S1: Welcome in San Diego , it's Jade Hindman. On today's show , America's brain drain , as some of the brightest researchers face funding cuts and immigration policies. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. As the Trump administration continues to make sweeping cuts to science spending , researchers all over the country are sounding the alarm. That includes biologist and neuroscientist Arden Pepperdine. He's currently a professor at Scripps Research. That's where he , along with his research partner David Julius , discovered how we sense touch. That discovery earned them the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2021. But now federal cuts are threatening his research and that of many scientists in the field. He joins me now to talk about how the cuts are impacting him and what he sees for the future of science. Arden , welcome back to the show.
S2: Thank you. Jade , it's great to be here.
S1: It's great to have you. You know , so we know the impact of of Trump's spending cuts are far reaching. But let's start with your own situation. You had a grant. Can you talk about that and what the grant would have been used for.
S2: So none of my active grants were cut , but we had a grant that got a very good score that after , you know , months of going through the peer review process , we thought it was going to start in February and it's still frozen. So it hasn't come in. And it's an important one because , you know , we're we study the sense of touch. And this grant actually specifically is to completely think of new ways of how to treat pain , which is a major unmet medical need. Of course , we've all heard of the opioid epidemic. You know , that's one of the major medicines we still use for severe pain. And so we're trying to come up with better ways with less side effects , less addiction , etc.. And so it's really disheartening to see this kind of research that affects all Americans , whether it's from blue state or red state , rich or poor. And so again , it's really sad to see this kind of stopping funding or delaying of of things that I think most Americans would want to support. Hmm.
S1: Hmm.
S2: You know , I have some private foundations sponsoring my my research. But overall , the the cuts have been pretty devastating in so many ways. They're trying to head cut to what we call overhead funding , which is what the institutions need to support the scientists. They're suggesting 40% cut in NIH for next year , which would be devastating. But I feel like the the cuts that we all feel is the uncertainty. When this happens , everybody gets in a crouched position. And same is for scientists and universities. So nobody's having the ability to hire new assistant professors , for example. If that happens then I can't hire trainees because if people are not leaving my lab , I can't have new people in. So the whole thing is kind of in a situation where we're kind of stuck and mainly trying to protect what we have , instead of thinking bold new ideas of how to make new discoveries that will give rise to novel new medicines for for Americans and and the rest of the world. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. China actually offered to have you live and work there. Nice money , nice options. Work at any university. You wanted to , but you declined that offer. Why.
S2: That's right. So I got on social media and were just venting. And I said I don't know of any academic who's not at least thinking of leaving and going somewhere else. And literally within 15 minutes , I got an email from someone very high up in the sciences in China. And that's exactly right. He offered me 20 years of steady funding in any university , in any city in China that I would want. And again , you know , I don't want to take that. And but it's an alarm for what could happen and what's happening right now. And it's not just people at my level. For example , when I train students and postdocs in my lab , two out of three are international student , just like I was an international student at some point. And the big tradition in the US is that we get these smart folks from abroad. They learn from us , their great minds themselves , and they usually stay and contribute to US economy and US health care. And now , you know , many of the students , especially ones from China. I was talking to one yesterday. Normally this guy is brilliant. He's done great science. He would find a great job here in the US. He's going to go back to China because who wants to deal with this. And so it's really disheartening.
S1: Well that could really stifle innovation in the US.
S2: I mean , US biomedical research , I could tell you in my travels around the world that it's the envy of the world. And China has openly talked about trying to compete with us and how they can't because NIH , the National Institutes of Health is so strong and such a great track record that they usually can't compete , but they're openly now talking about. With all these cuts , this is our opportunity.
S1: Well , I do want to talk about your journey in science. You immigrated here from Lebanon. Walk us through some of your personal journey coming to the US and pursuing science here. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. So I came to us as an 18 year old , and I was from Lebanon , where science is not very strong in the university and teaching. There's not much research. And I thought I was a pre-medical student. So the first thing is I became a California resident. I worked for one year , including delivering pizzas and other jobs just to become a California resident. And I got to go to UCLA , where I remember the day where I needed to take a loan to be able to pay. At the time , it was only 1,500 US dollars for a whole year of tuition. But the person I talked to said , you know , you don't have that much money. You actually qualify for Pell Grant. So it's not a loan. You can just have this. This government gives it to you , and you can't imagine the kind of feeling that an immigrant kid who's poor without even applying. Someone tells them the government wants you to get an education. A lot of those Pell grants are are not available now. But that started my journey in the United States. And , you know , I worked in a lab and fell in love with doing research. And I've stayed in sciences in the United States and California , actually , the rest of my career.
S1: You know , you mentioned the Pell Grant and just the general environment of America wanting. Right.
S2: Very welcome. Yeah. And it was very inspiring to me to come to a place like that where , you know , it was researchers from California. From Texas. From Europe , from Middle East. All coming together , creating what was and still is the best place to do research to find the future of medicines. So it's really sad to see this because first of all , we all know that every new medicine that you go to the pharmacy to buy starts with curiosity driven research by usually an American academic institution. And so on top of that , there's all these studies showing that every dollar that the US spends on medical research , $2.6 gets into the economy. That's because a lot of research can give rise to new ideas in biotechnology. So new companies get far more people get hired , money gets raised from venture capital firm. And so we have these very healthy , economically speaking as well , not just for health. Economically , it's a very healthy environment and leading the world , as I said. So there's really no reason to cut this idea of that. It's not efficient. It doesn't hold water.
S1: Yeah , too much bureaucracy is one of the arguments the Trump administration is making for cutting science spending. And they say too much money goes into red tape , and that philanthropies and industry should pick up the tab on that.
S2: It's not like people are giving this money away. Just to give you an idea , the way my lab would run is I would write a grant proposal to the NIH , and it would get reviewed by a group of 20 or 30 scientists , peer review. And currently the funding rate of that is something like 6%. So only six out of 100 grants get actually approved. So there is not that much inefficiency to to be able to survive that kind of peer review is very , very tough. And so I don't see the argument that plus what I just said , that economically this has been a very healthy economy , a very healthy system. There's really no real reason to say any of those things.
S1: Coming up , we continue the conversation on cuts to science spending , immigration policy and how it's all impacting research when KPBS Midday Edition returns. Welcome back. You're listening to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. I'm speaking with Scripps Research professor , biologist and Nobel laureate Arden Pepperdine about the Trump administration's cuts on science and how it's impacting his own work and the field at large. So , RDM , these cuts aside , the Trump administration is carrying out many other policies that are making it more difficult for scientists to pursue a career here. Those policies range from travel bans to deporting academics to revoking student visas for Chinese international national students.
S2: I mean , what I would like to say is , normally I don't do shows like this. I like to be in my lab doing the science. But unfortunately , the last few months , it's kind of been a lesson that we scientists have to go out there and in a way , justify our existence. And again , I'd rather do the science , but I feel like it is my duty now to come out and and explain what we're doing and how it works. So two out of three people in my lab is an international student that comes with a visa. And , you know , we're a country of immigrants. We we all know this. And this kind of immigration has been nothing but spectacularly good for America. Many of these people stay , become naturalized citizens , make a lot of money and pay a lot of taxes and invent the next medicines for , for , for cancer and other medical conditions. And so I don't see why you would want to stop this , because , you know , the countries that these kids are coming from want them to stay , don't want the brain drain. But for decades , that's what has been where they come in and enrich our society. And we're trying to stop it for some reason that I do not understand.
S1:
S2: I mean , we're in a situation right now where , as I said , I. I cannot hire more students and postdocs because I have so much uncertainty and funding. So getting new people in the lab is a big question mark that I have to be very careful about , because my first job is to keep the people that I have make sure their careers are taken. So , you know , coming through the ranks is becoming much , much harder. I'm specifically feel so bad for the trainees that right now , for example , just got their PhD and want to do a fellowship. So these are the kids that did their PhD during Covid and now they're facing this second trauma. So it's um it's unfortunate. Yeah.
S1: Yeah.
S2: I think I , I was listening to some of the hearings for the NIH budget with the 40% cut that was suggested by the administration , and I was very happy to see that there was some pushback on both sides of the aisle about , why would we want to stop cancer research ? This doesn't make any sense. So I think the combination of that and the judicial system , because many of these things are being done that are not completely legal challenge from that an extra , you know , education to the public through shows like this that understand that cancer affects everyone. I don't know anyone who's not affected by cancer , who doesn't want more cancer research and at the same time stimulate the economy. I mean , it's a no brainer.
S1: I want to go back to , you know , the importance of the research that goes on and how it benefits the public at large. I mean , your research alone , um , you won a Nobel Prize in medicine for it , uh , back in 2021 for something that we didn't know much about. And that is how we feel things. You've also got a tattoo on your arm. That kind of explains it all. So tell us about that.
S2: We all learn in school that we have five senses , you know , seeing , smelling , taste , hearing and touch. So touch has been the most difficult to figure out at the molecular level. For many reasons you have touch all over your body. It's not concentrated in one place like the eye , and at the same time it does something very unusual if you don't think about it carefully , which is , I like to say it translates physics into chemistry because touch means it has to sense pressure in your skin , and this pressure has to be transformed into a chemical or electrical signal that neurons understand and can communicate with each other. So my lab found these pressure sensors in your body , and as it happens in science all the time , this was actually curiosity driven science. We were not trying to cure a disease. And this is so important , I think , for the public to realize is that most of the great applications that come from science start from curiosity driven questions. And so we were fascinated by how you sense touch. But fast forward a few years. now. We know these sensors also play a role in pain. They play a role in blood pressure sensing. And so now we and others are actively working on trying to find small molecules that might block this channel and in certain circumstances could be very beneficial in the clinic. And so I think the again , the lesson that I like to always , always say , because whenever we say we found a study , the question always comes , what is this good for ? And of course we we know what it could be good for. But it's also so important to emphasize that the benefits could come from areas angles that we never anticipated. There's so many examples of this in science , not just in my research , but Crispr , for example , is this new biotechnology revolution that's happening that you can manipulate DNA and could help Cure diseases , for example. And it all started by asking , how do viruses protect themselves from bacteria or bacteria fight against viruses. So this kind of which you could easily talk about and say , what does this have to do with human biology ? But this technology came from this almost esoteric study that no one potentially could have predicted that it would be such a big deal for biotechnology. So it's very important to keep that in mind.
S1:
S2: You know , I feel like , um , it is my duty to come out and talk about these issues to the public. And a lot of people tell me I shouldn't because there could be potential retaliation , and I've ignored it with the idea that I can perhaps afford to take some risks. But I understand many who are immigrants or green cards don't want to speak out because they're worried about what could happen to them. So I think I try to play the line of of , you know , telling people what's going on and what the potential impact is. But it's also my job to give some message of stability to my lab to make sure that they're taken care of , that they're not going to be out on the streets tomorrow. And so we have a difficult job these days to to manage those two messages.
S1:
S2: And I'm again , I'm a positive person , so I feel like members of Congress and Senate will at the end do the right thing. And I'm seeing lots of judicial challenges to some of these policies. And I'm very encouraged that that that will go in the right direction. And the American people , at the end of the day , can vote and decide who our leaders are. And I was part of a protest downtown San Diego just last weekend , where I think 40,000 people was estimated to be there. And that says something. Actually , Nature Scientific magazine had an article about how protests work. They've looked at history and seen that large numbers of people protesting does have an impact and an effect. So I'm I think we need to keep our voices heard.
S1: And I just got confirmation on that. It was it was 60,000 votes that were downtown.
S2: That was just downtown. There's so many smaller protests all over the county.
S1: Yeah , yeah. It's amazing. Well , I have to ask this. In the event that that doesn't happen.
S2: But I think about the community at large , and I think I'll survive. I'll have a smaller lab. I'll I'll still do the science , have less impact , and we'll wait it out in a way. But what I worry is that for people around me who are not as privileged as I am , they might have to leave science because they might not have the funding to sustain their labs. And some of that is damage that's not easily fixed. And it might take a whole generation to redo this if we're able to. And if we can go back and compete at the highest level. And so I hope that doesn't come true. But the idea is to , you know , persevere. You know , I have a I have a sign outside my office under my name used to say full professor , But people in my lab , in a joking way , keep changing the title. And the last one was I survived Lebanon. I'll survive this. And I think that kind of speaks to what your question is that some resiliency and and speaking up is the way to go.
S1: I've been speaking with RDM and biologist , professor at Scripps Research and Nobel laureate. RDM thank you so much.
S2: Thank you. It's a pleasure talking to you.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
