RESEARCH into human nutrition has never faced a greater challenge. By the
latest reckoning, half the American population is overweight. Throughout the
developed world, the incidence of obesity is rising inexorably. Inflammatory
bowel disease, bowel cancer and osteoporosis are also on the increase. Changes
in what we eat, not changes in our genes, are implicated in every case. Only
multidisciplinary research linking human diet, physiology and behaviour will
show us how to clean up our act.
Yet in Britain, a research centre with an international reputation in just
this sort of wide-ranging nutritional research is poised to become yet 鈥渁nother
molecular biology institute鈥�. At least, that鈥檚 how it looks to the beleaguered
researchers at the Dunn Nutrition Unit in Cambridge, funded by the Medical
Research Council (MRC). By the end of the year, virtually everyone will have
been 鈥渄ispersed鈥�. Multidisciplinary teams that had taken years to build will be
disbanded.
The international nutrition community is 鈥渙verwhelmed by dismay鈥� at the news,
says David Jenkins, professor of nutrition and medicine at the University of
Toronto. Last month, 150 nutritional scientists meeting at the National
Institutes of Health near Washington DC heard the news 鈥渨ith stunned silence鈥�,
he says. They voted unanimously to sign a formal letter to Britain鈥檚 science
minister, deploring the MRC鈥檚 decision.
Advertisement
This is not some little local difficulty, Jenkins argues. It is a worrying
sign that science policy makers are getting the balance wrong. 鈥淚nputs from
molecular biology should link with nutrition, not supplant it,鈥� Jenkins
argues.
The MRC has appointed, as the Dunn鈥檚 new director, John Walker of the MRC鈥檚
Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB). Last October, he shared a Nobel prize for
his work. But why, say nutritionists, appoint a molecular biologist鈥擶alker
says he is a biochemist鈥攖o the plum job in human nutritional sciences?
Walker, 57, has spent 25 years at the LMB. He won his Nobel for solving the
structure of ATP synthase, the enzyme complex that makes ATP, the
energy-carrying molecule that powers biochemical reactions within cells. This is
molecular research at its most basic.
Critics say Walker has 鈥渘o track record in nutrition鈥�, while supporters call
it 鈥渁n imaginative appointment鈥�. Walker鈥檚 鈥渋nterests in the molecular mechanisms
of cellular energetics will be the perfect complement to the existing strengths
in nutritional science at the Dunn,鈥� says the MRC鈥檚 George Radda.
Yet with one or two exceptions, existing staff will not be retained. Dunn epidemiologist
Sheila Bingham is to stay on as deputy director. 鈥淭he specific recognition of
public health is extremely important,鈥� says Nick Day, professor of public health
at the University of Cambridge. 鈥淏ut the retention of one senior scientist, no
matter how good, out of many, and in one specialist area, can hardly assuage the
worries of the nutritional science community,鈥� says Michael Rennie, professor of
physiology at the University of Dundee.
Walker admits he hasn鈥檛 much time for contemporary nutritional research: 鈥淚n
the end it all comes down to molecules. I want to change the meaning of
nutrition.鈥� Researchers close to the Dunn are anxious. 鈥淚t is good to have a
high-profile scientist in charge,鈥� comments one. 鈥淚 just hope it is going to be
a nutrition unit. It is very, very important that the Dunn continues to
do broad-spectrum research.鈥�
The signs are not auspicious. Not so long ago, the MRC thought well enough of
the Dunn to grant it two floors of a new laboratory going up next to the LMB.
The MRC equipped the laboratories for state-of-the-art human physiological
research. But just as the Dunn researchers were poised to move in, the MRC
changed its mind. It鈥檚 a U-turn that at a conservative estimate cost the
taxpayer more than 拢1 million. Those labs are now being redesigned for
basic molecular work.
Why the change of heart? 鈥淪cience moves quickly,鈥� says an MRC spokesperson.
The MRC apparently had no inkling, until one of its subcommittees carried out an
鈥渋ndependent review鈥� in December 1997, which concluded the Dunn鈥檚 research 鈥渄id
not meet current competitive standards鈥�, she says. But Rennie suspects that
鈥済ood integrative biology and clinical medicine may be being squeezed out,
cloaked as a drive towards so-called excellence in science鈥�.
鈥淲e need to study the whole person, not just little bits of it,鈥� says the
pioneering British nutritionist Elsie Widdowson. 鈥淣ow they are trying to
discover more and more about less and less. It鈥檚 a disaster.鈥�