Trendy research

Some twenty years ago during my post-doctoral years, when I first began engaging with researchers in Pakistan, I was pleased to see that colleagues were focusing on areas that were getting attention in the US. Among them was stem cell research, particularly around the idea of potency of embryonic stem cells as a vehicle to solve stubborn challenges in health and medicine. As my visits to Pakistan now started to include professional trips beyond the personal, I got to meet many researchers who were experimenting with stem cells. The main difference was that while many colleagues at my university were focusing on the fundamental questions, the research in Pakistan was mostly applied. Some researchers in Pakistan were even doing clinical trials - at a time when such trials were quite rare in the US. The idea of trials in a place with limited regulatory oversight was troubling, but I thought maybe I was not familiar with the full landscape, and I gave colleagues some benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, I was intrigued by the sheer 'excitement' about this area among so many biologists. The per capita interest in stem cell research here was way beyond what I was seeing in the US.

Two decades later, we can safely say that the burst of excitement did not pan out. Stem cell research in Pakistan is no longer trendy, and in the last six or seven years that I have visited universities and medical schools, I have not heard about a single project focused on that. It is not to say that it has disappeared, but I am quite certain that this is not where the current excitement and interest lie. I am also quite certain that nothing came out of those trials.

There are several other examples as well. When biomaterials were hot among biomedical engineers in the West, they were hot in Pakistan. As the interest there has evolved, our excitement has also waned. Today, seemingly everyone has jumped on the AI bandwagon, from material science to physics to basic biology. We hear endless discussions on AI plus X, and you can fill in your favourite area in X. This begs the question: what drives the interest of our scientists and engineers?

There are several possibilities here. First, our scientists and engineers read the latest papers and go to conferences that focus on the cutting edge. They are inspired by those ideas and want to try them. This is the right approach, except that the challenge here is that new ideas evolve in an ecosystem, and as they mature they open path to new areas of inquiry. Continuity is essential here. Stem cell research came out of prior developments and as it matured, it fostered new interests and advancements in regenerative medicine.

Second explanation is that we follow global funding trends. Again, it seems rational on the surface but does not quite work out because our ability to tap international funding is limited. Our national funding system, while often impulsive in following trends, has all but collapsed. The third possibility is perhaps most disturbing: Our researchers follow trends because they are the easiest to publish in. Since there is a direct line from publication to promotion, research has become entirely transactional.

Alongside chasing the hottest area of the moment, we start believing it as being the game changer for society. I am old enough to remember when nanotechnology was billed as the thing that would create a knowledge economy and usher a new era of growth, or when stem cell research would solve serious health challenges in the country. Well, that did not quite happen - and this should not be a surprise. There is nothing wrong in pursuing the hottest areas of the day, and indeed there is a lot to investigate, but telling others and convincing ourselves that the flavour of the day is the key to unlocking the riches of development is something else. Changing fields is normal, perhaps necessary, but the driver should not be chasing market trends set elsewhere. At some point, we should put some premium in the most cherished parts of research - a genuine curiosity.