By Jocelyn Kaiser
A group of senior scientists today called for an ambitious new U.S. biology research initiative that would tackle broad challenges involving food, energy, the environment, and health. The proposal could cost at least $2 billion a year over 10 years.
The advice comes from a panel convened over a year ago by the U.S. National Academies' National Research Council. Funded by several science agencies, the panel was asked to examine where the federal government could go next in biology. The project was in part a response to a highly influential 2005 NRC report that stimulated efforts in Congress to boost funding for physical sciences.
In their report released this morning, the panel, co-chaired by molecular biologist Phillip Sharp of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Thomas Connelly, executive vice president of DuPont, found that biology has reached "a point of inflection" where "a new level of inquiry is possible." This so-called "new biology" brings together biologists, physical scientists, mathematicians, and engineers "to create a research community with the capacity to tackle a broad range of scientific and societal problems."
To "propel" this new approach, the panel lists four problems that it could address. One would combine plant genomics and ecological studies to adapt any food plant to local growing conditions. Improved ecosystem monitoring and restoration could counter the effects of climate change and other human activities, it notes, while crop research and microbial engineering would increase production of biofuels as a source of renewable energy. And modeling and network analysis could be used to advance personalized medicine, or diagnosis and treatments tailored to an individual.
These efforts should be coordinated across several federal agencies, according to the panel, and existing research funding should be expanded to accommodate what the panel sees as at least a 10-year initiative. Although the report includes no explicit price tag, its discussion of similar projects points to a total budget of at least $2 billion a year. "Those are the kinds of numbers we're talking about," acknowledged panelist Keith Yamamoto, a molecular biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, in a briefing. It may seem like a lot of money during a recession, he said, but "these problems are urgent and the solutions ... will be less expensive than not addressing them."
The panel has already spoken with officials at the White House and members of Congress about the proposal. "There's definitely a lot of interest, " says Yamamoto, adding, "we hope to have an impact on the fiscal year 2011 budget."
Leave a comment
Thanks for your feedback. Please keep it polite and to the point.