Sir

Recent editions of Nature have trumpeted the merits of translational research (Nature 453, 823; 2008; Nature 453, 830—831; 2008; Nature 453, 839; 2008; Nature 453, 840—842; 2008; Nature 453, 843—845; 2008; Nature 453, 846—849; 2008) and then — almost as an afterthought to redress the balance — of basic research (Nature 453, 1144; 2008; Nature 453, 1150—1151; 2008). You highlight concerns that increased investment in translational research could be eroding support for basic research, evidence for which is writ loud on the UK Medical Research Council's web pages, for example. Of the many recent targeted calls for proposals, almost all are translational. As pointed out in Nature, this doesn't necessarily mean less money for basic research, but it does mean that basic science misses out on a share of the substantial amount of new money.

For investigators of basic science, this trend creates a conundrum. Go where the money is, or hope that basic science retains its financial foothold. Some adroitly plant a foot in each camp — although for many this is an unsatisfactory ploy, because basic and translational research have different challenges and rewards.

Credit: B. MELLOR

Basic science is typically hypothesis-driven and leads to new discoveries, whereas translational research applies those discoveries to patient benefits. The link between the two is exemplified by the discovery of small interfering RNA, which emerged from basic research that was eventually awarded the Nobel prize, and is now being tested as a therapeutic tool. The basic scientist may get as far as filing a patent application, but often loses interest in product development and commercialization.

Basic researchers should not have to worry about the validity of their work, but they will often add a rider to 'sell' their papers and grant applications — “these studies on [insert name of cell line or obscure gene] should pave the way for new treatments for [insert disease du jour]”.

Such concerns underline the need to include champions of basic science among science policy-makers and the bodies that fund biomedical research. Otherwise the fear is not that basic science will be deliberately run down, but that it will indeed become an afterthought and die by neglect.