Abstract
I also think the challenges we are now facing are global in scope; this means we need to take into account the global impact of the solutions. A good example is energy. The energy challenges we face, and the solutions we come up with to improve energy efficiency and sustainability have to be considered on a global scale, even though we tend to tackle them on a local or country-wide scale.
I think industrial biotechnology will drive the global bioeconomy by fueling progress through innovation. There are many opportunities to develop new technologies and take them to the market. One of the amazing things that I have observed during the decade that I have been involved in research, is that the time between when a technology is developed in the laboratory and when it is implemented at an industrial scale is getting shorter and shorter. The jump from innovation to small-scale testing and ultimately to production is happening faster. This is a key area in which industrial biotechnology, through a concerted effort between academia and industry, will fuel progress through innovation.
It is important to continue to explore fundamental science as the basis for innovation. Pursuing an end product should not always be the goal. Many of the technology breakthroughs we see are either serendipitous discoveries or chance occurrences in the laboratory. We might miss out on those if we are too focused on just the end product.
Another challenge will be to foresee what the impact of new technology will be on the environment and society. Many times the solutions we come up with for a particular problem have unintended consequences. We can do a better job of looking at long-term impact that goes beyond the immediate consequences of a proposed solution.
Additionally, almost all research areas in academia—and industry has been at the forefront of this—are requiring an integrated, multidisciplinary approach. I believe we should see this as an opportunity to tackle complex problems more effectively, such as energy and food sustainability for a growing population, which are compounded by the global economy and budget cuts. This takes us back to the theme of viewing these challenges as global, even though we act on them at the local scale. I think that multidisciplinary research has been the norm in industry, as it tends to focus on the product, whereas in academia we tend to focus on a research area and to specialize so much that we may miss a lot of opportunities. I think this is changing and academic research is becoming more interdisciplinary. Within academic departments I see a change in the way of thinking. While they are looking to hire the best possible person for a position, that person can now have a multidisciplinary background, as long as he or she fits the needs of the department and the direction in which it wants to grow.
One example of this that I experienced first-hand was the development of advanced, third-generation DNA sequencing technology that progressed very quickly from lab-scale innovation to a commercial product launched by a company. Jonas Korlach of Pacific Biosciences recently wrote an article on the development of this technology that was published in Industrial Biotechnology (Korlach J. Ind Biotechnol 2012;8(6):333–336). I was working in Professor Harold Craighead's laboratory, where it was implemented for the first time. I even used it in my own research as a PhD student, although for a different application. It was exciting to see that concept being born in the lab and then being taken to a product in such a short time span.
The biggest gap and area in need of attention that I see is the need for funding for fundamental scientific research. One thing I have seen change drastically since I was a postdoc has been the funding available for basic science. When I started my postdoc we had funding and opportunities to pursue funding to do research on biofuels and develop new techniques to produce bioproducts. Just a few years later, much of that funding has dried up, especially in the area of lignocellulosics. The focus has shifted toward other techniques, without giving the original solutions time to mature. Sometimes the funding cycles are too short to allow a new development to break through and make an impact. Much of that has to do with politics, policy, and changing interests. The funding cycles seem to be getting shorter, results are expected on a much faster pace, and that is not congruent with how science works, especially when you are trying to tackle complex problems.
One of the things done in Canada is funding of very short-term projects funded through the government, which provide low entry barriers for industry to work with academia. The goal is to foster the establishment of collaborations between academia and industry. These government grants may operate for six months and cover the cost of having a graduate student in the lab, with no monetary input from industry. However, any intellectual property that is generated is assigned to the industrial partner, so there is huge incentive for industry to participate. Often finding an industrial partner that is willing to work with you and willing to risk something to initiate collaboration is the hardest part, and this helps overcome that initial barrier. This is one of the models being championed in Canada, where these grant applications are very short, they are only about two pages, not onerous to complete, and have a turnaround time from application to resolution of four to six weeks.
When applying these materials we also leverage the ability of high-resolution fluorescence microscopy to visualize interactions between the biological systems of interest and the nano- and microstructured materials. We utilize a number of fluorescence microscopy techniques, from traditional widefield and confocal microscopy to techniques that employ single molecule localization and tracking to visualize individual enzymes or biomolecules as they interact with nanostructured materials. We pursue a very multidisciplinary approach to research that offers unique opportunities for training undergraduates, graduate students, and post-doctoral associates to become the next generation of multidisciplinary scientists.
Because the techniques we are developing make use of simple benchtop approaches, they are also amenable for a number of outreach efforts. I really enjoy working with undergraduates, and even K-12 students, bringing them into the lab and giving them hands-on experience to foster their interest in science. I think that one of the most important contributions I can make to science is to foster interest in science in young, potential scientists.