The fall of Eric Lander and the end of science’s ‘big ego’ era – STAT

The resignation of Eric Lander as President Bidens lead scientific adviser is not just a blow to one presidents plans for advancing research, but a signpost on the death march of a certain way of doing science. Its not quite big science, which isnt going anywhere. Call it big ego.

In science, big ego isnt exactly a new phenomenon. But in recent decades it grew with the emergence of researchers who could both handle the kind of gloves-off debate that can mark academic discourse and marshal vast resources to make certain types of scientific discoveries, like mapping genomes or understanding how molecular changes in a cell lead to cancer.

Accomplishing those tasks once seemed to require an outsize personality, as well as the ability to translate not only the meaning of science but the excitement of doing it to laypeople, to donors, to politicians. It was in this world that Lander excelled. For decades, he was not only one of the worlds most cited scientists, but also an administrator who built a research empire.

advertisement

It started with the Human Genome Project, a government effort to sequence the first human genome that originated with Nobel laureate James Watson, who was, by the way, one of sciences biggest and most toxic egos. (E.O. Wilson famously called him the most unpleasant human being I had ever met.) In recent years, Watson was disowned by the scientific establishment for racist and misogynistic remarks. But in the 1990s, as the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, he was exactly the kind of person one brought before Congress in order to make research dollars flow.

When Lander became involved, he was a mathematician and former business school professor who had started a sequencing center at Massachusetts Institute of Technologys Whitehead Institute. Watson was replaced as the Genome Projects head after three years, and the effort was slowly progressing toward completion. But another giant personality, the scientist Craig Venter, began work with a for-profit company, Celera Genomics, to generate, perhaps patent, and certainly profit from the genome by sequencing it first. The contest was made for the media. Venter was not only a scientific cowboy, he loved fast cars and big boats and adrenaline.

advertisement

Lander muscled his way into increasing control of the project, changing the way that it was organized so that the work could be done faster using new technologies made by Celeras parent company, PE Biosystems. The effort was a success: The public effort raced Venter to a draw in 2001.

Lander was left overseeing a large DNA sequencing center at the Whitehead. In a feat of tough bureaucratic brawling, he moved it to a new organization, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard an organization, incidentally, named for its wealthy donor. And under Landers leadership, the Broad became perhaps the premier center for genetic research in the world.

Its hard not to see what happened this week as hamartia, the classic Greek tragic flaw. Politico first reported that Lander had issued an apology to staff for speaking in a disrespectful or demeaning way, and then that a White House investigation had found credible evidence that he had bullied his general counsel and had spoken harshly to colleagues in front of others. Perhaps the same behavior that was forgivable when he was fighting for the free availability of genetic information was not permissible in a modern White House. Perhaps his efforts at creating a new Cancer Moonshot and ARPA-H, a new science funding mechanism within the government, led old bad habits to metastasize. Perhaps he could always be a jerk.

When he was sworn in, Biden had promised to fire anyone who was disrespectful on the spot. But neither Lander nor the Biden administration seemed to see the train that was about to hit them. Lander waited to resign until Politico made public its investigation, which dated back to December. There was plenty of kindling for furor. Many scientists still seethe over a 2016 paper Lander wrote about the gene-editing technology CRISPR that seemed to inflate the Broads efforts and minimize the contributions of Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, who later won the Nobel for their work.

The consequences of Landers most recent behavior could be severe, with his role as a public intellectual severely reduced. Already, the American Association for the Advancement of Science has disinvited him from its annual meeting, one of the largest gatherings of scientists. But there are questions over where Lander goes next, and whether hed be welcome back at the Broad.

This is a gigantic change from the way things used to be, one that will likely have a positive impact on the way big-name scientists behave. This is not because ego will no longer play a role in science. It is because the consequences of behaving badly at work have become so large; those who would have openly bullied or disparaged co-workers will simply know that they cant do it if they want to accomplish their goals. In the same way Lander and Venter were selected by the era of big science, this next eras stars will be made of stuff that is less rude.

For years, a camera-grabbing persona and big achievements were enough to grant indulgence for just about any sin. It wasnt until 2007 that Watsons star finally faded completely, after he told a British newspaper that Black people were not as intelligent as white people; it was only after he made similar remarks again in 2019 that he was stripped of his final honorary titles.

Lander has never been accused of anything on that scale. But he did find himself apologizing, in 2018, for agreeing to toast Watson at a scientific meeting.

Lander was a force of energy and connection. When he would rise in the audience at scientific meetings, it was as if he stole the spotlight. He taught introductory biology at MIT for years, and turned mathematicians into biologists. He was immensely quotable. I remember one time when I was granted hours with other Broad scientists, and a short amount of time with Lander. He was pithy and clever and his words coursed with argument and excitement.

But being quotable isnt enough. That rare ability seemed so important, perhaps, in an era when sequencing even a single human genome required assembling rooms the size of football fields full of expensive machines. But it wasnt, really. And other big-name scientists are casting public images that reset the armwrestling, argumentative tone of the genome age. Doudna now heads the Innovative Genomics Institute at UC Berkeley and UCSF, and is in many ways the anti-Lander.

Science, in the end, is built on ambition and curiosity. It requires egos. But they neednt be quite so big.

Go here to see the original:
The fall of Eric Lander and the end of science's 'big ego' era - STAT