What should the ideal field of chemical biology look like?

Thanks to the organizers of the 3rd Annual Chemical Biology in the Hub event I was given an opportunity to open the meeting. To get us started, I thought it would be valuable to enlist the help of an auditorium full of chemical biologists to brainstorming about where we wanted our field to go next and what we wanted chemical biology to be.

Why is this an important conversation to have at this point? In my view, chemical biology is still a youngish field. We have reached a stage of adolescence when we can do a great many things, we are energetic, we are excited, we continue to test the limits and we are definitely ready to dive into things that others may view as intellectually potentially dangerous! Our field is growing, thanks to many early career scientists who have been joining us. With this comes a growing responsibility to create a community that welcomes others and ensures their mentoring and wellbeing. Additionally, we have to be ready to be vocal and advocate for what it is that chemical biology can do and why it matters, and what our culture and standards are. And that’s why I decided to put this question of what it is that we want to be when we grow up in front of everyone in the audience and everyone reading this post.

To facilitate the conversation and organize my own thinking, I wanted us to focus on two questions: (A) what are the attributes of our ideal field? and (B) what are some things (like parts of culture, behaviors, scientific conduct...) we should get rid of or change? (I collected answers to these questions from the audience and shared it in a summary slide deck here; those of you who would like to share your thoughts please comment below).

(A) What are the attributes of an ideal field of chemical biology?

To me, some of the most important attributes are:

• Rigor & Standards
• Openness & Collaboration
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Mentoring & Outreach

We all appreciate that in order to have a strong scientific field we must build it on rigor and reproducibility, and we must be the leaders and advocates for standards. It is on us to work together to develop the standards that we should adhere to, and some of them will be unique to our activities and domain specific – but that does not make them any less important. Given the interdisciplinary nature of chemical biology, we do have to embrace collaboration and openness, because the impact of the type of science we do is strongest when it is used by biologists and/or clinicians. We also need to be inclusive and diverse – in all aspects of those words. We need to open the field to people with a range of scientific interests and expertise, we also need to build a strong and diverse pipeline of the next generation chemical biologist, and grow and support them through high-quality mentoring, as well through the actions we will take to get rid of the existing obstacles that I will talk about in a moment. Finally, we need to invest a lot into outreach to broad biology community – we need continue to explain what it is that we do and why it matters, as many are yet to appreciate what chemical biology can do for them.

(B) What are some things (like parts of culture, behaviors, scientific conduct...) we should get rid of or change?

• Culture of Overwork
• Unconscious Biases 
• Mental Health Crisis
• Bullying & Harassment
• Lack of Visibility in Biology
• Fragmented Community
• Public Mistrust

Some of the things we must address if we are to grow a scientific community based on wellness of science and the people who are doing it are the culture of overwork, unconscious biases, mental health and wellbeing of our trainees, and a culture of bullying and harassment. I should point out that some these are systemic in biomedical and chemical sciences, but I would like to challenges us all to step up our game and lead the way on helping ourselves and others address these issues.

Additionally, and perhaps a bit more domain specific are issues surrounding our visibility in biology, which is growing but we remain a niche activity in a broader biological research – something we must work to change. Something else we should probably think about going forward is whether we feel fragmented and whether that’s something that we need to address. Here, International Chemical Biology Society may take a leadership role. Finally, I would also like us to acknowledge the elephant in the room: the public mistrust of experts and expertise, and the public low opinion about biopharmaceutical industry. We are loosing this battle – and it’s not only because of perceived view of drug prices as too high, but because I feel we are not listening to the voices from the public and their real concerns. We are stuck in science and self-congratulatory on the advances we make – however, none of that matters if those who will benefit from what we are doing don’t know that we are them, walking in their shoes and sharing their concerns, circumstances, experiences. We need to be more relatable and more human, and we need to do more expert listening and less expert talking. We need to earn back public’s trust because scientific research depends on public money and public support, something that, despite great science being supported through other means, we should not forget. 

In a more metaphorical way we live on the planet Chemical Biology which forever orbits two suns, the sun of Chemistry and the sun of Biology. The suns are powerful, they have lived separate lives for eons, and each one of them individually shines bright. So why do they need us? Our main task is to bring harmony between these two disciplines that don’t share the same culture, mindset and language, and leave both the field of biology and the field of chemistry richer than they were before we came along. The chemical tools and mindset that we bring to the table is essential for illuminating biological function and human physiology, and bringing light to darker places of human disease. Almost all roads of drug discovery and target validation lead through chemical biology. For many, that’s probably our main reason for existence. But, we should not forget that our reach is much broader and wider than small molecules of therapeutic interests. We have contributed to basic biological, biochemical and biophysical understanding, expanded the scope of material science, have advanced the views of physiology, made a difference in agriculture. Even more importantly than that, we have inspired a lot of young scientists to explore this fascinating interface of chemistry and biology, and join us in our efforts in growing and strengthening the community.