PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. The Nobel Prize for Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) Researchers by William Ward, Ph.D. On October 8, 2008, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to green fluorescent protein (GFP) researchers Shimomura, Chalfie, and Tsien. This award is as much a celebration of basic research as it is an acknowledgement of the achievements of three accomplished researchers. An exciting and mysterious phenomenon, bioluminescence has been studied by scientists and philosophers for centuries. In his classic 1952 treatise on bioluminescence, E. N. Harvey quotes Pliny the Elder, Aristotle and other ancient scholars who were captivated by bioluminescence and sought to learn its secrets. Even the word luciferin has ancient roots, coming from the Roman god Lucifer, originally the bearer of light (later the god of the underworld). The successes celebrated a few months ago all have their roots in hundreds of years of basic research–research for the sake of research. All of those with long-term investments in the field of bioluminescence research began their studies because of the aesthetic appeal that bioluminescence elicits. Rutgers' own Professor Bill Ward, who has maintained the longest continuous GFP research program in the world (35 years), remembers taking a career preference test in 9th grade, a test that measures the broad areas that might appeal to a young student. "My preference profile came out Scientific/Artistic," says Bill. "How prophetic that evaluation was, as I became a research scientist motivated by the artistic beauty of bioluminescence." It is ironic that, after decades of basic research on bioluminescence, Bill's postdoctoral mentor, Milt Cormier and another of Cormier's postdocs, Doug Prasher, both lost their research funding just as they were about to complete the cloning of GFP–the capstone practical application whose foundation was built, block-by-block, over 4 decades by Cormier, Prasher, Ward, and others, mostly here in the US. The Nobel Prize take-home message to the world is not just that GFP has become an amazingly valuable tool in so many areas of life sciences. The underlying (and Professor Ward would argue, the more important) take-home message is that these now celebrated applications of GFP rest upon decades of government-supported basic research carried out by dozens of scientists wanting just to solve basic problems. Without decades of significant government support, there would have been no knowledge base leading the Nobel Prize winners to their ground-breaking applications of GFP. Stimulated by the words of Pennsylvania Congresswoman Kathleen Buto in a Chris Matthews-hosted panel discussion at the recent Biotech 2008 Symposium in Philadelphia, that all biotech scientists need to communicate more effectively with legislative leaders, Professor Ward is now in discussions with the leaders of NJBio about using GFP as a tool to excite state and congressional leaders about biotech. With brief hands-on exercises centered on GFP, Professor Ward wishes to convince state and national political leaders of the value of basic research in biotechnology. These efforts will focus on the need for government to fund projects that are not yet at the capstone stage of solving major biomedical problems. "This country became the world leader in science and technology because our government has dared to fund "imagination" and "innovation," not just practical, goal-directed engineering," says Bill Ward. "We cannot afford to pull the plug on basic research funding now, especially as the rest of the world challenges us for science supremacy." -- Dr. Ward contributed this article as a Perspective for The SAB. This piece was previously used as a contribution to the Lipman Log, a publication of the Department of Biochemistry & Microbiology at Rutgers University. ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|
