Here’s an interesting piece from The Chronicle Review by Sam Kean on my favorite marine lab, the MBL in Woods Hole….

Money quote:

This writer soon discovers what Olds means, about both the science and the embarrassment. I’d never seen a sea urchin before, and in short, there’s no easy way to sex them. During a class I’m probing one — a black, spiky tennis ball — with a syringe, looking for soft spots around its (I think) mouth. Injecting seawater supposedly forces it to spew sperm or eggs out its (I think) rear, at the top. He/she is hard to pierce, like sticking needles through a leather work glove, but I drive it home.

Problem is, urchin sperm and eggs look alike at first. After many long days in the lab, my brain is fried. And I’m taking only a dumbed-down version of the core “discovery” class on embryology. In the nicest possible way, our instructors laugh and say my class has no idea what graduate students go through.

Beyond the question about sea urchin reproduction, the piece raises some questions concerning MBL compared with its Long Island neighbor, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

But what Cold Spring had for years that MBL didn’t was the director James Watson, co-discover of the double-helix structure of DNA (and a former summer faculty member at the marine lab). Watson had pretty much stopped working in labs by 1968, when he took over at Cold Spring, but his name and vision drew many eager, hungry scientists. Cold Spring started off with no more than MBL had, possibly less, but has since jumped into a different stratosphere: In 2006, it raised $90-million from private donors, compared with the marine lab’s $12.5-million.

Borisy hopes to add new facilities soon, possibly in biodiversity and regenerative medicine, both of which Maienshein says fit neatly with a marine lab. Scientists also praise Borisy’s new programs in fields like microscopy, a traditional strength at MBL.

But the education laboratories need up to $15-million worth of work first. Plus, the marine laboratory’s core strengths — teaching and providing summer venues for scientists — cost more than they bring in, and probably won’t inspire the proverbial little old lady to donate a million dollars. The education certainly won’t wither away or face cuts, says Borisy. But however much scientists adore the place for what they learned there, some are resigned that the MBL of 30 years ago may not look the same in another 30.

I’m not sure I agree with Sam Kean regarding the fairness of the comparison. CSHL’s focus on molecular biology was being driven by an economic engine that gave us the likes of Amgen and Genentech. That revolution is now behind us I think. A new revolution will have as its engine the need to address the challenges of climate change, microbial diversity and energy security. MBL may end up better placed with its existing strengths combined with some judicious investments.

Jim