Why research has to get out of the lab.

Author: Irene Matucci

June, 2017. New York, Museum of Modern Art.

Finally, I step in front of ‘The Starry Night’, one of my favourite paintings. I look at the overall picture, the vivid image it projects across the room. And then the details, long studied in school, abstract lines of colours that, only at a distance, recompose themselves to show a nocturnal view; the hills, the village, the stars and the moon.

The analysis of details is absolutely instrumental when studying a work of art, but never should one forget to take a step back and admire the overall piece. A single detail, unless considered relative to the bigger picture, becomes meaningless, loses value and power.

Why have we lost the ability to do this very same thing in science?

As a scientist and art lover, daily I experience the current drama that research, and researchers along with it, are living.

More and more in academia, we become absorbed entirely by our own project. Perhaps attending to a small molecular detail that went unseen in a previous publication, or wrestling with a problem the lab has tried to solve for years. Working towards that ‘first author paper’ milestone, that we all yearn to achieve, the same first author paper that 20 years down the line, still sits proudly on a shelf and lies forgotten on the PubMed database. They promised us, and we promised ourselves, to change the world, heal illnesses, fight cancer. But have we asked ourselves where that detail fits in the bigger picture, if it is even relevant to the outside world, if it is instrumental for the treatment of a disease? As researchers in academia, do we even have the tools to answer those questions, to connect with the bigger picture?

Scientists need to re-learn how to take a step back; to take off the blinkers.

Society has led to a diversification of roles, and a level of specialisation, that has disconnected scientists from the very nature that surrounds them. We work on just one cell, one limited model, but out there, there is no such isolation, nor simplification. There are billions of cells, organised into organs, with individual genetic make-up, exposed to a staggering array of environments, belonging to nearly 8 billion people. We are simplifying for the sake of studying a phenomenon, but forget then to scale it back to reality, which is never so simple.

Often, we work feverishly to satisfy the requirements of a grant proposal, to get X amount of money, to satisfy the next bullet point. We are not just running the risks of developing unscalable projects, of oversimplification and creating findings which do not match reality, we are running a much bigger risk: the one of solving the wrong problem. This comes at a greater cost: we as a society lose precious time, waste valuable resources and misallocate brilliant intellect.

Research has to get out of the lab in a three-way approach.

It has to get out of the lab before even starting. It must reconnect to reality, feed our innate curiosity. What lies out there, but remains to be understood? Is there a truly significant problem that needs addressing? How many people will this affect, and to what extent? Given the circumstances, is this the right time to try and solve this problem? Secondly, research has to get out of the lab whilst it is being carried out. Is our initial approach still working in sight of the changes that come with time? Has anything happened that affects our findings? Who else is working on this and can we collaborate with them to speed up the process?

Finally, research has to get out of the lab after it has finished. Realise the purpose of research and actualise its findings. How can we ensure that society grasps the impacts of our research? How can we help it deliver an effective change?

As a scientist, despite feeling the responsibility and need to get research out of the lab, I often feel there is a lack of avenues to do so. I envisioned science as a worldwide network of intellects, going beyond differences and prejudices, with the ultimate goal of making the world a better place. This fairytale shattered with the realisation that almost every lab is an island, and even when collaborations are established an unhealthy agonism hinders progression.

It goes beyond lab-to-lab relations and extends to the interplay between academia, pharma and government. Each one continues to work independently from one another, slowing progression. Pharma look at the whole canvas; driven by the revenues generated from successful therapies. Not so promising projects and negative data are quickly dropped, but not published, allowing others to continue making the same mistakes over and over. High-risk, low-success projects, along with what sounds like appealing economic support, are handed to academics. Academics work on the detail and rarely solely on the project pharma had initially discussed. Results fade away. The detail of the academics, lost in the canvas of big pharma, somehow needs to find a place in the even bigger picture belonging to governments; the economic piece, which often struggles to find a human connection to healthcare. A young academic, deprived of the links which give meaning to their detail-focused project, is left with the bitter feeling of being lost.

Urgently we need to re-connect, we need to talk.

As researchers, if we believe in innovation, if we want change, we need to be more responsible. Responsible towards our profession, towards ourselves, towards society. We must embark on research with a worthwhile purpose, and continuously scrutinise that purpose, evaluate the practicability and applicability of a project, and become authors of our own research, not mere executioners. We should hold the answers as to the why and the how of the project and take it upon ourselves to open up the conversations with those that will enable our research to get out of the lab. At the same time, others should not forget to give the researchers the tools to make good use of their time and effort, the links to make their work worthwhile and, ultimately, give back to research the rights it deserves.

About the author:

Irene Matucci, Principal, PanaceaStars, Panacea Innovation.

Irene is a Principal at Panacea Innovation, mostly involved in the business development unit of PanaceaStars, growing and managing PanaceaStars external relations and partnerships. She has been involved in the science entrepreneurship community for the past few years, and as portfolio manager she has supported a number of startups.

Irene has over seven years of experience in science and several academic research labs across Europe.

She is currently completing her PhD in Cancer Biology at the Institute of Cancer Research in London. Prior to this she received an MSci in Molecular and Cellular Biology and Biotechnology from the University of Glasgow, after carrying our her Integrated Master year at the Francis Crick Institute.