Nobel laureates and public funding of research versus marketplace innovation
The Scientist
October 6, 2003
MRI scientists win Nobel Prize
For the third time since 1951, scientists working in the field of nuclear magnetic resonance technology have been recognized by the Nobel Academy, with a British physicist and an American chemist this year taking home the prize for physiology or medicine.
The assembly, at Stockholm's Karolinska Institutet, named Paul C.Lauterbur
and Peter Mansfield as the 2003 laureates for work in the early 1970s, which provided the basis for the development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a technique that has found a central role in modern medicine.
Lauterbur, born 1929, is a professor of Chemistry, Biophysics and Computational Biology, and Bioengineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. During the early 1960s, he used nuclear magnetic resonance devices to develop carbon-13 spectroscopy and in the early 1970s, discovered the possibility of creating a two-dimensional image by introducing gradients in the magnetic field. In 1984, he was awarded the Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research for this work.
Mansfield, born 1933, is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of
Nottingham. The Nobel committee recognized him for further developing the
use of gradients in the magnetic field and showing how the signals could be
mathematically analyzed, which made it possible to develop a usefulimaging
technique. He also showed how extremely fast imaging could be achieved,
a theory that became technically possible within medicine a decade later.
He was knighted in 1993.
Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council,
said Mansfield's work was an example of how high-risk research can pay
off.
"When the MRC first funded Sir Peter in the 1970s, we really didn't know if
the huge investment in this area would bear fruit," he said in a statement.
"In fact, it surpassed all hopes. I'm delighted to congratulate him on
his achievement today. His work is correctly credited with changing the
face of modern medicine."
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20031006/06/
About the Medical Research Council (United Kingdom):
The UK Medical Research Council (MRC) is a national organisation funded by
the UK taxpayer. We promote research into all areas of medical and related
science with the aims of improving the health and quality of life of the UK
public and contributing to the wealth of the nation.
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/about.htm
The National Institutes of Health (United States):
NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation.
Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature
and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to
extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. The
goals of the agency are as follows: 1) foster fundamental creative discoveries, innovative research strategies, and their applications as a basis to advance significantly the Nation's capacity to protect and improve health; 2)develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources that will assure the Nation's capability to prevent disease; 3) expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation's economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research; and 4) exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.
http://www.nih.gov/about/almanac/index.html
NIH News
October 6, 2003
Dr. Lauterbur is a long-time NIH grantee with the majority of his funding
from the NIH's National Center for Research Resources (NCRR). Additional NIH
support was provided by the National Cancer Institute (NCI); the National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); the National Institute of General
Medical Sciences (NIGMS); and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).
Of the 81 American Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine since 1945, 62
either worked at or were funded by the NIH before winning the prize.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct2003/od-06.htm
Comment: The accomplishments of these two gifted researchers are certainly
worthy of the Nobel Prize. The fact that I'm digressing into the relatively
mundane topic of funding of research should in no way detract from this
important recognition of their great genius.
One of the most common criticisms of publicly funded universal health care
programs is that, due to lack of adequate funds, technological innovation is
stifled. But much of the technology for CT and MRI scanning was developed in
Great Britain. Yet the British devote only 7% of their GDP to health care
compared to 15% in the United States.
Much of the important research in Great Britain is publicly funded through
the Medical Research Council. Likewise, in the United States, the National
Institutes of Health also funds much of our important research in health.
Everyone agrees that we have received great value for this public expenditure.
What value are we receiving for technological innovation in the marketplace?
A fundamental market principle is that research must result in enhanced
shareholder value. As an example, the pharmaceutical industry devotes much of its research budget to development of copycat drugs that are designed merely to extend patent exclusivity and high prices. And higher tech medical
care, rampant in Florida, has failed to demonstrate improved medical outcomes in spite of a 30% increase in costs.
Private technological innovation must place profit before the public good.
Publicly funded research will always place the public good first, and value
is an essential feature of publicly funded innovation.
The United States and Great Britain have demonstrated that the level of funding is not nearly as important as the implicit missions of publicly and privately funded research. Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield clearly understood their personal missions, and we are all better for it.