What does NAS election mean for Oklahoma?

Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City), Jun 19, 2002 by J. Donald Capra

On April 30, Charles Esmon, Lloyd Noble Chair in Cardiovascular Research and head of the Cardiovascular Research Program at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, was elected to the National Academy of Sciences.

The news was reported in the press, and OMRF had a gala party to celebrate the event. Esmon is a highly gifted scientist who has spent the better part of his entire scientific career in Oklahoma, most at OMRF. As such, he is the first "Oklahoman" elected to the National Academy in the arena of biomedical research. Two other OMRF scientists came to Oklahoma as members of the academy and Douglas Lilly, a geophysicist at OU, is also a member.

Founded by President Lincoln in 1863, the National Academy of Sciences is the most prestigious academic group in the nation. Short of the Nobel Prize (virtually every Nobel Laureate has been a member of the academy), there is no higher honor in biomedical science in the world.

Each year, about 50-70 scientists from around the country are elected to membership. Since there are about 900 members in the National Academy of Sciences, based on Oklahoma's population we should have nine members in the academy.

We have two.

There are few, if any, "poor scientists" in the National Academy of Sciences, but there are many very qualified scientists who do not get elected to the academy. Why?

Some of it is location, some politics, some style, some fashion. The easiest of these to discuss is location/politics.

Since members are elected to the academy by the current members of the academy, knowing someone in the academy helps. In general, the best science wins. But often, institutional loyalty trumps when comparing two very comparable scientists. Thus, if an institution (say, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) has 15 members of the academy, and one of their own is nominated, that nominee is likely to get the vast majority of the 15 votes, as they are far more likely to know the MIT scientist better than a scientist from another institution.

Academicians therefore tend to cluster at the elite schools. At University of Texas Southwestern, where I came from five years ago, we had 14 members of the academy elected in 20 years. There were none in 1974.

What does this mean to Oklahoma?

First and foremost, it means that our very best scientists can rise to the top. When we are recruiting young scientists, it is important for them to know that they can spend their entire academic careers in Oklahoma and still aspire to become members of the academy. This is extremely important to those of us who are trying to recruit the best and brightest to our state.

So the accomplishment of Chuck Esmon in the field of biomedical science cannot be underestimated. He proved that one can spend one's entire academic career in Oklahoma and still attain this kind of success.

Second, this is important for our fledgling biotechnology industry. Venture capital investors and public investors want to know that they are moving to a going place. A place where the local talent can help their companies. There is no better imprimatur of success than membership in the academy.

Third: local pride. I recall checking into a hotel in Dallas to celebrate our 35th wedding anniversary and finding in the hotel room, in a book on the coffee table, a full-page ad showing the members of the National Academy of Sciences in Dallas. Someone in Dallas thought that might impress businesses that might consider relocating to Texas.

Fourth: a foot in the door. Oklahoma has many other scientists who are deserving of membership in the academy. Now at least there is someone in the door who can introduce these fine scientists to the other members of the prestigious group.

J. Donald Capra is the president and scientific director of the OMRF.