How to Struggle for independence

Notable incidents are unfolding at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, where faculty members have rebelled against their president's efforts to merge with the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles. These conflicts symbolize today's difficult landscape for independent biomedical research institutions in the United States.

Highly dependent on funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), many independents have closed or merged larger institutions (see Nature 491, 510; 2012), and Scripps President Michael Marletta wanted that Let their center join in that trend. In June, news leaked that Marletta had brokered a possible deal in which USC would pay Scripps US$600 million so that the two institutions could join.

But in an interesting departure from the script, Scripps faculty members have declined the deal, argued against its entire premise and have now taken matters into their own hands. As we report on page 274, he has passed a motion of no confidence in Marletta by an astonishing margin – almost unanimously. They say they can solve Scripps' financial woes without his help, thank you very much, and can do so without selling the institution of their choice. Are they right? Other labs are watching with interest.

The impasse is a product of conflicting views at Scripps, a prestigious independent institution, which regularly attracts more than $300 million annually in NIH funding – upwards of 80% of the institute's operating budget. A large portion of the rest has come from the pharmaceutical industry, but that has declined sharply in recent years, leaving the institution with an estimated $21 million budget gap for this fiscal year.

But while Marletta sees this shortcoming as a problem that necessitates a change in the way Scripps does business, faculty members claim it is a temporary setback, not an existential threat, and one that needs to be addressed. should be resolved without changing the nature of their institution.

They fear that their cherished independence would be compromised by a merger with USC – many say that although they would have greater job security at larger institutions, they chose to work at Scripps because of its small size and non-hierarchical nature.

Frees them from administrative burden and teaching which will distract them from science. And they are angered by Marletta's decision to secretly negotiate the USC deal, feeling that as Scripps' main breadwinners, they deserved to know long ago that he was even considering such a move. Were.

Closed-door conversations have raised suspicion among faculty members that Marletta does not understand his preferences – or worse, that he does not share them.

They think the $600 million he agreed, to be completed in $15 million increments over 40 years, was a massive devaluation of Scripps' assets, including its formidable grant money, large investments and coveted seaside location. Were. To many, the deal felt like a land grab by USC, which would have paid a bargain rate for scientific reputation, a valuable piece of land, and a southern foothill for its health care practice.

The entire episode has reinforced faculty members' growing distrust of Marletta, who has been Scripps' chairman since January 2012; Prior to this, he was the Chair of the Department of Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley. Many at Scripps, including Marletta herself, believe philanthropy can bridge the institution's budget gap. But the President did not make any major donations during his tenure.

In contrast, Sanford-Burnham and the Salk Biomedical-Research Institute, also in La Jolla, have each raised hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years. Scripps faculty members say that there is clearly donor funding available in their affluent field, and Scripps can do more to access it, perhaps by increasing its strengths in chemistry and chemical biology.

How the institution will pull itself out of this situation is not clear. Faculty members feel they can find a way to close the budget gap on their own and are determined to try. It would certainly prove to be a coup. But they will also benefit from having a full-time leader whose entire work is focused on their future.

Whether Marletta is this person is up for debate at the moment. It would probably be in everyone's best interest at Scripps if he could find a way to demonstrate to faculty members that he had heard their concerns and would change his point of view. If it can do that, Scripps will be more likely to buck the tendency of smaller institutions to succumb to their budget woes.