Journal of Cell Science, Vol 113, Issue 4 567-568, Copyright © 2000 by Company of Biologists

EDITORIAL

Why work together?

K Simons

There is an astounding paradox in experimental biology: the existential urge for scientists to shine as individuals and the necessity to work together as a collective. We not only stand on the shoulders of past scientists but also have to use and develop a number of new and different methods to analyse complex biology. No single individual can be jack of all trades, and therefore life scientists today have to work together in teams. If one looks at the major scientific journals, most papers are multi-authored for a good reason. Of course there are many honorary authorships, for individuals who have contributed little or sometimes nothing to the research that is being published. But the fact remains that any real breakthrough today is the result of an amazing weave of experimental strategies that demand collective efforts. Molecular cell biology has been the forerunner of this development. Today we not only talk of functional genomics but are performing experiments in functional genomics. This involves the development of methodologies for looking at biological processes in their cellular context. For this we need a wide repertoire of techniques ranging from molecular biology and biochemical genetics to novel imaging methods that can follow processes in the living cell. How well are young molecular cell biologists trained and prepared for their research careers? Do we teach them how to work together with other scientists to employ all the methods necessary to unravel the mechanisms by which cells perform their functions? I started my career as a scientist in the outskirts of Europe in Finland. We were at that time fairly isolated from the mainstream of developments in biology. Obviously, to be competitive, we had to pool our scant resources, and this we tried to do in our own way. It was in retrospect fairly simple. Together with Leevi Kaariainen's group and Ossi Renkonen's group, we formed a troika. Our three groups together started to analyse Semliki Forest virus as an experimental model for biological membranes. I then moved to EMBL with Henrik Garoff and Ari Helenius, and we formed a new troika. From there the Cell Biology Programme at EMBL was formed. We were a bunch of ambitious individuals (Bernhard Dobberstein, Gareth Griffiths, Brigitte Jockusch, Daniel Louvard, Graham Warren, and myself), but somehow we understood that by pursuing our own research interests in an overlapping mode, and by working together, we could develop the methods we needed to attack the problems that we were pursuing. It was quite interesting in the beginning how other scientists wanted to diminish the role of each individual in the troikas within which I worked. When talking to A, an outsider would underrate the contribution of B and C. But the same individual, talking to B, would instead play down the role of A and C, and so forth. As scientists we are judged as individuals, and rightly so. But there is also the tendency to overrate the contribution of some individuals at the expense of those of others - especially in the early phase of their research careers. Naturally, if there is continued success, each contribution will eventually be recognised. However, the attitude of underrating the contributions of equals in team efforts is an obstacle to accepting teamwork as a successful strategy for performing research. Look at large research groups led by single powerful individuals - the prime role models in molecular biology - and how inefficient these groups are on a per capita basis and how expensive they are to society. They consume a large amount of funding for each major contribution. Moreover, these groups are poor training grounds for young researchers. They do not learn their trade in the same efficient manner as those individuals that are trained in research environments in which the size of the research groups does not prevent efficient collaboration at all levels. Fortunately biology is not dominated by the need to use big machines - as, for instance, is the case for high-energy particle physics. Recent examples show that attempts to turn biology into BIG SCIENCE (e.g. the large genome projects) are not really successful in academic environments. These large efforts thrive much better in the commercial arena. Take the recent success of Celera in sequencing the genome of Drosophila. The huge genome projects, but also much of the boring routine that is unavoidable in biological research, can be much more efficiently achieved by commercial companies. Development in this direction should certainly be encouraged, and the unavoidable consequence is that academic research groups must become smaller because part of the funding for graduate and postdoc fellowships will have to be channelled to private sector companies that are providing support services. The next phase of biological research will demand a change in organisation. Otherwise we will never be able to meet the challenges ahead. Working together is difficult and full of potential conflicts. This aspect has been given much too little attention in research training. Why? Because we are still obsessed by the concept that scientific progress is mostly dependent on the contributions of individuals. This notion does not conform to the practice of every day science. Of course there are scientists who are more creative than others. However, overemphasis of individual drive (often brute force) selects for a certain category of personality that does not always contribute to good science. Therefore we have to train and prepare young scientists for collaborative work. No one can deny that this aspect has been neglected. Conflict is part of human endeavour, and we need practice in how to handle situations encountered every day in the lab. Many group leaders are completely inexperienced or thoroughly inept in this aspect of their work. It is my hope that, as more research environments are created in which a collaborative spirit prevails, their success will provide a model for others to follow. Sheer utopia? Probably. But we are on the brink of a new millennium, and we better start defining our goals for the future. A new organisation has been founded, the European Life Scientists Organisation (ELSO), which will have this and other issues on its agenda. The first goal of ELSO will be to organise an annual meeting for the molecular life sciences, following the successful example of the American Society of Cell Biology (see http://www.ELSO.org). ELSO will have its first meeting in Geneva, September 2-6, 2000. I hope to see you all in Geneva. We have a lot to do in order to prepare ourselves for the challenges that lie ahead.