COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN CHEMISTS AND BIOLOGISTS - Collaborative Computational Technologies for Biomedical Research - page 117

for the critical science lost, but especially the human carnage created by well-
intentioned but often ill-conceived requirements for the “approval” of the
grants, of grants management, and intercollege or interdepartment “agree-
ments.” Interference in scientifi c, management, and fi scal affairs related to the
research by administrators is often the most diffi cult barrier to doing collabora-
tive research. For successful collaborations it is essential that the principal
investigators organize and decide who will do the science, how the fi nancial
and related resources will be distributed, and who will be the principal inves-
tigator in grant applications. Why department heads, deans, provosts, vice
presidents for research, facility directors, and such bureaucrats think that they
have the knowledge and ability to dictate or determine such matters has always
astonished this observer. The damage these arrogant, power-hungry bureau-
crats can cause and have caused cannot be overestimated, and the human
carnage which follows is even more devastating. On the other hand, when these
same people act as facilitators, problem solvers, and organizers of the proper
infrastructure channels, business offi ce coordinations, and related administra-
tive requirements, they can greatly facilitate success both short term but espe-
cially long term, especially if their facilitation is constant and consistent. Of
course problems will arise. Human beings are imperfect, make mistakes, do
stupid things, and so on. In these cases wise and prudent principle investigators
(PIs) and administrators will play crucial roles for long-term success.
In this regard it is most useful, indeed essential, to have an administrative
secretary who can oversee and facilitate the daily fi nancial, personnel, and
technical issues that arise. Administration and granting agencies should not
only provide support for such persons but also require their presence.
Unfortunately, as is often noted, “new brooms sweep clean,” and often
they sweep out the good with the bad. I have had long-term collaborations
with some of my collaborators for 30 or more years. They have been highly
productive and creative in the biological areas of neuroscience, pain, addic-
tion, feeding behavior, sexual behavior, diabetes, cancer, and so on. Despite
these successes and the tens of millions of dollars that we have brought to
the university, the limitations of what we could accomplish have often been
due to administrative decisions. Agreements that had been reached among
collaborators and agreed upon earlier are not honored or are overturned by
unthinking, unscrupulous, and arrogant new administrators who take what
they want, ignore what has been done and agreed on, and modify what is to
be because they can. As Lord Acton said almost two centuries ago, “Power
corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Thus it is and always will be
with human beings. If it happens at the university level, as it often has, we
have just gone on with our collaboration, but often at a diminished level
compared to what could have been done. Things become more problematic
when it happens at the national level, when bureaucratic decisions simply
stop ongoing science. I will only give two examples from my own career. For
the fi rst 20 plus years of my independent academic career I had a grant from
the National Science Foundation (NSF). This grant, though never large, was