taxpayer, but defining the value of research in purely economic or translational terms is both short-sighted and near impossible. Even so, science is feeling the economic downturn and budgets are tighter than they have been for a long time. As Greenberg concluded, “It''s human nature when everybody is feeling the pinch that you think [yours] is bigger than the next guy''s, but I would be hard pressed to say who is getting pinched, at least in the biomedical agenda, more than who else.”