Hughes Biomedical Funding A Mixed Blessing, Some Say

Over the years, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)-- the largest private philanthropic biomedical research organization in the United States--has had a major impact on American science. In 1993 alone, HHMI reportedly spent about $268 million in support of biomedical research in the nation, representing nearly one-fifth of the total amount doled out by nonprofit organizations. And the investment has paid off--as evidenced by, among other things, HHMI researchers' prolific and influential publication record: Last year, for example, nearly one- quarter of the 200 most cited biomedical publications by U.S. scientists were authored by HHMI-affiliated investigators (see story on page 14). But despite the institute'S imposing presence and glowing achievements, some researchers and agency officials contend that certain side-effects of the HHMI program are not in the best interests of the scientific research community or the scientists themselves. They claim, for example, that the program fosters a scientific elitism that is, as one of them puts it, "Unhealthy," especially in the current climate of stagnating or dwindling funding for biomedicine. Moreover, some HHMI appointees report that at times they have felt resentment from their colleagues--a result of what one Hughes investigator terms "the envy factor"--and, ironically, have been discriminated against when pursuing funding from other sources because of their hard-earned success. "One of HHMI's strengths is the massive volumes of money that they have and their ability to rapidly move into an area if they choose," says Donna Dean, chief of the biological sciences review section at the National Institutes of Health's division of research grants. HHMI currently supports a cadre of more than 250 biomedical scientists, who are employees of the Chevy Chase, Md.-based institute. In exchange for full financial support for themselves and their staffs, plus equipment funds, Hughes investigators agree to spend at least three-quarters of their time conducting research at their host universities and medical centers. But, Dean suggests, the large amount of financial support for institute investigators' research and the high degree of recognition obtained by these investigators can have a double-edged effect. There is a danger, she says, of "creating a situation of the haves vs. the have-nots." Ira Mellman, a professor of cell biology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., says that, indeed, the HHMI investigatorships have created an improper class system of research support. He calls the disparity in funds between Hughes and non-Hughes researchers in university departments a type of "scientific apartheid." "What it does is concentrate more and more resources in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The disparity is institutionalized," he contends. Although the Hughes investigators interviewed for this article say they interface well with their non-Hughes colleagues, some claim that they are aware of a feeling of inequality on the part of researchers not supported by the institute. "I think there is an envy factor. I've heard it from time to time," asserts Robert Lefkowitz, a professor of medicine at Duke University and a Hughes scientist since 1976. "I've been a Hughes investigator for so long I'm hardly aware of what it was like before," he says. "But I'm aware that there are some resentments, and they do surface." He adds, however, that these feelings have not stymied any of his professional relationships. Some observers say that HHMI's fiscal policies also can cause friction, adding to the perception of elitism. Mellman contends that at Yale, Hughes has "put up administrative roadblocks" that prevent institute investigators from "contributing back to the common good," such as helping to maintain centrally held pieces of equipment or hiring technicians to run such equipment. Because renewal of a Hughes appointment is not guaranteed and the appointments do not support graduate students, HHMI encourages investigators to apply for outside money from such agencies as NIH to supplement their Hughes funding. Hughes investigators and NIH officials agree that there are informal obstacles experienced by HHMI investigators competing for NIH grants. When two equivalent grant applications--one from a Hughes scientist and one from a non-Hughes researcher--Are being reviewed, a prejudice against HHMI applicants may exist within the NIH study sections, say several participants in the review process. According to these individuals, Hughes investigators have been discriminated against because they are perceived by reviewers as being well taken care of professionally and therefore not in need of NIH money. "At the [NIH] study section level this is a philosophical point that does cause great difficulty, because if one is looking at a request to NIH for $150,000, for example, and one sees that a Hughes investigator has half a million dollars--again a hypothetical number--then people [on the study section] ask the question: `Why do they need an additional $150,000?' " NIH's Dean reports. Mellman, who chairs an NIH study section on cell biology, confirms that the support HHMI scientists receive is very much a factor coloring reviewers' deliberations. "In my study section-and I know many others, as well--one of the considerations, particularly at a time now when NIH dollars are more and more competitive to get, is: What has this personUs productivity been relative to the amount of money that that person has had?" Immunologist Philippa Marrack, an HHMI investigator at the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine in Denver, agrees that discrimination against Hughes investigators in the review process does occur. Although she says that she doesn't believe it has happened to her, she reports, "I've seen it happen to other grantees on study sections that I've sat on. I'm on the council of one of the NIH institutes, and this matter always comes up about discrimination against Hughes." Most Hughes-supported scientists and institute officials concur that there are complications--of varying degree and impact--that go along with being an HHMI investigator. Purnell Choppin, president of HHMI, acknowledges that an "us vs. them" mentality may exist. "It is inevitable that when some people have certain titles or are involved in certain types of arrangements that not everybody is involved in, there may be some concern or envy about that situation," he says. "For our part, we are very concerned, and we try and do what we can to encourage our people to be good citizens of the university community. And I think in general that works." Hughes investigators are physically incorporated into their host universities and medical centers in one of two ways: within a Hughes unit, occupying wings or floors of buildings that HHMI helps to finance; or within the laboratories of established departments in host institutions. The Hughes investigators interviewed for this article maintain that in either arrangement they feel fully involved in university life. "Departmental lines at Penn don't mean very much, anyway," asserts Gideon Dreyfuss, a Hughes investigator and a professor in the biochemistry and biophysics department at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. "I think the [Hughes] unit really enriches everybody on campus," he adds, referring to the Hughes wing at Penn. Almost two years ago, Hughes investigators at Rockefeller University in New York moved into a building that HHMI partially financed. Gunter Blobel, an HHMI investigator and John D. Rockefeller Jr. Professor at the university, says, "We have a different mailbox" from colleagues in related fields, "but otherwise we are totally and utterly integrated into the university." And according to Phillip A. Sharp, chairman of the biology department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge--a department that has several Hughes investigators--the researchers there "pull their own weight because that's part of the culture." He says his department "tries very hard" to have Hughes investigators stay integrated. "We try to spread the benefits of the resources [of the department] around." Many Hughes people say that one way the institute tries to facilitate healthy interaction within university departments is by making Hughes-bought equipment available to non-Hughes staff. Hughes officials acknowledge that there is a problem in how the status of investigators is defined by other granting agencies. Choppin maintains that, because the nature of the relationship between investigators and the institute "is rather unique," misunderstandings occur on the part of some groups. "If all of the Hughes investigators were in one institution, it would be less of a problem explaining ourselves to a granting agency," says Choppin, because the bulk of HHMI funding goes to salaries, facilities, and other basic research support. The agencies might then perceive the researchers as essentially employees of the institute, much the same as any other grant applicant. He adds, "I think the natural tendency of any granting agency--whether it's the federal government or any other support--is to look at the Hughes support going to an investigator based at a university or medical school far removed from our headquarters as being a grant when in fact it is not a grant. I think this is where some of the tension and misunderstanding takes place."

Hughes Biomedical Funding A Mixed Blessing, Some Say

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of