In this book Susan Hockfield, neuroscientist and President emerita of MIT, examines recent advances and future prospects for the fields of molecular biology and bioengineering. While the content of the book was fascinating, I was a little disappointed in the author's lack of imagination or discussion of potential future applications. The book reads like an extended Scientific American article which, while certainly interesting, is more of a report of current scientific efforts than anything else.
In the book, Hockfield examines the efforts of several scientists working in disparate disciplines. She examines the work of prosthetists working on the next generation of “smart” prosthetics with the ability to respond to human nervous system signals; a company working to create water filtration devices with an active component composed of aquaporin, the protein that allows water to selectively permeate the phospholipid bilayer of cells; a researcher working to design viruses as scaffolds for the microscopic construction of next-generation batteries; and others. What all of these researchers have in common is they are turning to the field of biology to answer questions in engineering. For roughly the past century, researchers in the engineering disciplines have turned to the tools and methods of physics and mathematics to solve their problems. Now, with the maturation of molecular biology and bioengineering, scientists are increasingly looking to nature to find solutions to age-old problems. Rather than creating new solutions for extant problems, why not mimic natural solutions?
For instance, take the issue of prosthetics. While amazing advances have been made in the last century, especially in the last few decades with the advent of microelectronics and 3D printed materials, there is still a huge and pressing challenge: that of creating prosthetics that can directly interface with the nervous system allowing near-original levels of function. While the work of physicists has been instrumental in developing prosthetics to their current state, they simply can't advance much further without intense work in the development of reliable, long-lasting and cost-effective brain-machine interfaces. Work is currently being done to develop BMIs capable of transmitting complex signals to microcomputers housed in prosthetics, which then translate those signals into movement. Hockfield traveled to Iceland to the offices of Ossur, a prosthetics manufacturer, to witness their research on the next generation of prosthetics. At Ossur, researchers are working on enhancements that might allow prosthetics users to dance, tap their foot, jump, and fidget or flex nearly biologically. Increasingly, their attention is turning to the work of biologists and bioengineers who are creating implantable BMIs and sensory arrays capable of collecting and transmitting brain signals.
One thing I found very interesting was Hockfield's thesis that we were nearing the start of a new scientific era that she dubbed Convergence 2.0. If the electronics revolution of the 20th century is Convergence 1.0, then the coming biological revolution Hockfield foresees will be Convergence 2.0. Hockfield also pointed out that if we are going to a) achieve and b) remain at the forefront of Convergence 2.0, the US must increase its funding for basic and interdisciplinary scientific research. The US's scientific funding has waned over the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st, largely a result of budget cuts and the offloading of basic research jobs to universities and private sector actors. Hockfield states that we must increase our funding if we wish to remain at the forefront of scientific progress, a sentiment that I share.
Also, while Hockfield seemed to feel that private sector actors could be entrusted with the task of research in the future, provided they receive federal oversight and funding, I am much more skeptical. Private-sector researchers will likely only ever pursue research if it is profitable for them. Even charitable foundations created for the purpose of funding research can be perverted to the service of industry (looking at you JDRF). Therefore, funding needs to be moved out of private-sector hands and under the auspices of federal institutions.
Another issue I had with Hockfield's book was her apparent support of the Bayh-Dole Act. Since 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act has allowed universities, researchers and private companies to receive the patent rights to inventions created with federal funding, as long as some requirements of reporting and disclosure are met. While this has resulted in an uptick in patent applications, it also represents a massive amount of lost revenue for the US government, and in my opinion the conversion of massive amounts of taxpayer money into private-sector gain. Research findings conducted with federal funding can be patented by private companies. Hockfield spoke glowingly of researchers who were serial entrepreneurs and had founded multiple companies based on their scientific discoveries. While I may be overly pessimistic about the value of new business creation (I think most of these sorts of companies are primarily objects of stockholder speculation and little else), I certainly think the government should receive recompense for the fruits of their funding. My ideal solution would be a return to the previous system, in which government-funded inventions and their ensuing patents are the property of the government.
I think that the Bayh-Dole Act's intention (the spurring of scientific activity) could be achieved by easing the patent licensing process, and allowing private companies the benefit of use of a patented product for their own purposes, provided they pay for access to those patents (unless of course if the government determines it's in the taxpayer interest not to charge for access). The primary reasons for this are 1) the recouping of federal investments in basic research and 2) increased ability for the federal government to manipulate prices for products created with federal funding. A great number of pharmaceuticals are created with federal funding. If all those patents were held by the government, and the government had the right to refuse to grant their use to private sector actors unless they agree to a pricing scheme amenable to the government, the pharmaceutical crisis could be largely solved.
Hockfield's book is certainly interesting to the scientific observer, though I think it largely fails to capture the imagination of the futurist. I think Hockfield could have taken a little artistic license and posited some potential applications of the basic research being done now to pressing problems, which might have given her call for more funding and research effort some added appeal. I also think her stance on government ownership of patents is misguided. I greatly enjoyed reading her book though, and it reminded me of a book I've wanted to read for some time: Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers, a history of scientific discovery. Some of the anecdotes recounted in Hockfield's book have the appearance of a scientist sleepwalking into a discovery, particularly Agre's discovery of aquaporin.