A life’s vocation: Margarita Salas in her lab at Madrid’s Universidad Autónoma.
Green deputies protesting against cloning at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
|
A life for science
Since 1901, when the Swedish
Academy set up Nobel prizes for achievements in various scientific disciplines, only
11 women, compared with 435 men, have received one of the awards. But with the help
of programmes to support women’s involvement in scientific research sponsored by
UNESCO and the European Commission, the careers
and commitment of several female pioneers have proved that science is no longer an
all-male domain. Margarita Salas has faith that “in the not too distant future women
will achieve a rate of participation in the professional world and in society high
enough for them to believe that they matter at all levels and in every situation.
And not because there are quotas: I’m totally against quotas for women. It’s up to
us to conquer the space that we deserve.” She has done just that by devoting herself
entirely to her profession: “I like other things too, like music or art… I go to
concerts and exhibitions, but research is the purpose of my life,” she says.
Born in Canero in Spain’s Asturias in 1938, Salas was 16 when the “yearning for discovery”
took her to Madrid to study chemistry. At 19 she met Severo Ochoa, who won the Nobel
Prize for medicine the following year. Ochoa encouraged her to write a doctoral thesis
in Madrid and, later, to work with him in his New York laboratory. Today, this molecular
biologist’s résumé is 24 pages long and includes– besides two honoris
causa degrees and over 200 studies and articles in scientific journals–UNESCO’s Carlos J. Finley prize (1991) and the Jaime I research
prize (1994), among others. Since 1995, she has headed the Instituto de España.
On January 10, 2000, UNESCO Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura
presented her in Paris with the UNESCO-L’Oréal prize for the best
European scientist of 1999, an honour for which 34 candidates were competing. Four
other scientists, one for each continent, were awarded the same prize.
www.forwomeninscience.com
|
|
Margarita Salas, a Spanish pioneer
in molecular biology, dismisses alarmist reactions to recent scientific advances
and stays thoroughly optimistic on all fronts
Do you think
research to decode the human genome should be placed in the public domain?
We cannot patent basic knowledge of the sequence. What we possess in our own organisms,
biologically speaking, cannot be patented even by law. But applications derived from
knowledge of our genes can be. The U.S. company Celera Genomics seems to be leading
the race to decode the entire human genome sequence. According to press reports,
the firm has already decoded the entire sequence–some 50 million “bits” of DNA–though
they still have to fit the pieces together, rather like a jigsaw puzzle. On the other
side is the public consortium, made up of teams from a number of countries working
through their national public health institutes, which are proceeding more slowly
and hope to finish the sequencing in two years’ time. But they are progressing in
a more orderly fashion. So that when they do finish the sequences, they will know
exactly where each part goes. At first the private company tried to patent the sequences,
and there were many public figures, including some very renowned scientists such
as the presidents of the American Academy of Science and of the British Royal Society,
who opposed the “patentability” of gene sequences. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair also
protested. The company seems to have backed down and will make its results public.
However, what can be patented are the possible uses of those sequences in methods
to cure specific illnesses.
Are we witnessing the excessive commercialisation of science?
Partly, yes. There might be excessive commercialisation if the proper limits
are not imposed. There is an interesting case in connection with cloning: scientists
from a research institute at the University of Wisconsin succeeded in 1998 in deriving
and culturing human embryonic stem cells –cells that are the parent cells of all
tissues in the body. The achievement has profound implications for transplant medicine.
Only private firms currently fund this work, because in the United States there is
a law banning the public funding of research based on human embryos. It is very dangerous
to let this sort of work remain solely in private hands. These firms will be able
to patent their findings and make people fork out presumably large sums of money
when they have to undergo transplant operations. If the funding came from public
sources, this monopoly wouldn’t exist.
But are governments investing enough in basic research?
It’s impossible to make generalisations. The percentage of gross domestic product
earmarked for research in places like the United States or in some of the most developed
European countries hovers around two to 2.5 per cent, sometimes even more. Spain
has one of the lowest levels of research funding in Europe, standing at 0.9 per cent,
one point below the European Union average, so there’s a long way for us to go. The
interesting thing about private funding is that it comes not just from businesses,
but also from foundations and even from individuals. In the United States, for example,
people who contribute to research funding are entitled to deduct it from their taxes,
which is not the case in countries like Spain. It’s vital to promote fiscal policies
that encourage people to fund research.
What are the potential risks of privately funded research?
It’s dangerous if the results are witheld and patented in such a way that licenses
are required to use the data.
Scientific research is a highly competitive field. Is there room for cooperation?
In the first place, scientists do not work alone. This is no longer the era of Ramón
y Cajal.1
Whether or
not they share affinities, scientists must work in teams for the simple reason that
it’s impossible for an isolated individual to gather enough knowledge to have an
international impact. In the European Union, for instance, we are seeing increasing
cooperation, because support and funding are granted to teams formed by groups from
different countries. But in the private sector, groups working at the cutting edge
of science strive to get there before their competitors because of the huge economic
stakes involved.
Are scientists doing anything to narrow the research gap between
North and South?
Researchers from the South take part in some collaborative projects and attend major
international congresses, but in general this cooperation has more to do with institutional
reasons than with any political will to narrow the gap.
Why does cloning frighten people?
Because they think of human cloning and that scientists will run amok with it.
That’s ridiculous. First, the technology we have at the moment falls far short of
enabling us to produce cloned humans, though it’s clear that it will improve until
that becomes possible. But then, what is the point of making individuals who are
all alike? Over 20 years ago, when the issue of in vitro fertilisation arose, people
said it was horrific, that it wasn’t natural. They wondered what sort of children
would be born from this technology. Would they turn out like monsters? All sorts
of things were said. The first girl born via this technique is now 23 or 24 years
old. She’s perfectly normal and in vitro fertilisation has solved many fertility
problems. So has it been good or bad for humanity?
So do you defend cloning?
Once again, we have to make a few distinctions. I think human cloning to produce
individual human beings is repellent, and in some countries there are laws against
it. But we can envisage cloning a few stem cells to produce useful organ tissues
towards therapeutic ends, or animal cloning for the same purpose or to make drugs.
For example, a given gene can be implanted in a sheep. These genetically-modified
animals can then be cloned to produce large quantities of factor IX, which is necessary
for blood coagulation and is used in the treatment of haemophilia.
Should limits be placed on scientific research to prevent abuse?
Scientists themselves have demanded that their discoveries not be used against
humanity. Furthermore, bioethics committees involving scientists have spread all
over the world in the past ten years and are working with the same aims. The main
purpose of cloning is to obtain useful tissues which can, for example, mitigate the
problem of the body rejecting organ transplants. There was a proposal to keep cells
from the umbilical cords of newborns so that in the future stem cells could be obtained
in order to make tissues. That way, if someone needed an organ transplant, his or
her own cells would be readily available, and doctors would be able to culture new
tissue from them. That would circumvent the problem of rejection and therefore be
a very positive step forward.
Another scientific advance which has sparked an uproar is genetically modified
organisms. What is your opinion?
Those fears are entirely based on a lack of knowledge. Nature changes slowly all
the time so that it can adapt. In the laboratory, those changes are simply accelerated.
Farmers have traditionally modified plants through genetic crossbreeding which generates
seeds that can grow in arid, saline or other soils. This was possible after a lot
of time and work, and nobody thought it was wrong, even though it came down to genetically
modifying the seeds. A skin graft is also a genetic modification, though people are
not afraid of it. And genetically modified plants are no different. Among the 50,000
or 100,000 genes that a plant contains, only one or two different ones are added
to make them resistant to insects, to a virus, or to saline soil. This is done through
very simple experiments that can last days or weeks. Why are people afraid? Because
they don’t know what’s involved. On the other hand, every genetically modified plant
has been tested before it is put on the market. I do think that food which comes
from genetically modified plants should be properly labelled so the consumer can
decide. But eating products that come from genetically modified plants does not entail
any sort of risk: I myself would have no objections to eating them.
What is the exact motive behind creating genetically modified organisms?
Genetically modified plants can have nothing but benefits for the human species.
The other day I read about a kind of genetically modified rice which produces a 35
per cent greater crop yield. The importance for countries suffering from famines
is obvious. It’s true that those seeds are patented, but over time the patents will
fall into the public domain and the seeds will be cheaper. Not long ago we received
a visit from Norman Borlaug, an agronomist who won the 1970 Nobel Prize for his work
in adapting crops to arid soil. Though from the United States, he lived for a long
time in Mexico, and is totally in favour of genetically modified plants. He thinks
the movement against them is ridiculous in light of all his work to enable plants
to grow in dry soil.
You seem to have perfect trust in the intrinsic goodness of scientists.
Science in general is moving in the right direction, towards helping humanity, not
perverting it. New cloning and tissue transplant technology is developed for the
good of human beings. There is no reason to be afraid, on the contrary.
What can scientists do to put that message across?
I believe there are more scientists interested in humanism than the other way
around, because humanists think that science is too difficult to understand. That
is exactly why the Instituto de España, which I head and which includes the
eight national academies, offers a series of conferences that give scientists the
chance to discuss and popularise physics, mathematics and genetics in a rigorous
but simple way, using language the public can understand. We must work towards popularising
science more widely. That means extra effort by scientists, but it ought to be a
duty.
What do you think the most important areas of research will be in this century?
I think one of the most important is the brain. It is the essential key yet to be
discovered: why we think, why we speak, what the molecular mechanisms are behind
our thought processes. Many people are working in that area. Besides, as John Maddox,
who was editor of Nature magazine for many years has said, the human being’s intellectual
capacity is so great that at some point in the future there will be nothing left
to discover.
Will that lead to boredom?
Well, neither you nor I will be around to see it. Take the example we just discussed
concerning sequencing the human genome, which is known as “the beginning of the end.”
It’s one thing to have the sequence and quite another to know what it is worth and
to understand the function of each one of our 100,000 genes. By current estimates,
that will take another 100 years, so I don’t think we’ll have time to get bored.
You’ve spent the last 30 years working with the phagocytic cell Phi-29. Could
you explain what this is?
It’s a virus which infects the Bacillus subtilis, a non-pathogenic bacterium which
is widely used in biotechnology. When the virus infects this bacterium it destroys
it, but causes no damage to other organisms. Phi-29 is simple and easy to handle;
it has only 20 genes, in comparison to the 100,000 which the human genome contains.
Nevertheless, the control mechanism of this virus is pretty sophisticated, which
makes it something of a model system. As a result, what we are studying in the virus
can be extrapolated to other virus systems in more complex animals and organisms.
The protein that we have studied in this virus also exists in a similar form in other
viruses which are not innocuous, or “bad” shall we say, because they cause diseases
like poliomyelitis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C.
What professional achievement are you most proud of?
Actually, there are two. One is very personal. When I was working in the Severo
Ochoa laboratory, I found two previously unknown proteins necessary to start synthesising
proteins. It was a very important breakthrough and very satisfying for me, especially
since I was just starting out and working alone. My second major achievement was
in Spain. I was part of a team that discovered another protein which is closely linked
to the nucleic acid of the virus on which we are working. We proved that it was necessary
for the replication of viral DNA.
And your greatest disappointment?
A scientist cannot expect success every day. There are disappointments throughout
a scientist’s life. There are times when experiments don’t work, or when you get
stuck in a dead-end and have to change direction, but they are minor setbacks and
never too serious. I don’t think I’ve ever had a major disappointment. Besides, I’m
an optimist.
Would you say that there is a feminine and a masculine way of conducting research?
In over 20 years of teaching I’ve had male and female doctoral and post-doctoral
students, and I don’t think there is any single feature that really sets them apart.
Having said that, women have perhaps been less aggressive and more patient, while
men have tried to be the first to come up with results. Nowadays, women are beginning
to acquire a level of education that is making them bolder about not always staying
one step behind men and always being more patient than they are. Apart from that
nuance, I don’t see any differences.
What would you say to a female student who wants to dedicate her life to scientific
research?
My advice would be the same for a woman or a man, which is that if they really enjoy
scientific research, they must understand that they will have to dedicate themselves
100 per cent to it. There are no half measures. You either give your life to it,
or you don’t. If you are really prepared to devote all your time to research, then
go ahead. And then I tell them it’s for life.
1. Santiago Ramón
y Cajal. Spanish neurologist (1852-1934). Nobel prize for physiology and medicine
in 1906.
|
