![\"HSA](\"http:\/\/farm8.static.flickr.com\/7024\/6391856861_7e2bba65d4.jpg\")
<\/a>Crystals of albumin, the structure of the protein and a close-up of a drug binding site<\/em><\/p>\nThough albumin has a (well-deserved) reputation for being difficult to work with, we have solved nearly 50 different structures of the protein bound to different molecules so we know quite a bit about what makes a molecule stick to it. Though I’m not very comfortable with the term, you could say that I’m a bit of an expert on the topic of drug binding to albumin. So from time to time I get asked by pharmaceutical companies to talk about our work.<\/p>\n
I enjoy these industrial excursions. It amazes me that some people have so much confidence in the ability of science to generate products sold for profit that they will invest millions in the process. As an academic I still tend to see myself as something of an amateur<\/em>, and industrial scientists as the professionals. I realise that’s a false distinction \u2014 one that does myself and my co-workers a disservice \u2014 but the industrial interest makes me feel I’m being taken seriously.<\/p>\n I know the pharmaceutical business is a flawed industry. I know about the dodgy marketing<\/a>, the manipulation<\/a> of clinical trials, the ghost author<\/a> abuses, the fake journals<\/a>. These things are unacceptable but, even so, there is a rigour, an exactitude to the business of making<\/em> that seems to me as impressive as anything served up by pure research.<\/p>\n It is sometimes said or presumed that scientists look down their noses at engineers but I don’t know who these scientists are. I’ve not met any. For sure there are those who insist on the primacy of curiosity-driven research (no bad thing) or who bridle at the suggestion that they might have to contemplate the impact<\/a>, economic or otherwise, of their work. But I suspect that even these ‘purists’ share my appreciation of the creative power of engineering \u2014 the conduit through which science changes the material world. For that reason I was pleased with last week’s\u00a0news reports<\/a> of a new \u00a31m engineering prize.<\/p>\n I was also pleased to have the chance to see how our research on albumin is seeping into industry. There was strong interest in my talk in Germany and there were keen questions in the discussions that followed. For me these visits are sporadic. Other scientists will have more contact with industry but plenty of others will have less. I’m not sure how to foster increased contacts but I think this could be a good thing. It is likely to be important in bolstering knowledge transfer<\/a>, which is one way to key into the economic value of science (a topic that has been treated with some interest by\u00a0Jack Stilgoe<\/a> and Colin Macilwain<\/a> in the past day or two). I get the impression that there are big differences here between Germany and the UK.<\/p>\n At lunch my hosts and I compared education systems. I learned that it costs<\/a> just a few hundred Euro each term to attend university in Germany and felt a pang of jealousy: next year UK students will be facing annual tuition fees of up to \u00a39,000. The consequences for UK education have yet to be determined. Somehow, the Germans seem to have closed the virtuous circle \u2014 their education system supports a strong manufacturing base, which in turn earns enough to pay for an accessible education system. The German science budget is heading for a 10% boost<\/a>, while in the UK science\u00a0funding stagnates.<\/p>\n I know it’s a bit more complicated than that, and that better contacts with industry is only part of the solution. But how does the UK get to Germany from here?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last week I went to Germany to talk to a pharmaceutical company about my work on the blood protein, human serum albumin. It set me thinking. But first I need to tell you about albumin. Albumin is a surprisingly abundant … Continue reading