|
81st President of APS Through the Looking Glass: The
Future of Physiology. |
|||
|
|
|||
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat. “I don’t much care where,” said Alice. “Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat. “—so long as I get SOMEWHERE,” Alice added as an explanation. “Oh, you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.” From Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (5) Physiology as a discipline has often been called the basis for medical practice. This statement is probably true, but somewhat limiting. Two great things about the discipline of physiology are that it is always evolving and it encompasses a broad range of sub disciplines. The American Physiological Society (APS or the Society) is home to human physiologists, cellular and molecular physiologists, biophysicists, comparative physiologists, etc. Like a beautiful mosaic, the Society’s approach to our discipline and, indeed, to life science in general, has been multi-dimensional. If one just examines our web site, it points to the multitude of programs the Society is involved in. The list grows every year. This is the sign of a dynamic and vibrant society. But you know this. That fact that you are reading this article indicates you are involved and concerned about APS. The Society’s future and indeed the discipline of physiology depend critically on our ability to adapt, change, and grow and on the active participation of our membership. The Society’s goal is to become even more multi-dimensional than we are now. In this address I wish to focus on several aspects of our Society’s growth. I also wish to promote a philosophy targeted to enhancing the quality of science and to motivate our membership to become active participants in science policy. This further relates to our adaptability and to our role as scientists, teachers, mentors, and spokespersons for physiology and for science. Growth and Change Three years ago, under the leadership of Douglas Eaton, the Society undertook the laborious job of developing a strategic plan to help us focus on our future. I doubt that there is one of you that has not been involved in the process of strategic planning either at your home institutions, in industry, or for other societies. Effective strategic planning is difficult. The process of evaluating where the society is, including its strengths and weaknesses can be laborious and gut wrenching. While we all extol the importance of physiology as a pivotal discipline in the life sciences, everyone has their own niche to promote and protect. Importantly, strategic planning is a process of building consensus and compromise. Certainly this can be contentious in many areas but the dedication and hard work of our membership allowed us to develop a “living document” that all members should embrace. It has been published in The Physiologist (1) and is available on our web site. While our strategic plan may not include everything that all members wish, it embraces growth and change in the major programs of our Society. Strategic plans can be long and arduous or brief and to the point. Pepsi Cola’s strategic plan consists of two words, “BEAT COKE”! Most likely Pepsi will have to expand this a bit. While we are the American Physiological Society we are also a global society. In 1991, when L. Gabriel Navar was the 65th President of APS, the Society abolished the category of corresponding member, which was reserved for members outside North America. All corresponding members became full regular members. At that point our regular membership increased and we became a much more international society. This was the correct thing to do. Our meetings have always attracted participants from many countries. Our strategic plan incorporates expansion of our global outreach in several areas. Efforts are underway to expand the involvement of the international community in our meetings and conferences. A significant step forward was taken this year when Navar represented APS at the Mexican Physiological Society meeting. Council has discussed the possibility of providing financial incentives (in the way of registration rebates) to our sister societies for participating in the Experimental Biology meetings. APS will be providing support for the first ever joint meeting of APS and the Chinese Association of Physiological Sciences. This meeting, to be held in Beijing in October 2008, will also include representation from the physiological societies in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Taiwan. These international interactions are incredibly important for a variety of reasons. First, a large number of graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty are nationals of countries other than the United States. If our programs are to evolve, we will have to incorporate the special qualities of the international community. This includes our educational, publications, public affairs, animal use, communications, meetings and membership programs. As an example of how our ability to become more international will benefit our society, I turn to our publications. The American Journal of Physiology and the other journals we publish are highly regarded world-wide. However, we can do more to extend the reach of our journals in other countries, especially in Asia. It is critical that we take a forward step to provide our journals to the global scientific community. One of the great strengths of our society has been the vibrancy and appeal of our meetings and conferences. These are major issues in the current strategic plan. The Task Force on Meetings recommended that sessions at EB include more presentations by trainees. Trainee sessions will be widely publicized and the Society will encourage featured topics to be organized and chaired by trainees. In addition, attempts are being made to increase the number of trainee awards. Similarly, our conferences will be more focused and directed to the most important physiological issues of the day. Conference suggestions will still come from you, the membership, but the process will be simplified so that your ideas can come to reality more quickly. The future of our Society is in the hands of our trainees. It is critically important that we make a concerted effort to involve and engage trainees at several levels of our Society. This means participation on committees, in section activities, as well as participants in meetings, conferences, etc. Let them see how the governance of APS works. I call upon you to include participation in APS activities as part of your mentoring activities of students and fellows. One way to insure participation of young scientists in APS is to insure that they are members of the Society from an early stage. In our department at the University of Nebraska Medical Center every graduate student automatically becomes a student member, paid for by departmental funds. I know some other departments also do this; however, I fear that most do not. I urge the chairs of departments of physiology to provide the funds for all graduate students to become student members. The Finance Task Force was charged with bringing forth ideas that will improve and diversify our revenue stream. As most of you know, APS relies on journal subscriptions for the bulk of its revenue. A congressional mandate to implement an open access policy for all publications that emanate from federally funded research has the potential to reduce income from subscriptions. Any shortfall in income from this source can be temporarily offset by charging authors the true cost of publishing, estimated to be approximately $3,000 per article. In fact, APS has implemented an “Author Choice” option for all of the Society’s research journals. Authors electing the Author Choice Option will have their final published article made available as an open access article, freely available to all readers. In addition, the final published article can be uploaded to PubMed Central after it is published by the journal. The cost for this is $2,000 plus traditional page charges and color figure fees. Hopefully, this option will point out to the membership the real cost of publishing and its impact on their research grants and ultimately to the entire research enterprise. In addition to lost revenue, there is a long range potential for authors that normally publish in APS journals to choose other journals in which to publish. So what are we to do about this issue and how can we diversify our income to be less reliant on publication revenue? These are difficult questions with which the task force on finance and the leadership are currently struggling. I call on you, the membership, to provide ideas that will help solve these issues. We desperately need your help. Please don’t be passive on this issue: it affects all of us (more on this later). The sectional structure of APS has been in place for many years and is really a structure that sets us apart from many other academic societies. Sections based on research interests provide for more vibrant programming at meetings and allow for a more diverse input into the council and other committees of APS. The task force on governance found little to change in our current structure. One recommendation was to establish a Chapter Advisory Committee (CAC) in order foster the development of state and regional societies. This effort is unique among most academic societies. The establishment of local chapters will help foster the discipline of Physiology, create a venue for undergraduate students to present the results of their research, and be incredibly useful in providing rapid responses to scientific policy issues that arise at the state levels. The CAC has been formed and will provide Council with ideas for bolstering and expanding this system. Expansion of our educational programs is a key element of our strategic plan. Most of you who are familiar with the educational programs of APS know that our philosophy has been to provide mechanisms for disseminating knowledge in the physiological sciences from kindergarten all the way up to the postdoctoral level. The APS web site is filled with information for students, science teachers and for course directors who teach medical and undergraduate physiology. A novel project, which is now in its third year of implementation, is the Physiology Understanding Week or PhUn Week. The history of this project is summarized in a paper published in Advances in Physiology Education in 2006 (10). In brief, PhUn Week is a national program targeting grades pre-school-12 and held annually over a week in November. Faculty volunteers speak with small and large groups of students (20-500) and introduce them to basic physiological concepts. The response to this program has been gratifying and it appears to be growing in scope. In 2007, 32 individual sessions were held at 29 different locations. It is critically important that the membership take part in this and other aspects of the APS education program. Many of you have school-aged children and have probably talked about science in your child’s classroom. PhUn Week helps provide structure for your visit and contributes to a national effort to promote the physiological sciences. Because we all play various roles in our profession we should all be concerned about the future of our discipline. We have an obligation to transmit the excitement about science and physiology to students at all levels of education. PhUn Week is a great opportunity to become involved. Be passionate about what you do and tell everyone! An area of extreme importance to APS, to science and to your careers is the issue of public policy and advocacy for research. Direction 3 of the strategic plan states: “APS will drive understanding of and appreciation for physiology and strengthen public and private support.” Everyone is well aware of the current funding crisis in biomedical science in the United States. Advances in health care are destined to stagnate without adequate funding for both basic and clinical research. The careers of new investigators depend on the federal government investing in training programs that will meet the needs of an explosion in new information and technology. These statements would appear to be intuitively obvious. However, very few of us actually take the time to be advocates for our discipline. In a recent commentary by Mark Whittington published on a web site called Associated Content (7), it was revealed that 18- to 25-year-olds are apathetic toward space exploration and NASA. Many organizations such as “Research America!” have conducted surveys indicating that the American public strongly supports research, especially biomedical research. The public also feels strongly that the federal government should fund research as a high priority. However, it appears that the public is less enthusiastic about personally advocating for enhanced federal funding. One can understand that the general public does not lobby Congress. It’s not an easy process. However, it’s more difficult to understand why scientists, whose very existence depends on funding, are apathetic when it comes to advocating and lobbying for their discipline. Every academic society and especially the APS has an Office of Science Policy or Public Affairs, whose job is to help their members write, email, fax, call and visit their congressional delegation. In fact, FASEB has a web site that will tailor your response on a state by state basis. The email addresses and phone numbers of your congressional delegation are available on the FASEB web site. All one has to do is click on a name and voilà, a ready-made letter appears that you can personalize. There is really little excuse not to contact Congress. Yet, few do. I’ve heard the argument that people are so busy writing and reviewing grants and manuscripts, doing research, and teaching that they have little time to pay attention to requests to contact Congress. “After all, we get these requests from many societies as well as from our own institution,” they say. Well, in my opinion this argument is a cop out. It doesn’t hold water because there are countless examples of extremely busy individuals who are ardent supporters of research and more. Today, it’s not enough just to do research. It’s important to show your passion for the profession by becoming a zealot. How many of you write or call to thank your Senators when you get a new grant? I’ll bet not many. It’s such a simple thing to do and the returns can be enormous. Lobbying for funding is just one example. Educating the lay public on the value of research is equally important. The next time you’re on a plane and the man or woman sitting next to you tells you their life story in five minutes take advantage of the situation and tell them what you do and why it’s important. Tell them what NIH or NSF means. The next time you are asked to present to a lay audience, just do it. When your children ask you to present to the 5th grade, just do it. When you’re asked to judge at a science fair or at a student competition, just do it! This is an election year. Health care issues weigh heavily in this presidential campaign. In deciding who to support this year I urge you to carefully evaluate the candidate’s views on health care, education and science research funding. Research America!’s web site, http://www.yourcandidatesyourhealth.org offers capsule responses on health care and research funding issues for each candidate in both major parties. It’s easy to be cynical about the responses of politicians, but our membership is astute enough to read between the lines on this issue. The list of public policy issues that require our attention is long. Funding is important but so are animal welfare issues, the teaching of evolution and various other regulatory issues that may threaten the way we do science. The APS public affairs and science policy office has, for many years, taken the lead in advocating for the responsible use of animals in research and education. Largely through the efforts of Alice Ra’anan and the membership who serve on the Public Affairs and Animal Care and Experimentation Committees, we are clearly recognized as the “go to” society in this area. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Consciously or unconsciously, every one of us does render some service or other. If we cultivate the habit of doing this service deliberately, our desire for service will steadily grow stronger, and will make, not only our own happiness, but that of the world at large.” If you are passionate about your research then you should also be passionate about advocacy. The Society needs you to participate at all levels, not for the Society’s sake but for the sake of physiology and science. The Highest Ethical Standard is Central to our Profession. The ingredients that make for a successful career in science predispose to a great deal of pressure on both academic and non-academic scientists. The pressures I refer to are the obvious ones, such as publications and grants necessary for promotion and tenure in academic institutions. In industry, these may take the form of productivity towards product development. For some, the pressure to “get there first” is overwhelming. As a result some have taken short cuts to success. These short cuts have either taken the form of sloppy science or blatant manipulation of data to alter the outcome in order to benefit the investigator. The goal of science is to understand the true nature of our universe from the cosmos to the individual molecules and atoms that regulate life. Therefore, it is antithetical for a scientist to manipulate the truth in any way, shape or form. The fact that a very small number of scientists have engaged in unethical behavior has tainted the public’s opinion of what we do and why we do it. Science in general and the APS more specifically must come to grips with this issue. Given that modern science is global and is carried out in all cultures, we must develop programs that communicate the principles of ethical behaviors internationally. When Korean scientist Woo Suk Hwang’s claim that his group had extracted human stem cells from embryos they had cloned proved to be false and a result of data fabrication (9) (later retracted by Science (11), it was widely disseminated in both the lay and scientific press. For the scientific community there was a collective sigh of disappointment and betrayal. This example is, of course, extreme. There are many more subtle issues that taint science. One of the areas where APS can play a major role is in the development of courses to help certify students and fellows in research ethics. Every institution requires recipients of NIH training grants to be certified; however, institutions tend to provide the minimum necessary to fulfill these requirements. These tend to be one or two day courses or computer-generated experiences. This type of experience may not be adequate for all individuals, especially those from vastly different cultures. I propose that the APS develop a comprehensive workshop in research ethics patterned after our current Professional Skills Workshops in scientific writing and presentation skills. At the 2008 Experimental Biology meeting, Jane Reckelhoff chaired a symposium in the career development track entitled, “What every scientist needs to know about ethical issues in biomedical research.” The recognition that these issues necessitate constant exposure in our meetings and publications is extremely important. High ethical standards are, and should be, part of the fabric of our profession. The APS should play a role in promulgating this concept. Integrative and Systems Biology: Is it all Physiology? Every so often, a new concept is introduced into science which results in a true paradigm shift in our view of how things work. When this happens, a new field is born. Sometimes this is based on new technology but often on new ideas about, in our case, life processes. After the genetic code was deciphered, the field of molecular genetics exploded with no apparent end in sight. Over the past 10 years or so, the field of Systems Biology has started to blossom. Those of us that call ourselves physiologists think about how genes, molecules, cells, organs and organisms communicate and influence one another in health and disease. In essence, we think about how life processes are integrated. Many of us were trained with the idea that physiology is an integrative discipline. While there is certainly integration at every level, there is also a broader integration at the organism level. So, how is Systems Biology different from Physiology? The lines separating the various biological disciplines have become blurred and the concept of Systems Biology may mean very different things depending on how one was trained and what one considers to be the important concepts in biology. The Institute of Systems Biology (ISB) in Seattle defines System Biology as, “the study of an organism, viewed as an integrated and interacting network of genes, proteins and biochemical reactions which give rise to life… These interactions are ultimately responsible for an organism´s form and functions” (8). The research carried out at the ISB indeed is integrative but at a level reduced to those elements contained in its definition. What is missing from this systems view of biology is the focus on organ and organismal interaction. In the lead article of the December issue of The Physiologist (4), James P. Collins, Assistant Director for Biological Science at the National Science Foundation (NSF), wrote, “We now have much greater insight into how the parts of organisms function, but the big challenge will be explaining how organisms respond as integrated systems.” Collins goes on to point out the unique role the NSF can play in bringing together seemingly diverse areas of science such as comparative, evolutionary, ecological, molecular and organismal biology. This concept melds nicely with the One Physiology Concept proposed by Hannah Carey in her Presidential Address published in The Physiologist last year (3). The concept that physiology, at all levels, is intricately tied to global health defines an even higher level of integration. While it seems necessary for groups to define themselves and their discipline, we must guard against producing silos of science that will inhibit productivity and breakthroughs by creating a “my science/your science” mentality. Science is a continuum or at least it should be. There seems to be an emerging idea that Systems Biology must take a reductionist view using powerful tools rooted in molecular biology and bioinformatics. Certainly, if one looks at the science that is being carried out in departments or institutes that call themselves Systems Biology or Systems Physiology it is heavily reductionist in nature. How can so-called integrative physiologists come together with the systems biologists in order to produce the highest quality science and significant breakthroughs? Importantly, how can the APS facilitate this coalescence? In my view, there are three critical areas that the APS can influence to promote scientific diversity and integration. First and foremost is the content of our publications. APS publishes 14 journals not including The Physiologist. As everyone knows, The American Journal of Physiology is divided into journals that concentrate on specific areas of physiology which are in large part separated along organ system lines. AJP Regulatory, Comparative and Integrative Physiology and AJP Cell Physiology as well as The Journal of Applied Physiology are possible exceptions, cutting across organ system lines. All APS journals can play a role in encouraging systems biologists to publish in AJP with the goal of true integration between molecular and organ or organismal biology. The APS currently publishes a “Physiology in Medicine” Series in the Annals of Internal Medicine under the editorship of Dale Benos, past president of APS. These papers are designed to highlight the translational nature of the science we do, and they have been very well received. But we can do more. Each journal can issue a call for papers in these areas and actively solicit studies that are focused on the “big picture,” while using state of the art techniques to answer both fundamental and applied questions. The second area where the APS can make a huge impact in the marriage between systems biology and integrative physiology is in our meetings and conferences programs. An outcome of the 2006 Strategic Plan is a reassessment of our programming efforts at EB and the APS conferences. With focus and forethought, we should be able to program sessions at EB that involve systems biologists as well as physiologists working on similar but perhaps broader issues. Some progress has already been made in this regard. The Physiology In Focus symposia at EB ‘08 promote the larger global effort of physiologists. I plan to develop Physiology In Focus symposia at EB ‘09 that will bring together systems and integrative physiologists around questions related to the neural control of visceral function. In addition, our Featured Topics and poster sessions can have similar themes. Every one of our conferences should consider incorporating components of systems biology in its programming. We should have no problem designing the kind of scientific forums that promote true integration at all levels. A third area in which we can and should play a major role in fostering integrative and systems physiology is in advocacy for funding of specific programs in this area. The professed goal of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is to fund novel interdisciplinary and translational research. The NIH Roadmap clearly outlines this cross- cutting strategy (6). While many would agree that the Roadmap helps to build on the genetic and molecular knowledge base accrued over the past 20 years or so, there is less agreement on the kinds of research that should be a high priority for funding at the national level. More importantly, the number of scientists trained to carry out true integrative biology has diminished over the past two decades. At the urging of several academic societies (largely ASPET, APS and AAA), the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) has funded short courses in integrative and organ systems pharmacology and physiology at four institutions. So far, these have been quite successful and well received. NIGMS plans to renew these for another round. Our experience at the University of Nebraska Medical Center has revealed that the participants in this course are largely molecular and cellular biologists who have had little previous training in organ based physiology or pharmacology. This strategy by NIH is important and should be expanded but is a small segment of what is needed to promote systems and integrative biology. The NIH must adopt the view in its funding strategy that modern biomedical science necessitates integration at many levels. Those grants that incorporate a comprehensive strategy to investigate a problem as broadly as possible should have priority for funding. In addition, training grants that target this approach to science should be encouraged and funded. Of course, this strategy breaks down if there is no money to fund new projects. This brings us back to the importance of advocacy. This is critical. Now is not the time to be apathetic about science policy. Now is the time for action on the part of academic societies. Working together with FASEB, we have been somewhat successful in convincing Congress to adopt many areas of concern to the scientific community. However, we have not done an adequate job of raising the priority for increased funding from federal research agencies. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is the small number of scientists who are actually out there advocating for increased funding. This brings us back to the issue of service to the discipline and enthusiasm for our work. We, as scientists, cannot sit back and hope things will get better. We must, in large numbers, be passionate about both our research and science as a whole. This means participating in advocacy for increased funding of science and science education. Our profession contributes much to the world; therefore, we must transmit our zeal for our work to the next generation of scientists. This means being active, not passive in everything we do. As I write this Presidential address, I am humbled and honored to be the 81st President of your Society. I am even a bit awe-struck when I contemplate how I got here, where I am now and where I might be going in the future. I have been extremely fortunate to have served on the APS Council for the three years and as President Elect for one year. It is at this point that I feel really comfortable in this leadership capacity. I joined APS when I was a graduate student at New York Medical College. I became a regular member in 1972 as I embarked into a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Thirty-six years later I am still a member of APS and I am still at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Maybe the latter reflects my inability to find another job; however, the former reflects my intense admiration and respect for APS, its mission and dedication to the discipline of physiology. What is equally important is the incredibly efficient and professional way our Society is run by many dedicated, bright and highly competent people. Marty Frank, in his position as Executive Director of APS, has been at the helm for the past 22 years. The APS staff and you, the membership, have been at the core of our societal success. There have been very few professional or academic societies that I have been associated with that can hold a candle to the APS when it comes to the scope and effectiveness of their programs. We are entering a very exciting but challenging time in science. There have never been more opportunities for us to answer age-old questions and to provide new therapies to combat disease and suffering. Our ability to carry out the mission of the APS, “To promote discovery, disseminate knowledge and advance education,” will only be effective if you take action. If you uphold the philosophy of carrying out high quality science, adhere to the highest ethical and moral standards and be passionate about your research, the years ahead will be fruitful with new knowledge and applications to human and animal health. I close with the words of the biochemist and novelist Isaac Asimov: “ The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom” (2). It is our job to elevate and educate society to the wonders of science. Acknowledgements My sincere appreciation goes to Marty Frank, Pamela Carmines and Cindy R. Norton for their helpful suggestions in the writing and revisions of this article.
References |
|||
|
|
