Magazine

ENGLISH VERSION

Below is an interview with Dr. Michele Pagano, who for many years has had an eminent position in the scientific world in the USA and abroad. His ideas are sometimes counter-current and provocative, a true attack to the disinformation of the Italian media. Moreover, the investigator proposes a new idea. Will it be taken into consideration?

We want to speak about research in this magazine, but we want to bring to the attention of the media and the readers an unusual prospective. In fact, we have chosen to gather from the world of the Italian biomedical research in America certain statements, proposals, and provocative ideas that often have difficulties in their execution, although the people who propose them are highly qualified. We begin therefore with Professor Michele Pagano* (Ellen and Gerald Ritter Professor of Oncology at the Cancer Institute of the New York University School of Medicine), who has a relevant position in the scientific world in the USA and abroad for many years.

The first question that we ask to all scientists: Does it make sense to speak about "brain drain"?

Due to globalization, it does not make a lot of difference if you live and work in one country or another. To be Italian and a scientist in US is no different from being a Brazilian and a soccer player on the Italian team “Inter” (even if soccer players of a certain level usual earn more).

However, the biomedical research is undoubtedly better in the USA. No?

There is no doubt that Italy invests very little in the biomedical research, both basic and clinical. Moreover, Italy does not have an industry that benefits from such research, and I refer not only to an innovative industry but also to the production of all the materials and supplies necessary for biomedical research. Therefore, research in Italy brings only costs, but no entrance. Yet, it is wrong to generalize by asserting that the research in the USA is always of quality.

Why?

This is a totally erroneous idea that creates the notion that an investigator who succeeds in finding a position in a university in the United States is by definition better than an investigator who works in Italy.

It looks like you want to contradict a common place...

Yes it is just a common place. The United States is a huge country and has prestigious universities, but it also has extremely mediocre ones. Oftentimes, second-rate scientists find a position in the latter institutions. I personally know many Italians, European, Asians, etc. (and Americans, naturally) who perform poor quality research in the USA. These same Italians are often the subjects of startling articles in national newspapers or broadcasts on news channels, such as RAI, just because these scientists carry out their activities in a foreign country, not because they are doing something interesting or deserving of particular attention.

This is a provocative and bold idea provocative...

Yes, perhaps. At this point, one could talk about the desire to appear in the media that often is inversely proportional to the scientific value of the aforementioned investigators. Or it could be remembered that, for historical (Italians have been dominated for centuries by foreign countries) and geographic (Italians are sea people and sailors...) reasons, Italians are xenomaniacs. Or instead, we could (and perhaps we should) talk about the press, including the scientific press, and how it publishes or broadcasts wrong and unverified information on scientific discoveries and the scientists who find them.

Sensational information, therefore...

Bad information excludes serious investigators, who have intelligent things to say, from the Italian media because they fear misinterpretation and/or appearing banal.

In your opinion, does a sort of scientific xenomania exist?

Absolutely! For years, the Italian government has been offering positions of professor at National Institutions (called ‘di chiara fama’, literally “clearly famous”). The only requirement for the Italians who apply for such positions is to be a faculty member in the United States, without the distinction between being a university professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the Prairie View A&M University. Therefore, as a paradox, if one does not have the right friends in Italy or the pedigree necessary to join the faculty of an Italian university (and one is not particularly shining), he/she can emigrate to a university in the middle of nowhere in the United States to make a career (the path is not very difficult, nor too protracted, from the Ph.D. to Assistant Professor, taking from 3 to 5 years) and re-enter Italy as a university professor of 'chiara fama,' a former-brain-drain component.

Then, how can we improve the biomedical research in Italy?

Taking in account globalization, I think that we could (actually, we should) create an "Italian Biomedical Institute," a "virtual institute" that, although Italian, would include Italian investigators both in Italy and in the USA (and others parts of the world). This institute would be an initiative of great value and visibility that would take advantage of the advanced scientific infrastructures existing in prestigious American institutes and would be absolutely less expensive than any plan for the creation of a traditional institute of research. This virtual institute would be formally recognized by the host university (the affiliation of multiple universities is an operation much easier in the USA than in Italy) and would facilitate:

1. Exchange of know-how and biomedical technology between USA and Italy.

2. Exchange of patents in the biomedical field between USA and Italy.

3. Training of Italian students, postdoctoral fellows, and researchers in USA.

4. Fundraising for biomedical research through the Italian-American community, possibly with the help of the Italian embassies in the USA.

In this interview you have touched hot points and provided counter-current ideas. But you have also advanced one proposal of great interest... How would you envision the creation of this "virtual institute"?

I think that with the help of valid Italian elements - I emphasize valid - who are present at American universities, the Italian Ministry of Education and Research can achieve these objectives. Clearly, there is the need for an interface with a serious Italian political group committed to the attainment of this common initiative, which will be of great educational, scientific, and, possibly, financial utility, and will represent “the flower in the lapel” of Italian biomedical research.

Apparently easy, let’s see if someone takes the idea into consideration.

* Michele Pagano
Ellen and Gerald Ritter Professor of Oncology
Director of the Growth Control Program
New York University Cancer Institute
New York University School of Medicine

550 First Ave., MSB 599

New York, NY 10016

Email: michele.pagano@nyumc.org

Website: http://www.med.nyu.edu/pathology/Pagano



Michele Pagano, M.D.
Ellen and Gerald Ritter Professor of Oncology
Department of Pathology and Cancer Institute

Dr. Pagano, an internationally recognized molecular and cell biologist, studies the cell division cycle and how the deregulation of this process contributes to malignant transformation. He received his doctorate in Medicine and a Specialty Diploma in Molecular Endocrinology in 1989 from the Federico II University in his native Napoli, Italy. He was subsequently a post-doctoral fellow at the EMBL, Heidelberg, Germany (1990-92) and a principal investigator and scientific co-founder of Mitotix Inc., Cambridge, MA (1992-96). He joined the NYU School of Medicine in September 1996 and has been the director of the Growth Control Program of the NYU Cancer Institute for the past seven years. He has received many prestigious grants and in 2006 obtained a MERIT Award from the National Cancer Institute in recognition of his outstanding achievements in cancer biology. Dr. Pagano serves as an Associate Editor of Cancer Research and the Journal of Biological Chemistry, and he is the founding Editor of Cell Division, a journal of BioMed Central. He has published 127 leading papers and has been invited to present seminars to more than 150 international conferences, universities, or research institutions in the USA and abroad.

Add A COMMENT:
I would like to add that there are (a few) cases in which good scientists return to Italy. However, often such scientists only pretend to return to Italy, in the sense that they remain in American universities but they also “appear” as Italian academics. Only teaching a couple of classes a year at Italian institutions, they obtain practically a full salary. What is the advantage of repatriating these brains? At least with the idea of a virtual institute there would be the double affiliation, and the virtual institute would appear on the scientific papers and patents of the Italian scientists working in foreign countries. Basically, beyond the practical advantages, a virtual institute would be a great operation in public relations.
Vincenzo D'Angiolella MD

istituto virtuale o professori per finta ?

vorrei aggiungere che ci sono (pochi) casi in cui scienziati bravi sono ritornati in Italia come professori di chiara fama.
Spesso tali scienziati ritornano in italia per finta, nel senso che rimangono nelle universita americane ma appaiono anche come accademici italiani. Praticamente, solo facendo un paio di lezioni all'anno nelle universita' italiane, ottengono un secondo stipendio. Qual'e' il vantaggio del rientro di questi cervelli?
Almeno con l'idea dell'istituto virtuale ci sarebbe la doppia affiliazione e l'istituto virtuale apparirebbe sui lavori scientifici e brevetti degli scienziati italiani all'estero. Insomma oltre a dei vantaggi pratici, un istituto virtuale sarebbe un'ottima operazione di public relations.

Vincenzo D'Angiolella MD