Message From the Editor: Investigator Balkanization

Creativity is a distinctly private endeavor, at least according to many commentators.  Perhaps most vividly personified in the novels of Ayn Rand, innovators have been idealized as brutally repellant of interference from the masses.  More recently, transformative research has been characterized as a risky, largely individual journey that fairs poorly in peer review because of its very innovative nature.1,2  Sure, one must build upon the work of others, but advances are often seen as more valuable when they go against prevailing views rather than embracing them.  One is left with the ideal of the cloistered investigator, critically assessing data from the outside world but largely working in intellectual isolation.
This notion of innovation pervades the scientific psyche and culture.  Tenure generally requires evidence of independence:  a rising investigator must prove that she can work alone before securing peerage in academia.  Because of this, trainees are often pushed out of their institutions to eliminate the perception that a mentor remains influential, even when the training institution may remain the best environment.  In addition, grant writing is largely a private act, with nearly all credit going to the principal investigator.  Investigators compete for funds, hoping to beat others to new discoveries that cinch additional funding.  Controlling more grant money is often considered more important than producing ground-breaking publications.  Thus, balkanization is inherent in the academic biomedical enterprise.
Although greater isolation of investigators has benefits, most notably the motivation inherent in competition and the freedom to explore risky ideas, it also comes at a cost.  Balkanization may produce inefficiencies.  Great ideas rely on knowledge of the field.  Rapid and free transfer of knowledge is a key ingredient of progress and reduces redundancy.3  Many innovations occur at the juncture between traditional fields of study.4  Thus, information silos impede progress.
Balkanization may produce even more insidious waste by diverting investigator attention and resources to mundane activities.  Many labs strive to be largely autonomous and self-sustaining, but this may mean relearning techniques mastered elsewhere or purchasing new equipment and materials.  For example, flow cytometry might be introduced into a lab as a logical next step in a program of cell biology when it is already in use by several other investigators with underutilized equipment at the same institution.  Balkanization impedes the investigator from reaching out to others.  Also, experts in flow cytometry may not want to be distracted by providing a service to another investigator. A similar scenario may exist for scientists who need access to facilities for laser capture microscopy, gene sequencing, transgenic mice, or combinatorial chemistry.  Finally, current grant culture incentivizes a request for new equipment: larger grants are more valuable for promotions and in departmental politics, and redundancy may be covert in peer review.
On a smaller scale, but probably more important, even tasks such as setting up a database, preparing tissue culture media, isolating DNA from blood, preparing tissue sections and performing immunohistochemistry, as well as such seemingly menial functions as formatting a publication to meet journal specifications  may be more efficiently performed by units focused on these activities, potentially freeing up the investigative team to focus on science rather than on repetitive, unrewarding tasks.  Commercial reagents with short shelf lives are usually purchased by individual laboratories that can utilize only a portion of each reagent, but at most academic centers, no tracking system exists to alert other laboratories within the institution to the availability of residual supplies.  Chickens were common in the backyards of San Francisco in the 19th Century, as the primary source of a family’s eggs.  Then, with advances in techniques for transporting eggs, the towns north of the Golden Gate dramatically increased production.  Eggs became widely available at a low price, and having a chicken in the City was quickly outlawed.  In the lab, systematizing some common tasks could also make them cheaper and increase their quality.  Sure, we already have some core facilities that centralize common, complex tasks, but there are still too many chickens roaming the lab.

With balkanization reducing the demand for such services, their availability is limited.  No demand, no supply.  Also, supplying such services has little academic reward.  How often does an institution acknowledge the head of a core lab for expanding services and reducing costs?  Seen as a technician rather than a scientist, promotion for the head of a core lab can be slow and painful.
There is innovation in improving services.  With a focus on performing a specific task, tools and methods are the priority.  Just as manufacturing replaced hand-craftsmanship and Henry Ford was celebrated as a great genius, similar innovations in the methods used to perform scientific research are possible and would be greeted with kudos.  In fact, several of the most transformative neuroscience discoveries our editors identified were actually just tools, such as head CT, MRI, and PCR.1  Yes, the ultimate goal is to improve health, but tools and processes that improve efficiency of research are fundamental in reaching those goals, particularly on a limited budget.  Perhaps the 38 Clinical and Translational Science Awards funded by the NIH will begin to promote the importance of tools and reduce the culture of balkanization.  This will only be possible if entrenched investigators and institutions recognize the potential value of a common currency and guiding principles.

S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD and Stephen L. Hauser, MD
Editors
References
1.    Johnston SC, Hauser SL. Transformative research. Ann Neurol 2008;63:A11-13.
2.    Braben DW. Pioneering Research:  A Risk Worth Taking. Hoboken: Wiley, 2004.
3.    Johnson RK. Will research sharing keep pace with the Internet? J Neurosci 2006;26:9349-9351.
4.    Zerhouni EA. US biomedical research: basic, translational, and clinical sciences. JAMA 2005;294:1352-1358.