biomedical research fields

Office: 919.785.1304 | Fax: 919.785.1306

• Donate to SUBR
• Copyright and Privacy Statements
• Why Are Animals Needed in Research?
• What About Using Fewer Animals or No Animals?
• Product and Environmental Safety Research
• What is Biomedical Research?
• Biomedical Research Definitions
• Research Options
• How Animals Help
• Member Organizations

WHAT IS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH?

Biomedical research is the broad area of science that looks for ways to prevent and treat diseases that cause illness and death in people and in animals. This general field of research includes many areas of both the life and physical sciences.

Utilizing biotechnology techniques, biomedical researchers study biological processes and diseases with the ultimate goal of developing effective treatments and cures. Biomedical research is an evolutionary process requiring careful experimentation by many scientists, including biologists and chemists. Discovery of new medicines and therapies requires careful scientific experimentation, development, and evaluation.

Why are Animals Used in Biomedical Research?

The use of animals in some types of research is essential to the development of new and more effective methods for diagnosing and treating diseases that affect both humans and animals. Scientists use animals to learn more about health problems, and to assure the safety of new medical treatments. Medical researchers need to understand health problems before they can develop ways to treat them. Some diseases and health problems involve processes that can only be studied in living organisms. Animals are necessary to medical research because it is impractical or unethical to use humans.

Animals make good research subjects for a variety of reasons. Animals are biologically similar to humans. They are susceptible to many of the same health problems, and they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations. In addition, scientists can easily control the environment around animals (diet, temperature, lighting), which would be difficult to do with people. Finally, a primary reason why animals are used is that most people feel it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to observe the course of a disease.

Animals are used in research to develop drugs and medical procedures to treat diseases. Scientists may discover such drugs and procedures using alternative research methods that do not involve animals. If the new therapy seems promising, it is tested in animals to see whether it seems to be safe and effective. If the results of the animal studies are good, then human volunteers are asked to participate in a clinical trial. The animal studies are conducted first to give medical researchers a better idea of what benefits and complications they are likely to see in humans.

A variety of animals provide very useful models for the study of diseases afflicting both animals and humans. However, approximately 95 percent of research animals in the United States are rats, mice, and other rodents bred specifically for laboratory research. Dogs, cats, and primates account for less than one percent of all the animals used in research.

Those working in the field of biomedical research have a duty to conduct research in a manner that is humane, appropriate, and judicious. CBRA supports adherence to standards of care developed by scientific and professional organizations, and compliance with governmental regulations for the use of animals in research.

Scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the numbers of animals needed to obtain valid results, refine experimental techniques, and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible.

© California Biomedical Research Association

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Impact of nih research.

NIH-funded research generated about $96.84 billion in economic activity in FY22.

NIH works to turn scientific discoveries into better health for all. As the largest public funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the world, NIH is the driving force behind decades of advances that  improve health ,  revolutionize science , and  serve society  more broadly.

Evidence of the varied, long-term impacts of NIH activities comes from a variety of sources, ranging from studies on specific health topics, to broader analyses of NIH as a whole. Explore the sections below to discover more about how NIH provides value for the public’s investment.

Improving Health

Discoveries emerging from NIH-supported research have led to new ways to prevent, diagnose, and treat illness, ultimately improving the health of the nation and the world.

Revolutionizing Science

NIH fuels the biomedical research enterprise—cultivating world-class scientists and catalyzing new scientific fields, tools, and resources that have changed how science is done.

Serving Society

NIH-supported research leads to improvements in health that can bolster the economy, improve productivity, and reduce the costly burden of illness. NIH funding also supports jobs and innovations that advance the biotechnology sector.

asthma-case-study-spread-screenshot.jpg

Our Stories

The knowledge produced by NIH-supported research can take many years and pass through many stages on its pathway toward improving health. Explore stories of how NIH has contributed to successful health interventions, and how these interventions have made a difference in our lives.

Learn More About NIH

• Research Matters — weekly update of recent NIH research highlights
• NIH RePORT — reports, data, and analyses of NIH research activities
• NIH Clinical Trials — overview of NIH-funded clinical trials and how you can participate
• Celebration of Science: NIH Highlights — spotlighting remarkable advances from NIH-supported scientists
• NIH Home Page — learn how NIH and its 27 institutes and centers work
• NIH Director’s blog — NIH Director Dr. Monica Bertagnolli discusses new discoveries and latest trends in biomedical research and medicine
• NIH Catalyst — bimonthly NIH newsletter that showcases the scientific research conducted at the NIH
• NIH Record — biweekly NIH newsletter that covers issues of significance to NIH staff, contractors, and trainees
• NIH History Office & Stetten Museum — discover the scientific, legislative, and social history of the National Institutes of Health

NIH Research News

20240402-heart-damage.jpg.

How lung distress from SARS-CoV-2 can cause heart damage

April 2, 2024 — Researchers found that SARS-CoV-2 can damage heart tissue without directly infecting it.

20240402-colorectal-cancer.jpg

Gum disease-related bacteria tied to colorectal cancer

April 2, 2024 — Scientists identified a specific subtype of bacteria implicated in gum disease that may promote the growth of colorectal tumors.

20240402-skin-test.jpg

Skin test detects evidence of Parkinson’s and related disorders

April 2, 2024 — A study showed that a simple skin biopsy could identify people who had Parkinson’s disease or similar disorders with a high degree of accuracy.

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

Biomedical Research Leads Science’s 2021 Breakthroughs

Posted on January 4th, 2022 by Lawrence Tabak, D.D.S., Ph.D.

Hi everyone, I’m Larry Tabak. I’ve served as NIH’s Principal Deputy Director for over 11 years, and I will be the acting NIH director until a new permanent director is named. In my new role, my day-to-day responsibilities will certainly increase, but I promise to carve out time to blog about some of the latest research progress on COVID-19 and any other areas of science that catch my eye.

I’ve also invited the directors of NIH’s Institutes and Centers (ICs) to join me in the blogosphere and write about some of the cool science in their research portfolios. I will publish a couple of posts to start, then turn the blog over to our first IC director. From there, I envision alternating between posts from me and from various IC directors. That way, we’ll cover a broad array of NIH science and the tremendous opportunities now being pursued in biomedical research.

Since I’m up first, let’s start where the NIH Director’s Blog usually begins each year: by taking a look back at Science ’s Breakthroughs of 2021. The breakthroughs were formally announced in December near the height of the holiday bustle. In case you missed the announcement, the biomedical sciences accounted for six of the journal Science ’s 10 breakthroughs. Here, I’ll focus on four biomedical breakthroughs, the ones that NIH has played some role in advancing, starting with Science ’s editorial and People’s Choice top-prize winner:

Breakthrough of the Year: AI-Powered Predictions of Protein Structure

The biochemist Christian Anfinsen, who had a distinguished career at NIH, shared the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for work suggesting that the biochemical interactions among the amino acid building blocks of proteins were responsible for pulling them into the final shapes that are essential to their functions. In his Nobel acceptance speech, Anfinsen also made a bold prediction: one day it would be possible to determine the three-dimensional structure of any protein based on its amino acid sequence alone. Now, with advances in applying artificial intelligence to solve biological problems—Anfinsen’s bold prediction has been realized.

But getting there wasn’t easy. Every two years since 1994, research teams from around the world have gathered to compete against each other in developing computational methods for predicting protein structures from sequences alone. A score of 90 or above means that a predicted structure is extremely close to what’s known from more time-consuming work in the lab. In the early days, teams more often finished under 60.

In 2020, a London-based company called DeepMind made a leap with their entry called AlphaFold. Their deep learning approach—which took advantage of 170,000 proteins with known structures—most often scored above 90, meaning it could solve most protein structures about as well as more time-consuming and costly experimental protein-mapping techniques. (AlphaFold was one of Science ’s runner-up breakthroughs last year.)

This year, the NIH-funded lab of David Baker and Minkyung Baek, University of Washington, Seattle, Institute for Protein Design, published that their artificial intelligence approach , dubbed RoseTTAFold, could accurately predict 3D protein structures from amino acid sequences with only a fraction of the computational processing power and time that AlphaFold required [1]. They immediately applied it to solve hundreds of new protein structures, including many poorly known human proteins with important implications for human health.

The DeepMind and RoseTTAFold scientists continue to solve more and more proteins [1,2], both alone and in complex with other proteins. The code is now freely available for use by researchers anywhere in the world. In one timely example, AlphaFold helped to predict the structural changes in spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 variants Delta and Omicron [3]. This ability to predict protein structures, first envisioned all those years ago, now promises to speed fundamental new discoveries and the development of new ways to treat and prevent any number of diseases, making it this year’s Breakthrough of the Year.

Anti-Viral Pills for COVID-19

The development of the first vaccines to protect against COVID-19 topped Science ’s 2020 breakthroughs. This year, we’ve also seen important progress in treating COVID-19, including the development of anti-viral pills .

First, there was the announcement in October of interim data from Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, Miami, FL, of a significant reduction in hospitalizations for those taking the anti-viral drug molnupiravir [4] (originally developed with an NIH grant to Emory University, Atlanta). Soon after came reports of a Pfizer anti-viral pill that might target SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, even more effectively. Trial results show that, when taken within three days of developing COVID-19 symptoms, the pill reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in adults at high risk of progressing to severe illness by 89 percent [5].

On December 22, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s Paxlovid to treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in people age 12 and up at high risk for progressing to severe illness, making it the first available pill to treat COVID-19 [6]. The following day, the FDA granted an EUA for Merck’s molnupiravir to treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in unvaccinated, high-risk adults for whom other treatment options aren’t accessible or recommended, based on a final analysis showing a 30 percent reduction in hospitalization or death [7].

Additional promising anti-viral pills for COVID-19 are currently in development. For example, a recent NIH-funded preclinical study suggests that a drug related to molnupiravir, known as 4’-fluorouridine, might serve as a broad spectrum anti-viral with potential to treat infections with SARS-CoV-2 as well as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) [8].

Artificial Antibody Therapies

Before anti-viral pills came on the scene, there’d been progress in treating COVID-19, including the development of monoclonal antibody infusions . Three monoclonal antibodies now have received an EUA for treating mild-to-moderate COVID-19, though not all are effective against the Omicron variant [9]. This is also an area in which NIH’s Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV ) public-private partnership has made big contributions.

Monoclonal antibodies are artificially produced versions of the most powerful antibodies found in animal or human immune systems, made in large quantities for therapeutic use in the lab. Until recently, this approach had primarily been put to work in the fight against conditions including cancer, asthma, and autoimmune diseases. That changed in 2021 with success using monoclonal antibodies against infections with SARS-CoV-2 as well as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and other infectious diseases. This earned them a prominent spot among Science ’s breakthroughs of 2021.

Monoclonal antibodies delivered via intravenous infusions continue to play an important role in saving lives during the pandemic. But, there’s still room for improvement, including new formulations highlighted on the blog last year that might be much easier to deliver.

CRISPR Fixes Genes Inside the Body

One of the most promising areas of research in recent years has been gene editing, including CRISPR/Cas9, for fixing misspellings in genes to treat or even cure many conditions. This year has certainly been no exception.

CRISPR is a highly precise gene-editing system that uses guide RNA molecules to direct a scissor-like Cas9 enzyme to just the right spot in the genome to cut out or correct disease-causing misspellings. Science highlights a small study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine by researchers at Intellia Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, NY, in which six people with hereditary transthyretin (TTR) amyloidosis , a condition in which TTR proteins build up and damage the heart and nerves, received an infusion of guide RNA and CRISPR RNA encased in tiny balls of fat [10]. The goal was for the liver to take them up, allowing Cas9 to cut and disable the TTR gene. Four weeks later, blood levels of TTR had dropped by at least half.

In another study not yet published, researchers at Editas Medicine, Cambridge, MA, injected a benign virus carrying a CRISPR gene-editing system into the eyes of six people with an inherited vision disorder called Leber congenital amaurosis 10. The goal was to remove extra DNA responsible for disrupting a critical gene expressed in the eye. A few months later, two of the six patients could sense more light, enabling one of them to navigate a dimly lit obstacle course [11]. This work builds on earlier gene transfer studies begun more than a decade ago at NIH’s National Eye Institute.

Last year, in a research collaboration that included former NIH Director Francis Collins’s lab at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), we also saw encouraging early evidence in mice that another type of gene editing, called DNA base editing, might one day correct Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome, a rare genetic condition that causes rapid premature aging. Preclinical work has even suggested that gene-editing tools might help deliver long-lasting pain relief . The technology keeps getting better , too. This isn’t the first time that gene-editing advances have landed on Science ’s annual Breakthrough of the Year list, and it surely won’t be the last.

The year 2021 was a difficult one as the pandemic continued in the U.S. and across the globe, taking far too many lives far too soon. But through it all, science has been relentless in seeking and finding life-saving answers, from the rapid development of highly effective COVID-19 vaccines to the breakthroughs highlighted above.

As this list also attests, the search for answers has progressed impressively in other research areas during these difficult times. These groundbreaking discoveries are something in which we can all take pride—even as they encourage us to look forward to even bigger breakthroughs in 2022. Happy New Year!

References :

[1] Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network . Baek M, DiMaio F, Anishchenko I, Dauparas J, Grishin NV, Adams PD, Read RJ, Baker D., et al. Science. 2021 Jul 15:eabj8754.

[2] Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold . Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Senior AW, Kavukcuoglu K, Kohli P, Hassabis D. et al. Nature. 2021 Jul 15.

[3] Structural insights of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from Delta and Omicron variants . Sadek A, Zaha D, Ahmed MS. preprint bioRxiv. 2021 Dec 9.

[4] Merck and Ridgeback’s investigational oral antiviral molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by approximately 50 Percent compared to placebo for patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 in positive interim analysis of phase 3 study . Merck. 1 Oct 2021.

[5] Pfizer’s novel COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment candidate reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 89% in interim analysis of phase 2/3 EPIC-HR Study . Pfizer. 5 November 52021.

[6] Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA authorizes first oral antiviral for treatment of COVID-19 . Food and Drug Administration. 22 Dec 2021.

[7] Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA authorizes additional oral antiviral for treatment of COVID-19 in certain adults . Food and Drug Administration. 23 Dec 2021.

[8] 4′-Fluorouridine is an oral antiviral that blocks respiratory syncytial virus and SARS-CoV-2 replication . Sourimant J, Lieber CM, Aggarwal M, Cox RM, Wolf JD, Yoon JJ, Toots M, Ye C, Sticher Z, Kolykhalov AA, Martinez-Sobrido L, Bluemling GR, Natchus MG, Painter GR, Plemper RK. Science. 2021 Dec 2.

[9] Anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies . NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines. 16 Dec 2021.

[10] CRISPR-Cas9 in vivo gene editing for transthyretin amyloidosis . Gillmore JD, Gane E, Taubel J, Kao J, Fontana M, Maitland ML, Seitzer J, O’Connell D, Walsh KR, Wood K, Phillips J, Xu Y, Amaral A, Boyd AP, Cehelsky JE, McKee MD, Schiermeier A, Harari O, Murphy A, Kyratsous CA, Zambrowicz B, Soltys R, Gutstein DE, Leonard J, Sepp-Lorenzino L, Lebwohl D. N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 5;385(6):493-502.

[11] Editas Medicine announces positive initial clinical data from ongoing phase 1/2 BRILLIANCE clinical trial of EDIT-101 For LCA10 . Editas Medicine. 29 Sept 2021.

Structural Biology (National Institute of General Medical Sciences/NIH)

The Structures of Life (NIGMS)

COVID-19 Research (NIH)

2021 Science Breakthrough of the Year (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C)

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Posted In: News

Tags: 4'-fluorouridine , Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines , ACTIV , AI , AlphaFold , amino acids , artificial antibodies , artificial intelligence , biochemistry , Christian Anfinsen , Chronic Pain , computational biology , coronavirus , COVID pill , COVID-19 , CRISPR , CRISPR/Cas9 , DeepMind , Delta variant , Editas Medicine , EUA , gene editing , hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis , Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome , Intellia Therapeutics , Leber congenital amaurosis , Merck , molnupiravir , monoclonal antibodies , Omicron variant , pandemic , Pfizer , progeria , protein structure , rare disease , Regeneron , RoseTTAFold , SARS-CoV-2 , Science Breakthrough of the Year , Science Breakthroughs of 2021 , structural biology

14 Comments

It would be remiss not to celebrate another NIH milestone in 2021: on March 1, 2021, the NIH finally took a stand against structural racism in biomedical research ( https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-stands-against-structural-racism-biomedical-research ) — and given the rampant health inequities exposed by COVID-19 and also the profound issues of structural racism and economic adversity affecting the health and well-being of the US population, it is essential that this NIH breakthrough be celebrated, institutionalized, and supported with ample funding and leadership.

Biology is a fascinating thing. It’s amazing to think what a few nucleotides can do and how epigenetics can dictate very different outcomes. Something that is toxic in one species can be fairly benign in another. As the pandemic becomes endemic and there are other host animals (such as what is being seen with deer and certain zoo animals), one does have to ask about the evolutionary advantage of codon optimization and the value of pseudo-uridine. Perhaps there are lessons that can be gleaned from Gleevac?

Thank you for carrying on this important communication that I continue to share throughout my own circle. It is vital in combatting “qanonense” and more in our time.

Happy New Year Dr. Tabak, Congratulations on your important work in the NIH and thank you for this special explanation on medical advances being studied.

These goals deeply affect medical problems that are still difficult to manage, such as diseases of genetic origin. Even though they are sometimes rare diseases, we have to think that behind that statistical number is a face, a person, who begs for our help as doctors. I still remember today a young patient (visited decades ago) suffering from Leber’s congenital amaurosis who explained his tragedy to me: at the time I couldn’t find words to help him.

Looking at future treatments for chronic pain that is sometimes devastating to the affected person, it is encouraging to know that the CRISPR gene editing tool could help these patients. https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/04/01/could-crispr-gene-editing-technology-be-an-answer-to-chronic-pain/

Just yesterday, a patient who has been suffering from spinal damage for years, writes to me: he periodically updates me on the operations he is undergoing, unfortunately with poor results. Last planned, implantation of a medullary electro-stimulator. But the stress resulting from this situation also causes recurrent central serous chorioretinopathies, a source of serious fear for his sight.

I read tons of scientific ‘stuff’, mostly related to geo-hydromorphological, ecological and botanical, so reading outside these areas challenges my patience. I have to say, this presentation of accomplishments engages to most weary readers. So much of our science has become inaccessible from unnecessary jargon. Larry shows us how to reach out with clear, concise and understandable descriptions. It was a pleasure read! Thank you!

It’s delightful to read, and be reminded of the incredible work that’s been done over the past 2 years, with so much promise in the years soon to come.

Excellent, Dr. Tabak and colleagues….look forward to tracking this blog in the years ahead. Thank you from a colleague in the national and economic security world…

Science is a complicated thing to parlay to lay people without adequate training. The CDC serves to communicate public health concerns to the general public whereas the FDA serves as a regulatory body. Those with the background and training to make informed choices may make decisions that are different from the lay public. However with any of these organizations there needs to be a forum to communicate dissent without repercussion. If a non-majority voice is squashed either by intimidation or other measures, it hardly serves the purpose behind science. The difficult part lays in communicating the message to the majority of the “intended” population while respecting individual informed choices. Not an enviable position to be, and everyone should realize that. It’s like being given the job of a real time translator where nuances may have very different outcomes.

Welcome Larry Tabak. Best wishes for you & the NIH team.

I’m a hereditary TTR patient currently taking Tafamidis daily. My son is genetically positive. Good to read about advances. Need test subjects?

Biology is a fascinating thing. It’s amazing to think what a few nucleotides can do and how epigenetics can dictate very different outcomes.

Some solid-state metrology advances would improve medical equipment tools. I’ve been treating improving antenna design as replacing as much of its metal construction with solid-state lattice building processes, as is efficient. Before medical equipment, there is a need for metrology to improve. Solid-state mechanical reactions have no ground truth. X-ray diffraction, Raman Spectroscopy, NMR, XANES, manometry and thermometry, may all improve solid state manufacturing if improved. They can be improved themselves by solid state advances. This virtuous cycle will lead to soft medicine and now-metal equipment both being better prototyped by the above tools developed initially for solid state metrology. Seeing how many milli-seconds a ball bearing heats a mill surface will lead to the equipment will be quieter using more lattices than metals.

Sorry, I do not understand what the second sentence to stating. Please explain, restate. Thanks

My app was radar dishes and coils, improving them with better materials. The principle also works for say, a microscope. The eyepiece wheel on a Bruker Optics microscope is made of metal. Heavy enough to deaden some vibrations. Precision ground and buffed to have balance. Massive enough to take handling and minimize elastic forces handling wear as well as accidental impacts. But replace the metal with sapphire and 3/4 of the material properties improve with 1/4 being worse. Namely, a lighter microscope made in the shape of a hollow cell membrane will outperform CNC lasered metal or extruded plastic parts. Bigger lenses would throw the existing microscope off balance in months. Already I suggest making such equipment out of planetary mill constituents. I had a 1930s X-ray in 2007 and the machine took up 1/4 the room; consider how small baggage X-rays are now.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

@nihdirector on twitter, nih on facebook.

Kendall Morgan, Ph.D.

Comments and Questions

If you have comments or questions not related to the current discussions, please direct them to Ask NIH .

You are encouraged to share your thoughts and ideas. Please review the NIH Comments Policy

• Visitor Information
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• USA.gov – Government Made Easy

Discover more from NIH Director's Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

10 Top Careers in Biomedical Science

Industry Advice Pharmaceutical Science Science & Mathematics

From unprecedented situations like the COVID-19 pandemic to the continued aging of the worldwide population, there are many pressing medical needs today that require the expertise of biomedical science professionals.

This increased demand has led to a myriad of exciting opportunities for those with the specific knowledge and skill sets required to contribute to the ongoing evolution of the practice. 

Read on to learn more about exactly what the practice of biomedical science entails, the variety of job opportunities available to those with master’s- and PhD-level training, and how you can kickstart your career in biomedical science.

What is Biomedical Science?

Biomedical science combines the study of human physiology, human pathology, and pharmacology to draw conclusions and make necessary advances toward solving significant health problems facing society.  

“It’s really an all-encompassing term,” says David Janero , director of the pharmaceutical sciences graduate program at Northeastern. “It goes from wet-lab research to address problems associated with therapeutics, disease mechanisms, and other related areas, [and] invokes disciplines such as pharmacology, biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, molecular medicine, medicinal chemistry, and so on.”

The many facets of this work allow aspiring biomedical scientists the opportunity to tailor their careers to fit their unique interests—a benefit of this particular field that has led to increased interest among those with a passion for science and medicine.

Pursuing a Career in Biomedical Science

Despite the many scientific applications of biomedical science, Janero explains that the jobs available within this industry today are not limited to those those based in a lab. The field has expanded to include many business and clinical roles, as well as those rooted in research and science. “I think the general perception is that biomedical science is mainly a wet-lab discipline,” he says. “But there really is a diversity of opportunities in this field.”

Did You Know: A “ wet-lab ” is a laboratory in which scientists handle chemicals or other “wet” materials in order to conduct experiments. A “dry-lab,” on the other hand, is a location where scientists draw conclusions about realities that occur naturally in the world by replicating them using computers or mathematics.

A biomedical device must go through a series of phases—ranging from development and testing to sales and marketing—before it can be implemented as a medical solution. For that reason, “it’s not uncommon to have a project team…[made up of] laboratory technicians, salespeople, marketing people, legal people, as well as scientists of various disciplines,” Janero says.

Advance Your Career with a Master’s in Biomedical Science

Learn how to transform your career in an industry that’s transforming the world.

EXPLORE THE PROGRAM

Biomedical science professionals also have the unique opportunity to work in the private or public sector, allowing them to further tailor their career opportunities to fit their particular interests.

Yet no matter which applications of biomedical science one is looking to pursue, professionals must start by obtaining an advanced degree in the field. As Janero explains, “solid training in the biomedical sciences at the PhD or master’s level provides a kind of necessary flexibility, because it calls upon the student to develop a number of skills not limited to those required at the bench.” 

This includes the honing of critical soft skills, including:

• Communication
• Critical thinking
• Collaboration

The combination of these skills with practical hands-on abilities is vital for success in all of today’s biomedical science roles. 

Below, we explore the top career options available for those at both biomedical scientists with either a master’s or a PhD in the field.

Top Biomedical Science Careers for Master’s Degree Holders

1.biomedical laboratory technician.

Salary : $64,653 per year

Responsibilities: Biomedical laboratory technicians hold a wide array of responsibilities, primarily within a wet-lab setting. According to Janero, they participate in:

• Drug discoveries
• Profiling novel compounds as potential drugs
• Synthesizing and purifying new chemical matter

And much more.

2. Senior Clinical Research Associate

Salary: $105,988 per year

Responsibilities: Clinical research associates provide advanced technical support during the clinical research process, including:

• Handling equipment
• Presenting findings

Due to the private nature of this work, these individuals are often held to high ethical standards and must strictly follow established processes to prevent unwanted contamination of collected data or patient records.

3.Biomedical Scientist

Salary: $66,646 per year

Responsibilities: Biomedical scientists at this level are responsible for the following:

• Designing experiments
• Implementing experiments in a research environment
• Publishing articles in academic journals on their findings

They may work independently or under the supervision of PhD-level scientists.

4. Senior Medical Writer

Salary: $92,890 per year

Responsibilities: Medical writers create manuals and other training or educational materials for readers both with and without medical backgrounds. Their writing must translate between audiences, speaking to medical professionals, patients, and even, at times, commercial audiences, speaking to multiple groups, including:

• Medical professionals
• Commercial audiences

They often conduct the research needed to develop these materials and thus require a robust understanding of the biomedical science field as a whole. 

5. Senior Medicinal Chemist

Salary: $115,282 per year

Responsibilities: Medical chemists create the chemicals and compounds that are used to develop helpful medicinal drugs. This often includes the following responsibilities:

• Making calculated adjustments to chemical compounds
• Studying each chemical’s reaction to each other and its environment
• Leveraging that information to understand how a drug will behave in the human body

Medicinal chemists also need to be able to take notes effectively so they can easily share their findings with others.

Biomedical Science Careers for PhD Holders

6. tenure track professor of biomedical science.

Salary: $104,319 per year

Responsibilities: A full time, tenure track professor of biomedical science teaches cohorts of graduate and undergraduate students about a variety of biomedical science practices. Many professors at this level also continue their hands-on work in the university’s labs. They may do the following:

• Mentor students
• Oversee their research
• Launch university-funded projects or trials

Since they work with a variety of students and professors, communication skills are vital for this role. 

7. Medical Sales Director

Salary: $107,755 per year

Responsibilities: Medical sales representatives combine a vast knowledge of biomedical science practices with the advanced communication skills of a salesman. Their primary responsibility is to sell medical devices to private companies and clinics, including:

• Tracking down potential customers
• Developing a pitch of their products
• Addressing any posed questions or concerns

Medical sales directors may also mentor entry-level sales reps on their teams.

8. Senior Biomedical Scientist

Salary: $112,157 per year

Responsibilities: The title of senior biomedical scientist is an entry-level wet-lab role for PhD-holders. These individuals spend much of their time carrying out research hands-on, reporting their findings to those higher up within their organizations.

9. Principal Investigator

Salary: $104,024 per year

Responsibilities: Principal investigators take the lead in laboratory research. They are typically responsible for the following:

• Setting parameters for experiments
• Outlining the steps for testing
• Overseeing a team of scientists who then conduct the experiments

According to Janero, at this stage, a principal investigator “basically becomes an internal guide and advisor to your group as well as to the entity you’re working in,” which can range from a university department to a pharmaceutical company. 

10. Pharmaceutical Marketing Manager

Salary: $117,011 per year

Responsibilities: Pharmaceutical or biomedical marketing managers oversee the strategies and messaging of drugs and other medical devices within the marketplace. This might include:

• Working on branding
• Advertising campaigns
• Leading generation practices

These individuals often act as the liaison between the marketing director and all other marketing representatives on staff.

Take the Next Step

For professionals hoping to land one of these specialized careers within the biomedical science field, a graduate degree is an effective next step. Consider your career goals, then start exploring the master’s and PhD programs in biomedical science offered at top universities like Northeastern.

“Our programs don’t educate with any particular outcome or career bias in mind, other than making sure you are as well-equipped as possible in your educational area of focus,” Janero says. “We just want to make sure our students are market-ready and competitive in their unique fields.”

Ready to take the next step in advancing your biomedical science career? Explore the master’s in biomedical science and PhD in biomedical science programs at Northeastern, and get in touch with an enrollment coach today for advice on which might be the best fit for your goals.

Subscribe below to receive future content from the Graduate Programs Blog.

About shayna joubert, related articles.

Compliance Specialists: Who They Are and What They Earn

Science or science fiction the future of personalized medicine.

In-Demand Biotechnology Careers Shaping Our Future

Be in-demand.

The global pharmaceutical market is expected to grow 7% to reach $225B by 2025, driving job growth for qualified professionals.

Graduate Programs in Pharmaceutical Sciences

Northeastern's pharmaceutical programs allow students to focus on more than one area in biomedical science to prepare them to work in an evolving and interdisciplinary field.

Most Popular:

Tips for taking online classes: 8 strategies for success, public health careers: what can you do with an mph, 7 international business careers that are in high demand, edd vs. phd in education: what’s the difference, 7 must-have skills for data analysts, the benefits of online learning: 8 advantages of online degrees, how to write a statement of purpose for graduate school, the best of our graduate blog—right to your inbox.

Stay up to date on our latest posts and university events. Plus receive relevant career tips and grad school advice.

By providing us with your email, you agree to the terms of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Keep Reading:

The 8 Highest-Paying Master’s Degrees in 2024

Graduate School Application Tips & Advice

How To Get a Job in Emergency Management

Join Us at Northeastern’s Virtual Graduate Open House | March 5–7, 2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Medical research articles from across Nature Portfolio

Medical research involves research in a wide range of fields, such as biology, chemistry, pharmacology and toxicology with the goal of developing new medicines or medical procedures or improving the application of those already available. It can be viewed as encompassing preclinical research (for example, in cellular systems and animal models) and clinical research (for example, clinical trials).

FOXP1 is a gatekeeper of cellular senescence with ovarian aging

Our analysis of the spatiotemporal transcriptional features of human ovarian aging at the single-cell level identified the DNA damage response as a fundamental attribute in oocyte senescence. FOXP1, a gatekeeper both in granulosa and in theca and stroma cellular senescence, can be activated by quercetin treatment to delay ovarian aging.

Functional precision medicine for pediatric cancers

A small, prospective clinical study shows that ex vivo drug screening of pediatric cancer samples can identify effective therapeutic options. If validated, these findings could herald a new approach to precision medicine in this setting.

• M. Emmy M. Dolman
• Paul G. Ekert

Blocking cell death limits lung damage and inflammation from influenza

Animals that receive an inhibitor of an antiviral cell-death response called necroptosis are less likely to die of influenza even at a late stage of infection. This has implications for the development of therapies for respiratory diseases.

• Nishma Gupta

Related Subjects

• Drug development
• Epidemiology
• Experimental models of disease
• Genetics research
• Outcomes research
• Paediatric research
• Preclinical research
• Stem-cell research
• Clinical trial design
• Translational research

Latest Research and Reviews

Safety and efficacy of the novel Alpha stent for the treatment of intracranial wide-necked aneurysm

• Junhyung Kim
• Jung-Jae Kim
• Joonho Chung

Outcomes of patients with Juvenile Polyposis-Hereditary Haemorrhagic Telangiectasia caused by pathogenic SMAD4 variants in a pan-Scotland cohort

• Madeline Pearson
• Ruth McGowan
• Jonathan Berg

Understanding the relationship between surfing performance and fin design

• James R. Forsyth
• Grant Barnsley
• Marc in het Panhuis

Exploring fetal brain tumor glioblastoma symptom verification with self organizing maps and vulnerability data analysis

• Suresh Kumar Natarajan
• Mohd Asif Shah

Automated quantification of avian influenza virus antigen in different organs

• Maria Landmann
• David Scheibner
• Reiner Ulrich

Radiological manifestations and clinical findings of patients with oncologic and osteoporotic medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw

• Jeong Won Shin
• Soon-Chul Choi

News and Comment

AI in wine and haematology

• Shaun R. McCann

Response to Comment on: Platelet-rich plasma intracavernosal injections for the treatment of primary organic erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary controlled studies

• Andrea Panunzio
• Alessandro Tafuri

Busulfan plus cyclophosphamide vs. total body irradiation plus cyclophosphamide for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with acute T lymphoblastic leukemia: a large-scale propensity score matching-based study

• Minyuan Liu

Safety and efficacy of a new academic CD19-directed CAR-T cell for refractory/relapsed non-Hodgkin lymphoma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Brazil

• Camila D. Donadel
• Gil C. De Santis
• Diego V. Clé

CD56 expression predicts response to Daratumumab-based regimens

• Allen J. Robinette
• Laila Huric
• Francesca Cottini

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

share this!

April 15, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Millions of gamers advance biomedical research by helping to reconstruct microbial evolutionary histories

by Katherine Gombay, McGill University

Leveraging gamers and video game technology can dramatically boost scientific research, according to a new study published today in Nature Biotechnology .

4.5 million gamers around the world have advanced medical science by helping to reconstruct microbial evolutionary histories using a minigame included inside the critically and commercially successful video game Borderlands 3. Their playing has led to a significantly refined estimate of the relationships of microbes in the human gut.

The results of this collaboration will both substantially advance our knowledge of the microbiome and improve on the AI programs that will be used to carry out this work in the future.

Tracing the evolutionary relationships of bacteria

By playing Borderlands Science, a mini-game within the looter-shooter video game Borderlands 3, these players have helped trace the evolutionary relationships of more than a million different kinds of bacteria that live in the human gut, some of which play a crucial role in our health.

This information represents an exponential increase in what we have discovered about the microbiome up till now. By aligning rows of tiles that represent the genetic building blocks of different microbes, humans have been able to take on tasks that even the best existing computer algorithms have been unable to solve yet.

The project was led by McGill University researchers, developed in collaboration with Gearbox Entertainment Company, an award-winning interactive entertainment company, and Massively Multiplayer Online Science (MMOS), a Swiss IT company connecting scientists to video games), and supported by the expertise and genomic material from the Microsetta Initiative led by Rob Knight from the Departments of Pediatrics, Bioengineering, and Computer Science & Engineering at the University of California San Diego.

Humans improve on existing algorithms and lay the groundwork for the future

Not only have the gamers improved on the results produced by the existing programs used to analyze DNA sequences, but they are also helping lay the groundwork for improved AI programs that can be used in the future.

"We didn't know whether the players of a popular game like Borderlands 3 would be interested or whether the results would be good enough to improve on what was already known about microbial evolution . But we've been amazed by the results," says Jérôme Waldispühl, an associate professor in McGill's School of Computer Science and senior author on the paper published today.

"In half a day, the Borderlands Science players collected five times more data about microbial DNA sequences than our earlier game, Phylo, had collected over a 10-year period."

The idea for integrating DNA analysis into a commercial video game with mass market appeal came from Attila Szantner, an adjunct professor at McGill's School of Computer Science and CEO and co-founder of MMOs.

"As almost half of the world population is playing with video games, it is of utmost importance that we find new creative ways to extract value from all this time and brainpower that we spend gaming," says Szantner. "Borderlands Science shows how far we can get by teaming up with the game industry and its communities to tackle the big challenges of our times."

"Gearbox's developers were eager to engage millions of Borderlands players globally with our creation of an appealing in-game experience to demonstrate how clever minds playing Borderlands are capable of producing tangible, useful, and valuable scientific data at a level not approachable with non-interactive technology and mediums," said Randy Pitchford, founder and CEO of Gearbox Entertainment Company.

"I'm proud that Borderlands Science has become one of the largest and most accomplished citizen science projects of all time, forecasting the opportunity for similar projects in future video games and pushing the boundaries of the positive effect that video games can make on the world."

Relating microbes to disease and lifestyle

The tens of trillions of microbes that colonize our bodies play a crucial role in maintaining human health. However, microbial communities can change over time in response to factors such as diet, medications, and lifestyle habits.

Because of the sheer number of microbes involved, scientists are still only in the early days of being able to identify which microorganisms are affected by or can affect which conditions.

This is why the researchers' project and the results from the gamers are so important.

"We expect to be able to use this information to relate specific kinds of microbes to what we eat, to how we age, and to the many diseases ranging from inflammatory bowel disease to Alzheimer's that we now know microbes to be involved in," adds Knight, who also directs the Center for Microbiome Innovation at the UC San Diego.

"Because evolution is a great guide to function, having a better tree relating our microbes to one another gives us a more precise view of what they are doing within and around us."

Building communities to advance knowledge

"Here we have 4.5 million people who contributed to science. In a sense, this result is theirs too, and they should feel proud about it," says Waldispühl. "It shows that we can fight the fear or misconceptions that members of the public may have about science and start building communities who work collectively to advance knowledge."

"Borderlands Science created an incredible opportunity to engage with citizen scientists on a novel and important problem, using data generated by a separate massive citizen science project," adds Daniel McDonald, the Scientific Director of the Microsetta Initiative. "These results demonstrate the remarkable value of open access data and the scale of what is possible with inclusive practices in scientific endeavors."

Journal information: Nature Biotechnology

Provided by McGill University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Spiraling insights: Scientists observe mechanical waves in bacterial communities

48 minutes ago

Most countries are struggling to meet climate pledges from 2009, emissions tracking study shows

2 hours ago

A single atom layer of gold—researchers create goldene

SWOT satellite helps gauge the depth of Death Valley's temporary lake

3 hours ago

NASA confirms mystery object that crashed through roof of Florida home came from space station

NASA is seeking a faster, cheaper way to bring Mars samples to Earth

Seed ferns experimented with complex leaf vein networks 201 million years ago, paleontologists find

4 hours ago

Most massive stellar black hole in our galaxy found

New analysis reveals the brutal history of the Winchcombe meteorite's journey through space

12 hours ago

Why European colonization drove the blue antelope to extinction

14 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Can four legged animals drink from beneath their feet, mold in plastic water bottles what does it eat.

Apr 14, 2024

Dolphins don't breathe through their esophagus

Is this egg-laying or something else.

Apr 13, 2024

Color Recognition: What we see vs animals with a larger color range

Apr 12, 2024

How to Implement Beamforming in Ultrasound Diffraction Tomography

Apr 10, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

New video game enlists players to help advance scientific research

Apr 8, 2020

Video game giant Embracer sells 'Borderlands' maker to Take-Two

Mar 28, 2024

'Borderlands 3' launched Friday. Here's everything we know about video game

Sep 15, 2019

Video game rewards study reveals gamer good Samaritans

Feb 26, 2024

Deep Mind's Student of Games AI system can beat humans at a variety of games

Nov 16, 2023

Volunteers in video game study self-report positive well-being

Feb 17, 2021

Recommended for you

Researchers discover new clues to how tardigrades can survive intense radiation

15 hours ago

Scientists share single-cell atlas for the highly regenerative worm, Pristina leidyi

19 hours ago

Researchers discover previously unknown gene that indirectly promotes photosynthesis in blue-green algae

20 hours ago

New study details how starving cells hijack protein transport stations

New CRISPR tool orchestrates antiviral defense within cells

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Best Global Universities for Engineering in Russia

These are the top universities in Russia for engineering, based on their reputation and research in the field. Read the methodology »

To unlock more data and access tools to help you get into your dream school, sign up for the  U.S. News College Compass !

Here are the best global universities for engineering in Russia

Itmo university, tomsk state university, tomsk polytechnic university, lomonosov moscow state university, novosibirsk state university, saint petersburg state university, peter the great st. petersburg polytechnic university, moscow institute of physics & technology, national research nuclear university mephi (moscow engineering physics institute).

See the full rankings

• Clear Filters
• # 307 in Best Universities for Engineering  (tie)
• # 696 in Best Global Universities  (tie)
• # 364 in Best Universities for Engineering  (tie)
• # 587 in Best Global Universities  (tie)
• # 396 in Best Universities for Engineering  (tie)
• # 879 in Best Global Universities  (tie)
• # 632 in Best Universities for Engineering  (tie)
• # 355 in Best Global Universities
• # 809 in Best Universities for Engineering  (tie)
• # 579 in Best Global Universities  (tie)
• # 847 in Best Universities for Engineering  (tie)
• # 652 in Best Global Universities
• # 896 in Best Universities for Engineering  (tie)
• # 679 in Best Global Universities  (tie)
• # 902 in Best Universities for Engineering  (tie)
• # 475 in Best Global Universities  (tie)
• # 915 in Best Universities for Engineering  (tie)
• # 483 in Best Global Universities  (tie)

Chemical Society Reviews

Mechanistic studies on single-electron transfer in frustrated lewis pairs and its application to main-group chemistry †.

* Corresponding authors

a Van 't Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences, University of Amsterdam, PO box 94157, 1090 GD Amsterdam, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]

Advances in the field of frustrated Lewis pair (FLP) chemistry have led to the discovery of radical pairs, obtained by a single-electron transfer (SET) from the Lewis base to the Lewis acid. Radical pairs are intriguing for their potential to enable cooperative activation of challenging substrates ( e.g. , CH 4 , N 2 ) in a homolytic fashion, as well as the exploration of novel radical reactions. In this review, we will cover the two known mechanisms of SET in FLPs—thermal and photoinduced—along with methods ( i.e. , CV, DFT, UV-vis) to predict the mechanism and to characterise the involved electron donors and acceptors. Furthermore, the available techniques ( i.e. , EPR, UV-vis, transient absorption spectroscopy) for studying the corresponding radical pairs will be discussed. Initially, two model systems (PMes 3 /CPh 3 + and PMes 3 /B(C 6 F 5 ) 3 ) will be reviewed to highlight the difference between a thermal and a photoinduced SET mechanism. Additionally, three cases are analysed to provide further tools and insights into characterizing electron donors and acceptors, and the associated radical pairs. Firstly, a thermal SET process between LiHMDS and [TEMPO][BF 4 ] is discussed. Next, the influence of Lewis acid complexation on the electron acceptor will be highlighted to facilitate a SET between ( p BrPh) 3 N and TCNQ. Finally, an analysis of sulfonium salts as electron acceptors will demonstrate how to manage systems with rapidly decomposing radical species. This framework equips the reader with an expanded array of tools for both predicting and characterizing SET events within FLP chemistry, thereby enabling its extension and application to the broader domain of main-group (photo)redox chemistry.

• This article is part of the themed collection: Applications of Main Group Chemistry in Synthesis, Catalysis, and Biomedical and Materials Research

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (2044K)

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

Mechanistic studies on single-electron transfer in frustrated Lewis pairs and its application to main-group chemistry

L. J. C. van der Zee, J. Hofman, J. M. van Gaalen and J. C. Slootweg, Chem. Soc. Rev. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4CS00185K

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Categorizing biomedical research: the basics of translation

Jeffrey s. flier.

* Department of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

† Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;

‡ Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; and

Joseph Loscalzo

§ Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

As biomedical research has evolved over the past century, the terminology employed to categorize it has failed to evolve in parallel to accommodate the implications of these changes. In particular, the terms basic research and translational research as used today in biomedicine seem especially problematic. Here we review the origins of these terms, analyze some of the conceptual confusions attendant to their current use, and assess some of the deleterious consequences of these confusions. We summarize that the distinction between basic and translational biomedical research is an anachronism. Elimination of this often contentious distinction would improve both the culture and the effectiveness of the scientific process, and its potential benefits to society.—Flier, J. S., Loscalzo, J. Categorizing biomedical research: the basics of translation.

There is power in language that often transcends the simplest of intentions in its construction. Such is the case for the term “translational research,” which is defined by the European Society of Translational Medicine as an interdisciplinary branch of biomedical science supported by 3 main pillars: benchside, bedside, and community ( 1 ). Defined in this way, translational research involves the application of scientific observations to the human condition, a process that involves many steps from conception of the problem to its ultimate application ( 2 ). “Basic research,” by contrast, refers to scientific research conducted without any particular practical purpose in mind a priori . There are, however, many nuances and confusions attendant to the use of these terms. To explore these distinctions and their implications for biomedical research, we should turn first to fundamental definitions

Research is based on intellectual investigation focusing on discovering, interpreting, and revising human knowledge of the world and as such, is a reflective endeavor. “Biomedical research,” as a subset of research is broad in scope, referring to activities spanning many disciplines of biology and medicine. Within these broad disciplines are experiments designed to understand reality by examining events at many different levels of organization, from the atomic level ( e.g. , structure of key biologic molecules), to the molecular and cellular levels ( e.g. , biochemistry, cell biology), to the organismal level ( e.g. , physiology and pathophysiology), and to the population level as well ( e.g. , population genetics, epidemiology, and public health). These domains are not tightly bounded: many fields of biomedical research, as self-defined or demarcated by professional organizations or academic departments, span many or even all of these levels of experimental inquiry.

Consider the discipline of neurobiology, with research addressing topics as diverse as the atomic structure of ion channels; signal transduction; development of the nervous system; systems properties of neural networks; the basis for the emergent properties of consciousness, cognition, and emotion; the molecular basis for diseases of the nervous system; and many others. Many such studies can be carried out in simple or complex models and increasingly in humans. Investigators can focus selectively on individual elements ( e.g ., ion channel structure and function), or integrate observations at multiple levels to answer a specific question. Consider a genetic disease of the nervous system in which a defined mutation causes a molecular alteration in a specific protein, the understanding of which requires studying the effects of the molecular defect on neuronal function ( e.g ., a channelopathy) and on complex neural circuitry ( i.e ., interneuronal communication) and behavior. Is there a clear line separating which component of such neuroscience research is basic and which is translational? The clarification of the system-wide (cellular or organismal) consequences of the mutation not only informs our understanding of disease pathogenesis but also informs the fundamental biology of the protein that could not be appreciated from studies of the protein in isolation.

Next, consider genetics, a field encompassing diverse, investigative efforts, spanning atomic resolution of DNA structure and DNA–protein interactions, the genetic basis for development, how changes in the genome cause altered function and disease, and the way in which genetic variation affects the fitness of populations. Each of these distinct aspects (and others) may be studied in different model systems, including organisms as diverse as yeast, worms, flies, mice, and most relevant to medicine, humans. Investigators interested in a specific biomedical problem ( e.g. , aging, metabolism) may carry out research spanning many of these levels of inquiry in more than one of these models. How can we distinguish basic from translational research in this context? Is research on the molecular details of DNA–protein interactions more basic than research on the role of DNA sequence variation in human health? Is research focusing on a specific protein in a simple organism more basic than research on the homologous protein in a human cell? Is a study at the atomic level more basic than a study of molecules, the latter more basic than a study of organelles and cells, and that, in turn, more basic than a study of complex organisms, just as some consider mathematics more basic than physics, physics more basic than chemistry, and chemistry more basic than biology? We think the answer to these questions is no.

Within all scientific endeavors, class distinctions can influence career choices and validate the perceived importance of one’s professional output. In a lecture one of us gives trainees on career development, a slide is presented, indicating one approach to hierarchies in science, in this case set by the importance and rigor of quantitative thinking in each discipline: pure mathematicians view themselves as scientifically superior to applied mathematicians and physicists, who view themselves as scientifically superior to chemists and biologists, who view themselves as scientifically superior to physician–scientists. This type of distinction between pure mathematicians and physicists was well illustrated by Peter Rowlett in a commentary in 2011 ( 3 ): In 1998, the engineer, Gordon Lang applied Thomas Hales’s 1970 solution to the Kepler conjecture (dating to 1611 and addressing the best way to pack spheres, which turned out to be the greengrocer strategy—6 in 2 dimensions, 12 in 3 dimensions, 24 in 4 dimensions, and 240 in 8 dimensions) to solve the problem of the optimal way to pack signals in transmission lines (modeled best as an 8-dimensional lattice). This solution opened up the internet for broad public use by maximizing the efficiency of signal transmission. When the mathematician Donald Coxeter, who helped Lang understand Hales’s mathematical solution, learned of Lang’s application, he was appalled that this beautiful theory had been sullied in this way. There are many other examples of this highly opinionated view of scientific hierarchies, not least of which is Ernest Rutherford’s comment that “all science is either physics or stamp collecting” ( 4 ).

Insofar as such self-affirming, hierarchical distinctions make us feel better about who we are, especially in a highly competitive environment, it is no wonder that the historical distinctions between basic and applied or translational research continue to exist in the minds of some faculty members, persisting well beyond their usefulness. When Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1985 for their work on cholesterol metabolism in which they identified the LDL receptor as defective in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, many of us thought that the distinction between basic and applied biomedical research had become an anachronism and would (should) dissipate. To be sure, as modern medicine moved from an era of observation to the era of molecular biology, scientific questions, methods, analyses, and interpretations became increasingly conflated across the basic-applied spectrum. Clearly, both ends of the spectrum advance knowledge: basic investigation informs our understanding of pathobiology, and translational studies of disease mechanisms inform our understanding of basic biology. Examples of this latter point abound and have led to the New England Journal of Medicine series, “Basic Implications of Clinical Observations” ( 5 , 6 ). The Wall Street Journal contributor and author, Matt Ridley, has taken this perspective one step further and argued that basic scientific advances can be the consequence, rather than the cause, of applied technological advances (innovation) ( 7 ) ( e.g. , cryoelectron microscopy was developed to limit the consequences of radiation damage for biologic specimens and of structural collapse by dehydration under a vacuum; with the solution to these practical problems came a dramatic expansion of the field of structural biology, now to include high-resolution images of complex macromolecular structures that defied analysis by conventional X-ray crystallography and diffraction, and time-resolved changes in macromolecular structures or intermolecular interactions). Interpreted most generously, these examples illustrate that basic biomedical research and translational biomedical research have been coevolving successfully into a seamless continuum of investigation.

Given the diversity of questions and model systems being investigated within individual fields, can we identify criteria that might be used to facilitate labeling specific research activities as basic or translational? If so, this might clarify public discourse and enhance communication within the scientific community and between the scientific and lay communities.

POTENTIAL CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING RESEARCH AS BASIC VS . TRANSLATIONAL

The identity of the institution and department in which the research is performed.

At most medical schools, many faculty members are members of what are institutionally denoted basic science departments, such as cell biology, genetics, biochemistry, and neurobiology, among others. Many other faculty members are based in school-affiliated hospitals and within departments in which the names reflect clinical fields, such as medicine, pediatrics, surgery, and neurology, among others. These organizational distinctions might suggest that faculty in basic science departments conduct basic research, whereas those in clinical departments, at least in the main, conduct applied translational or clinical research. But that is not always the case. In biomedical research today, much investigation takes place in academic health centers (or hospitals), and much of this work lies within clinical departments, such as medicine, pediatrics, and neurology. In some such departments, most of the research pursued is clinical research on human subjects, much of it involving the testing of therapies or devices. In other clinical departments, including those at our Harvard-affiliated institutions, research spans a broad array of topics, from general cellular mechanisms to disease mechanisms, and such research may also use organisms from worms and flies to mice and, of course, humans. Many researchers in these departments pursue research as a full-time or nearly full-time endeavor, many are not physicians, and substantial numbers might fit just as well, based on the work they do and where they publish it, in traditional basic science departments. For these reasons, we should not categorize research as being basic or translational based on the identity of the institution or department in which it is performed.

The motivation of the investigator

Should research qualify as basic because an investigator pursues a question purely for reasons of curiosity, without any interest in the potential practical applications of the work? Likewise, should research qualify as translational because an investigator is pursuing the solution to a practical biomedical problem, such as the treatment of a disease? Perhaps surprisingly, these differences in applicability or practical purpose are common distinctions used to define the following terms: “basic research” is conducted without any practical end in mind, although it may have unexpected results pointing to practical applications ( 1 ), whereas, “translational research” applies scientific observations to practical questions on the human condition.

Although many scientists choose to pursue particular questions ( e.g. , how a complex organism develops from a single cell, what molecular interactions determine cell division or death, how one nerve cell communicates with another, etc .), because they see them as challenging puzzles without consideration of practical applications, it seems unhelpful to label the research as basic or translational solely on the basis of the motivations of the scientists regarding potential, practical impact. A scientist may be motivated to pursue the same research question because of curiosity as to how the world works or because of an intuition that the understanding of a particular pathway or mechanism might lead to an understanding of and potential treatment for a disease. For example, one might study cell death pathways as a challenging biologic problem with relevance to developmental biology or because of a suspicion that such pathways might be relevant to cancer. Likewise, studies of adipocyte-specific gene expression in cell culture might be pursued as a means to understand regulated gene expression, or be motivated by a desire ultimately to understand obesity. Would such practical motivations on the part of the latter scientist render their inquiries less basic? We think not. Although research called basic today, often lacks a consciously applied, practical motivation, that seems not to be an essential reason to label the inquiry as basic. Likewise, research motivated by a desire to understand and eventually facilitate treatment of a disease should not, for that reason alone, be considered translational or less basic. Rather, one or more characteristics of the research itself should determine how it is categorized. This is distinct from the issue, raised by some observers, that current grant proposals force investigators to claim the potential impact of their work on future clinical application before such links are reasonable to assert ( 8 ).

The scientific importance of the work

Some discoveries, by virtue of their powerful capacity to change the way we think about an area, are more important and have greater generalizability and impact than others. Whereas some scientific observations provide new, explanatory frameworks and affect many unanticipated areas of inquiry, others provide more limited understanding, with little or no impact on other fields. The term basic could be used to describe research that is fundamental in this way. If this kind of importance or impact is what we mean when referring to research as being basic, then the term can be applied to many different kinds of research, from the purely theoretical to that dealing with events at the atomic, molecular, cellular, organismic, or population level. Likewise, by the criterion of scientific importance, basic research can involve organisms ranging from bacteria, to worms, to mice, or to humans, and some research on humans can readily be judged as more basic ( i.e. , more important) than some research on worms. Furthermore, molecular discoveries about a specific pathway that are novel but add incrementally to the field and lack impact outside it may be judged less basic in this sense than human studies, revealing new insights about a previously unexplained physiologic response or disease.

Thus, if the term basic is used to refer to research that is scientifically important, then disease-related research, wherever it is carried out, can be more (or less) basic than research conducted in basic science departments. At the very least, this analysis would suggest that the term basic is being used in different ways in these various situations.

Whether the research is disease related and/or conducted on humans or human tissues

Historically, research in basic science departments has not prominently involved human disease models or subjects (there are exceptions), and this fact (which could have evolved differently and might still in the future), combined with the fact that much human and/or disease-related research is conducted in hospitals, has created a cultural divide. In this context, it might not be surprising that research on humans would be viewed by some as less basic than research typically not involving humans or their tissues carried out in basic science departments. But does this idea, or related constructs, have merit? Research on human subjects or tissues may be basic, based on criteria of scientific importance, having great impact on understanding human biology and disease and leading to a fundamental understanding of general biologic principles. Of course, most researchers who conduct human studies are motivated by or are aware of potential applications to disease. Is this a sound basis for applying the term translational to the research activity rather than viewing it as basic? Perhaps so, provided that the use lacks hidden implications of relative scientific value. As departments redefine their scope of interests ( e.g. , departments of physiology focusing on whole-organ genomics in humans), these distinctions of purpose, application, and relative value truly become moot.

Beginning about a decade ago, the field of translational research was redefined and re-emphasized as the ultimate formalism for all biomedical research, regardless of the nature (purely basic or translational) of the initial scientific question posed. The intention of redefining the field of translation was both a noble one, emphasizing, as it does, our academic community’s efforts to apply fundamental observations to the human condition, as well as a practical one, serving to emphasize to our legislators, in an era of fiscal constraint, that even basic research funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has (or may have) practical applications that may benefit human health. Yet, it appears that this type of nomenclature has had an unintended, divisive effect within the academic biomedical community. Why? The newfound emphasis on the translation of basic observations to the clinical arena evolved in the setting of a severely cost-constrained NIH budget and applied yet another criterion for the use of limited government funds ( viz. , the potential for clinical application of even the most fundamental finding). This mandate was established in the setting of an expanded pool of biomedical, newly minted Ph.D. researchers through the doubling of the NIH budget in the early part of this century. As an increased number of Ph.D.s began to seek support from a significantly constrained pool of NIH funds, they found that they also now needed to justify their proposals based on potential translation to clinical application, no matter the topic. As a result, growing concern arose in the basic biomedical community about society’s commitment to support research without express practical purpose. For those members of the community who have always believed, if not insisted, on the age-old hierarchical distinctions between basic and applied biomedical research, the ascendancy of translational medicine gave them pause. Furthermore, this distinction has now led some members of the basic community to argue for the need to enhance support for basic studies so that fundamental scientific investigation not be lost in translation ( 9 ). The push for (rapid) clinical application is viewed by some as overvaluing translation ( 10 ) and, furthermore, has led to conflation of the more clinical end of the translational research spectrum with the more fundamental end of that spectrum ( 11 ). Thus, this transition has had the unintended consequence of promoting the age-old, hierarchical distinctions between intellectually and methodologically equivalent research strategies in domains called basic and translational research, inapplicable, though they now are, for the reasons delineated above.

Thus, in a most unfortunate way, the excessive emphasis on translational research has led to a reversion to outdated approaches as to how biomedical investigators relate to one another. We feel strongly that there is no place for these artificial distinctions in today’s biomedical research enterprise. They are intellectually limiting and in the worst case, create artificial barriers to sharing ideas and resources.

Summary interpretation of bases for categorizations

Based on the foregoing analysis, we think it is fair to conclude that use of the terms basic or translational biomedical research should not be dependent on the following criteria: 1 ) whether the scientist pursuing it is motivated by a desire for the work to have practical impact; 2 ) the scientific importance of the work; 3 ) the level of inquiry ( e.g. , atomic, molecular, cellular, physiologic, community); or 4 ) the name of the department in which the work is pursued. Yet, the question remains: is there an unambiguous use of the terms that can be widely accepted and, most important, advance the cause of the scientific enterprise?

The most meaningful distinctions that arise when describing and categorizing biomedical research relate to two specific issues: the precise question being asked and the approach used to address the question. The scientific questions can be broad in scope, ranging from studies of single molecules to populations of human subjects and from normal mechanisms to mechanisms of disease pathogenesis. Likewise, the methodological approaches applied can be equally broad, ranging from structural studies of single molecules to statistical genetic analysis of variant allele frequencies in populations of human subjects, with or without a disease phenotype. Each line of inquiry and experimental strategy can produce scientific results that are more or less important, with their importance only reliably ascertainable with the passage of time; can be motivated by a desire to produce practical/applied results or not; and can be performed by individuals conducting research in what we now call basic or clinical departments. Thus, the formation of distinctions between basic and translational research is not especially useful in the current era. This distinction is an anachronism that can best be appreciated by understanding its historical origins.

HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES UNDERLYING THE CATEGORIZATION OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

For much of history, and, importantly, in 19th century Europe, a bright line was drawn between fundamental scientific inquiry and applied research. Whereas the former was carried out by professors in universities, the latter was often conducted in industry. Some of the greatest scientists and discoveries arose at the interface between fundamental and applied research—witness the discoveries of Pasteur, Langmuir, and those related to atomic energy. In prior years, when medicine had an extremely circumscribed, scientific basis, the limited research that existed was conducted by university professors, whereas clinicians pursued their work in a relative scientific vacuum. As biomedical science developed in the 20th century and especially following World War II, with the growth of research within academic health centers and hospitals, the line between basic and applied biomedical research, as defined in the preceding century, became much less relevant.

Over the past 50 years, the growth of funding for biomedical research and the opportunities created by research advances in cell and molecular biology stimulated clinical departments to expand their research operations. This growth was especially robust during periods with clinical financial surpluses and increasing levels of NIH funding. Both M.D. and Ph.D. researchers were recruited into clinical departments, and research techniques used there progressively included approaches similar or identical to those used in basic science departments, such as gene cloning, transgenic animal studies, etc . Whereas, much of this work might also have been situated within traditional basic science departments of medical schools and universities, many hospitals and clinical departments aggressively pursued it as well, although the faculty typically remained associated with departments bearing clinical names. Depending on the school or university, such faculty may or may not also have appointments in basic science departments.

The role of the biotechnology and modern pharmaceutical industries in the historical evolution of biomedical research categorization also warrants comment. With the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act and the explosion of biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry interactions with academic institutions, another aspect of basic research must be reconsidered. Scientists who might previously have viewed their work as unrelated to practical outcomes ( e.g. , fundamentals of cloning and eukaryotic gene expression) realized the potential for their discoveries to be applied to human therapeutics, and many of these basic scientists turned their attention aggressively to pursuit of these goals, including moving into the commercial sphere. In this way, another barrier between basic and translational research collapsed. Among faculty in basic science departments who pursue research in cell biology, genetics, or neuroscience, some continue to pay little attention to the practical implications of their work. Others, doing identical or substantially similar work, are constantly on the hunt for the practical implications of their studies that might be patented and exploited, within or outside of the academy, for eventual diagnostic and therapeutic uses. Whereas the former scientists might prefer that their work be described as basic (and devoid of practical use), the latter might proudly describe their (substantially similar) work as having translational or even clinical implications.

CONCLUSIONS

In the end, does it matter whether we call some biomedical research basic or translational? If we understand what the particular research is about and grasp its content, context, and implications, probably not. However, current use promotes confusion and hampers efforts to promote scientific understanding and collaborations across our diverse, creative academic biomedical research enterprise. We should clarify or modify the use of these terms and consider a new, cohesive classification nomenclature that realistically reflects the contemporary biomedical research environment. The descriptive analysis of biomedical research should focus on perceived quality as objectively assessed as possible ( 12 ), rather than the promotion of a self-affirming, anachronistic distinction. Perhaps, instead of use of the term basic to describe particular entities of biomedical research, our descriptive terminology should reflect one of the alternate meanings of the term, namely, essential or vital. These terms could apply to all biomedical research that is effective in creating new knowledge, because such research is essential for the growth of the biomedical enterprise for the benefit of society, either directly or remotely. The elimination of the unnecessary distinction between basic and translational biomedical research (and researchers) would improve the effectiveness of the scientific process and its potential benefits for the society to which its practitioners are ultimately obligated.

Discovery is optimall promoted by reliance on talented investigators, whatever their philosophical scientific persuasion ( 13 ). Particularly in an era of big data and interdisciplinary research, a nonhierarchical atmosphere of collegiality and mutual support is required for optimal success. The mandate that all research be framed as offering a potential for translation to clinical benefit is misguided, misleading, and disingenuous. Legislators should be educated about the nature, natural history, and goals of modern biomedical research, wherein anyone with a good idea and the skills necessary to realize it has the potential to add value to the enterprise and benefit to society.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported, in part, by U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grants HL61795, HL119145, and NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences Grant GM 107618 (to J.L.). The authors thank Stephanie Tribuna (Brigham and Women’s Hospital) for expert secretarial assistance.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

J. Flier and J. Loscalzo both conceived of the ideas presented, and jointly wrote and edited this article.