At Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), we choose to focus on key areas of science that interest us and, once the area has been identified, we recruit a small group of young scientists who complement each other, providing a critical mass of intellectual talent. These new areas are always related to ongoing areas of science, ensuring that we strengthen existing programs. We then seek private funds to provide the additional support needed so that our scientists can do the best science possible, hopefully unlimited by financial constraints. The secret is to focus on areas that have the potential for high impact and not to focus on what is the current fad. Moreover, there are no departments at CSHL, which promotes interactions between individual groups that I believe enhance productivity. We also work very hard to provide a pleasant and interesting environment in which to work, and of course part of that is the large number of visitors we have each year who attend our meetings and courses. CSHL, therefore, provides extraordinary opportunities for postdocs and our graduate students.

CSHL has, for nearly 100 years, focused on genetics, and this approach is still at our core. Now, the focus is primarily on cancer research and neuroscience, although we have very strong programs in plant biology and bioinformatics/genomics. Within cancer research, which was started here in the modern era when James Watson became director in 1968, we now focus on human cancer genetics and understanding pathways to cancer therapy. Much of this is basic research, but recent applications of whole genome screening of cancers and RNAi technologies are revolutionizing how we approach cancer research. With the neuroscience area, which began in the early 1990s, we do not attempt to tackle all of neuroscience, but focus on the broad areas of learning and memory and behavior, again from a genetic point of view. The focus and interactions between groups of scientists is the key to our success.

Not a controversy, but a growing problem nonetheless. Modern molecular biology has made it very easy for scientists to come up with experiments, but very innovative ideas and potentially high-impact science often gets shot down by increasingly conservative review groups who fund incremental and obvious science. Even though the NIH budget has doubled over the last five years, many important opportunities remain unfunded, and some of what we consider outstanding does not do well in initial review. This is probably because we try to keep on the cutting edge. Since the genomes of humans and other species have been sequenced, there are enormous opportunities that have arisen, yet peer-reviewed funding mechanisms have not adjusted. Without substantial philanthropic support, some of the really significant changes in cancer research that are now ongoing at CSHL would not have been possible. I believe there needs to be national discussion about how we can exploit the opportunities for the benefit of public health. I see the first step in educating peer reviewers so that they do not drag down innovation to a lowest common denominator, but rather invest in good ideas.

Recent applications of new technologies in cancer research have enabled us to rapidly scan the entire genome of primary cancers and compare them with the patient’s own normal DNA. This has uncovered new gene products as potential diagnostic and therapeutic agents that may change the way we think about treating cancer. Additional technologies being used at CSHL, such as a new RNAi technology, will help validate these new targets. In the future, cancer therapy will be linked to the underlying genetics within a patient’s cancer.

Dr. Bruce Stillman, Director and CEO
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Cold Spring Harbor, NY, USA

Read an article titled: "Heavyweights in Molecular Biology/Genetics: For Some, A High Percentage of Elite Papers," Science Watch, Jan/Feb 2003. In this article, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is ranked the #1 institution by Percentage of Highly Cited Molecular Biology & Genetics Papers, 1992-2002 (Of those institutions with >50,000 citations during the period).