Keeping the door open to international scientific collaboration

This past August, while traveling by train across Europe to continue research at a new university, I reflected on the importance of international scientific collaboration, concerned that a lack of awareness and shortsighted policies in the U.S. are impeding this crucial endeavor.

I previously spent six years at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, and I’m now settling in at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, where I will spend the upcoming year. International collaboration is essential to my work as a biophysicist, providing countless advancements across a range of scientific fields.

At Germany’s Max Planck Institute, my advisor, Ernst Bamberg, was one of the originators of the field of optogenetics, which utilizes a light-activated protein to control neurons. While Bamberg was a pioneer in this field, subsequent advances would not have occurred without collaborations. Professors from countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan have all made important discoveries within optogenetics, including the initial discovery and development of methods within this field. These discoveries further our understanding of how to apply this protein to improve the quality of life for those afflicted with debilitating diseases like Parkinson’s and even those suffering from vision and hearing loss.

Science thrives in an environment that fosters open collaboration across boundaries. The International Space Station is a shining example. At any one time, interdisciplinary researchers from the United States, China, Japan, Canada, and Europe may be collaborating with each other while conducting experiments in space. Ultimately, these efforts lead to better treatments, new technologies, promising discoveries and stronger science.

And earlier last month, scientists from the United States and the United Kingdom were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work using evolution to make new proteins.

Here in Massachusetts, we rely on international scientific efforts to fuel job growth and advance medical cures, such as making MRI-compatible robots for neurosurgery. The Massachusetts Life Sciences Center provides critical investments in life sciences, education, and research that support eventual commercialization.

On the federal level, our world-renowned researchers and institutions are punching above their collective weight. At WPI, my federal grant includes financial support for a research assistant professor, graduate students and undergraduate students who also conduct research. We are utilizing this grant to investigate the role of a protein that transports zinc into cells, as dysfunction of this protein can result in a childhood disease or pancreatic cancer. These investments in science and research are important to our community and state.

But despite our local and statewide research prominence, there is a surprising lack of public discourse on science. Most of our public officials and political candidates fail to consistently promote our status as a leading state for biomedical innovation and a welcoming place for international researchers seeking collaborative partnerships. This failure is even more glaring as investments in federally supported scientific research are stagnating, and scientists are beginning to turn to other countries, such as China and Germany, for leadership.

On the national level, adjusted for inflation, non-defense, federal research and development spending has steadily decreased since 2004. Congress deserves credit for its 2018 budget deal, which has teed up short-term increases for the NIH and the National Science Foundation. However, our research spending is nowhere near its historical average and today is a paltry 0.6 percent of GDP. In both Germany and Switzerland I have had the opportunity to use cutting edge instrumentation which, due to funding constraints in the U.S., is much more difficult to obtain at my home institution.

This brings me back to my primary concern: We may be making it more difficult to cultivate international collaborations. A recent report by the National Foundation for American Policy shows that H-1B visa denials increased significantly in 2017. Denying the world’s best and brightest an opportunity to bring their expertise to America negatively impacts our burgeoning biomedical and medical device industries. These policies create the impression that the United States is not welcoming to high-skilled foreign researchers and does not support serious scientific efforts.

Since World War II, the United States has been the world’s unquestioned scientific leader, and has long welcomed international researchers. That picture is becoming blurrier as other nations seek to overtake us in research spending and scientific collaborations. Our policymakers and public officials must work hand-in-hand to tout the benefits that Massachusetts has enjoyed from our national commitment to open and collaborative science. If not, we risk disrupting our open, international scientific research system that has led to countless advancements for society.

Robert E. Dempski, of Holden, is an Associate Professor, Chemistry & Biochemistry at Worcester Polytechnic Institute.