A Measure of Respect for Translational Research

Abstract

It was a pleasant surprise to see a special feature (“Careers in translational research,” 17 August, p. [966][1]) in Science focusing on translational research and its opportunities, risks, and challenges. In their respective articles, S. Carpenter (p. [966][1]) and K. Garber (p. 968) highlight the concerns that translational researchers have about not being able to satisfy traditional measures of scientific success, including number of publications and impact factors. This apprehension is well founded. More worrisome is the scenario in which the onus is placed on the members of the translational community to prove their worth. I think it is too much. Measures of basic research productivity are well established, but the same is not true for translational research. I agree with Wu's advice (p. [967][2]) to “go with what you passionately care about, because it's a long row, no matter how you hoe it,” but I also sympathize with June's lament (p. 969): “I have seen several instances since I've been at [Penn] where promising translational researchers had to go back and just do basic research in order to assure their promotion.” It is time to think seriously about how to develop criteria for quantitatively evaluating translational work. “Bench-to-bedside” and “lab-to-clinic” research will otherwise suffer from a perennial problem of lack of recognition. Considering the risk of failure in translational research, we need to be openminded and adopt measures that focus not only on success but on honest effort. Achievements such as partnering, patents, clinical trials, and drug screening should be considered on par with publications for assessment and promotion. Successes in translational efforts should be provided with “impact factors” commensurate with the volume of work, time taken, or importance in terms of clinical or pharmacological utility. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.317.5840.966 [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1148242