Team player: Edmonton scientist turns down $100,000 ‘baby Nobel’ because it shut out colleagues
Sarah Boesveld | 13/03/20 | Last Updated: 13/03/20 3:32 PM ET
More from Sarah Boesveld | @sarahboesveld
More from Sarah Boesveld | @sarahboesveld
The Canadian Press / Handout / University of Alberta-Michael Holly"What means the most to me is what our work means to patients. Some people think this may hurt my chances for the Nobel, but I felt that this is the time to stick my feet in," Michael Houghton told the Post
It’s a respected medical research award, dubbed the “baby Nobels” as many of its winners have gone on to earn the coveted science prize. But Edmonton’s Dr. Michael Houghton has declined the Canada Gairdner International Award, worth $100,000, for his contribution to the discovery of the hepatitis C virus. He said he couldn’t accept the honour, also awarded to Dr. Harvey Alter of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Daniel Bradley of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if two other important researchers on his team were shut out. The Canada Excellence Research Chair in Virology said awards committees are stuck in the past, unwilling to acknowledge that research teams have grown since the time of Alfred Nobel. He spoke with the Post’s Sarah Boesveld from his office at the University of Alberta.
Q: Explain a bit further why you’re not taking the award.
A: I believe there were five key contributors: The three that received the Gairdner Award [which includes Dr. Houghton,] and Dr. George Quo and Dr. Qui-Lim Choo [who are employed by Chiron Corp.) Those two people worked with me for seven years to discover the virus in my laboratory.
Q: Do you think they were shut out because they work for a private company?
A: Oh, I don’t know. First of all let me say I’m pleased for Dr. Alter and pleased for Dr. Bradley — those two individuals made important contributions. I just feel that this is yet another example — and this is not the first time — of where a major discovery is done by a number of people, but when it comes to recognizing that discovery, they’re exclusive rather than inclusive. The facts are, these big discoveries these days need big teams.
I haven’t told my wife that yet.
Q: Why are the awards so exclusive? The pot of money?
A: No, I don’t think it’s that. It’s all based on the Nobel prize. In his will, Dr. Nobel says there can be no more than three. All of the other major awards tend to copy that and limit it to three. It’s antiquated. In the days of Nobel, research was done by one or two people in small labs. Now it’s done by big teams in multiple labs. I’m very grateful to the Gairdner, I highly respect them, they do a fantastic job. On this one, unfortunately, I couldn’t accept.
Q: Why take such a stand when you could have accepted and acknowledged their major contributions?
A: I think I’ve evolved my philosophy after many, many years. When you make a big discovery, nobody trains you on how to handle it. In the 1990s, I got a call from the Robert Koch Foundation offering an award to myself and Dr. Bradley. I requested Dr. Choo and Dr. Quo be included and they said no. I took the award anyway. In the 2000s, I got a call from the Lasker Committee who said I got the award with Dr. Alter. I said ‘It’s really important that Dr. Quo and Dr. Choo be included.’ They said no. I agonized over the Lasker for many weeks and eventually I decided to accept it.
What means the most to me is what our work means to patients. Some people think this may hurt my chances for the Nobel, but I felt that this is the time to stick my feet in
Q: How do Drs. Quo and Choo feel about it all?
A: They feel they deserve direct recognition and I agree with them. I think it was after the Lasker that I decided ‘well, I really shouldn’t do this anymore.’ I never envisaged a situation when I was offered an award, I couldn’t persuade the committees to include my colleagues. That’s been a complete shock to me. It’s a huge disappointment. It takes a lot of the pleasure out of the whole process. It makes it awkward. It makes it unpleasant.
Q: Do you think this will hurt your chances at getting a Nobel prize?
A: I’m very respectful of the Nobel and the Gairdner and the Lasker and Robert Koch. What means the most to me is what our work means to patients. Some people think this may hurt my chances for the Nobel, but I felt that this is the time to stick my feet in. This was the opportunity to do it.
Q: I guess you don’t get the $100,000.
A: I haven’t told my wife that yet.
My thoughts: it is so rare to see works credited to post docs and fellows who actually does bulk of the work in research. And when I say the bulk of the work, I mean: proposals, actual research - procuring specimen, experiment, statistic analysis, writing. Of course supervisors are some-what involved...actually the level of involvement between P.I (Primary Investigator) differs quite a lot that you can not generalize.
Knowing this, reading the article struck me with a thought.
'A True Man of Integrity'
No comments:
Post a Comment