Colliding Worlds—A Rare Visit to the CERN Collider Gives a Biologist New Hope

LHC StefNearly 170 meters beneath CERN, ASCB Executive
Director Stefano Bertuzzi gets a rare look at the Large
Hadron Collider. Here he stands in front of the detector.
Photo Credit: ASCB
Last week, I was invited to speak about research and innovation at an Aspen Institute meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, held at the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, better known to the rest of the world by its acronym, CERN. Like all Aspen Institute meetings, this one flew at a high level, and, needless to say, it was an exhilarating experience.

These small meetings (40-50 people) bring together thought leaders from around the world, including presidents, prime ministers, science ministers, Nobel laureates, and research agency directors. And occasionally they invite some plain vanilla folks like me. I have to confess that I am having a hard time containing myself from writing about what we talked about, but these meetings are strictly off the record to ensure the most open and candid discussion.

But I can report on a spectacular visit that our group made to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Normally, visitors are not allowed inside the 170-meter-deep underground LHC tunnel to see (and touch!) the accelerator and the particle detector. We were incredibly fortunate to have this opportunity.

Although my knowledge of particle physics comes from a single physics class I took in college, I felt like a kid in candy store. There I was, standing right next to the accelerator that this summer managed to recreate a mini-Big Bang and detect the existence of the Higgs boson. The LHC is 27 kilometers in diameter (17 miles!) and traverses the Swiss-French border, though I was told that particles run much too fast to show passports at the borders. The accelerator is not an exact circle. Sections of the tunnel are straight because the protons are run in the opposite direction and when they get closer to the collision point, there is an obvious need for a linear path to achieve maximum precision. The detector is essentially a gigantic (truly) camera, which snaps 80 million pictures per second. It should make Hollywood stars on the red carpet at the Academy Awards jealous. The tiny bosons get more attention from the detector than all the cameras in Hollywood. Science vs. Entertainment, 1-0.

The new spokesperson for CERN along with the Director General were our guides. The spokesperson is an engineer who was involved in the construction of the accelerator and his enthusiasm for the project was contagious. A similar animation was evident in the faces of all the scientists whom I met at the LHC. Their excitement about particle physics led me to make comparisons with cell biology and biology, in general.

Using the LHC to study particle physics is the ultimate BIG science. It is so different from our much valued and essential investigator-initiated basic cell research funded through NIH R01 grants. It is illogical to ask which approach is better; we need to use big science or small science, wherever it is appropriate.

Indeed, CERN is big science in a way that does not exist in biology, at least at present. Possibly the closest analogy would be the Human Genome Project (HGP) but even there, the parallel does not hold exactly true. The HGP was a coordinated effort among many labs around the world, tackling a major challenge by dividing it up. But the HGP was not one big lab, using one big instrument, and asking one single big question. In biology, large-scale science of the LHC variety is not imaginable for now. Perhaps in the future, as biology becomes more and more quantitative, computational, and data-heavy, there might be a common problem best approached through a large-scale common resource that would be beyond the powers of any one group or institution to create, but this approach is likely to come true only under some very special future circumstances. At the moment, I can only see that a purely hypothetical Big Bio project would have to be limited to a very small fraction of the life science research budget. What best fuels our type of basic research is the small lab approach that most ASCB members are familiar with.

I was struck by another aspect of the LHC. The experimental part of the CERN project came long after the theoretical. The idea behind the Higgs boson was an incredibly robust theoretical model long before anyone thought of an experiment to test its validity. The Higgs boson idea was probably developed in an ordinary office using paper and pen (or chalk and blackboard) while computers were later used to explore its complexities and then much later to work out the experimental details. Essentially, the experimentalists had to catch up with the theoretical physicists.

With the "proof" of the Higgs boson and the existence of such a magnificent instrument as the LHC, perhaps it will next be the turn of theoretical scientists to catch up with experimental data. As biologists know very well, experiments always spring surprises. I see biology as more mature on its experimental side, chiefly because of the advances in cellular and molecular biology. And yet, as I've said before on this blog, cell biology is rapidly becoming much more quantitative and computational, especially in the area now broadly defined as biophysics. I would not be surprised to see biology in the future turn to strong theoretical approaches to problem solving.

LHC StraightAlthough the Large Hadron Collider beneath CERN
is essentially a circular ring, the two counter-directional
proton beams must meet in a straight section to
ensure precision in the particle detector.
The two proton beams run in two separate "pipes",
which merge into one close to the detector.
In the picture, only one "pipe" exists, visible in
its aluminum wrap, because this is the section
where particles collide.
Photo Credit: ASCB
At a human/social level, I found the physicists at CERN more open to social interactions than biologists. They also seemed more comfortable with team work. All the LHC scientists I talked with were incredibly focused on their common quest. No one steered the discussion to jobs or funding. It was physics all the time and always in the first person plural—we. No one said, "In my lab I study..." or "My interest is in..." They projected a very clear sense that whatever detail or part of the whole was their special task, they were all working together on one project. High-energy physics training must be very different from what we receive in biology.

Finally, with the science policy side of my soul wide awake, I kept a close eye on the politicians in my LHC tour group. Their eyes were wide open. Many of them had been party to the discussions that led to funding this massive project with no certain outcome. Walking with the politicians, I could sense their pride. A very big machine used in a very big and very successful project makes a strong political case for scientific investment.

In bioscience, our trump card is the clear social value of biomedical research. Health is an issue so much closer to home than understanding what happened at the moment of the Big Bang. Our science is certainly easier to justify to governments, if we can point to the amazing returns on investment generated by improved human health.

Looking back, I can see why the U.S. Congress loved the Human Genome Project. It was finite with a clear attainable goal, a budget, and a time frame. True exploratory research—what's sometimes called discovery science—offers Congress none of these guarantees. And yet we know very well that unexpected and unpredicted breakthroughs are the main drivers of biomedical progress.

I think we need to vastly improve our knowledge about the economics of discovery science. We need new evidence to make a clearer case for basic research in terms of return on investment. A lab bench cluttered with glassware, pipettes, and Sharpie pens may one day become the site of a Nobel-winning discovery in cancer biology. But a small, overcrowded biology lab is never going to give visiting legislators the same emotional hit as a 17 mile-long eye-popping instrument.

Often we underestimate the importance of making our case for bioscience. We need more powerful, data-driven studies that reveal what admittedly expensive inputs in basic research will yield. If not big collider rings, we need to show great quantifiable economic and social benefits for our funders—taxpayers. We treat this side of the science equation too lightly and I am very pleased to hear that there is a new initiative in Washington called Science Counts, which ASCB is joining, to do exactly this critical work.

When the underground LHC tour ended, we rode up to the surface together—politicians, physicists, and one very excited cell biologist who was hoping that some of the glamor from the Higgs boson had rubbed off. I can't wait to get to work on building the case for our smaller scale but powerful science!

Stefano Bertuzzi

Dr. Stefano Bertuzzi is the Executive Director of the American Society for Cell Biology. In this position he is responsible, with the ASCB Board, for strategic planning and all operations at the Society to serve the needs of its ~9,000 members and to promote the field of cellular biology and basic science.

Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.