what is the life science research

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academy of Sciences (US) Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. The Life Sciences: Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs: The World of Biological Research Requirements for the Future. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1970.

The Life Sciences: Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs: The World of Biological Research Requirements for the Future.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

CHAPTER THREE THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

The life sciences embrace a great array of intellectual activity, a continuum extending from the search for the origin of life and the detailed structure of the macromolecules that make life possible to understanding of the total ecology of planet Earth. The millions of micro-organisms and plant and animal species interacting in the air, the soil, freshwater ponds and streams, and the oceans afford a never-ending variety of objects of fascinating inquiry. This endeavor has enhanced man's capacity to manage and protect his environment, to feed and clothe himself, and to prolong his comfortable and fruitful years. The inquiry itself is conducted in the laboratory, in research institutes and hospitals, in experimental tracts and ponds, by walks in the woods, by surveillance from the skies, from ships at sea, and on treks through the jungle, observing both undisturbed and managed nature. Those so engaged range from amateur nature lovers to directors of large institutes. They work in and out of institutions large and small; they work with private, state, and federal resources in institutions of higher learning, nonprofit research institutes, research hospitals, federal, state, and local laboratories, and in the organized multidisciplinary teams of industry.

In 1966 the National Register of Scientific Personnel identified approximately 84,000 individuals with diverse levels of training and educational backgrounds who classified themselves as working life scientists. The identification of these people was possible through the cooperation of the two major biological research societies, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology and the American Institute of Biological Sciences.

The Federation issued questionnaires to approximately 24,300 people, the great majority of whom had earned doctoral degrees. Of these, some 20,100, or 83 percent, responded to the Register questionnaires. The American Institute of Biological Sciences contributed approximately 59,800 names, but the proportion of doctorate holders among this group is lower, and hence fewer of them meet the conditions for inclusion in our survey as individual life scientists. Approximately 40,000 people, or 67 percent, responded to the Institute's questionnaire and the proportion of doctorate holders represented by those respondents is higher than that of the original 59,800 individuals surveyed by that society. The overall response to the Register from the two societies was approximately 65 percent and should comprise most working biologists. From these numbers it can be estimated that 70 to 80 percent of doctoral-degree holders responded to the National Register in 1966. However, one can only guess what fraction of American biologists, with or without doctoral degrees, this represents.

It is estimated * that, in the aggregate, $2,264 million was invested in research in the life sciences in fiscal year 1967, of which 60.3 percent came from the federal government, 7.3 percent from the resources of nonprofit institutions, and 30.0 percent from industry. In its entirety, therefore, research in the life sciences has become one of the major pursuits of American society. This chapter is devoted to a description of some of the components of the life sciences research system, based largely on information gathered from responses to our two questionnaires (Appendixes A and B).

Detailed information on the gross parameters of the total system was revealed by the first of our two questionnaires: It contains 14,362 scientists, of whom 12,383 were investigators as here defined, viz., they devoted more than 20 percent of their time to research. In 1966 they published more than 24,000 original articles, 489 books, 1,100 reviews, and 7,500 in-house reports and other contributions. The universe revealed by the second questionnaire contains 1,256 academic departments with an aggregate continuing staff of 18,608 scientists, with available research funds (direct costs only) totaling $304 million, operating in 325 acres of laboratory space in which they directed the research and training of 23,287 graduate students and 4,695 postdoctoral fellows and were assisted by 24,481 technicians, secretaries, and other personnel.

Of the 14,362 individuals who replied to the individual questionnaire, 3.4 percent were less than 30 years old and 6.3 percent were at least 60 years of age; 36.2 percent ranged from 30 to 39 years; 36.3 percent ranged from 40 to 49 years; and 17.8 percent were in the range 50 to 59 years. This distribution is fairly close to that of the scientific population at large. The average age of the group was 43.2 years, the median 41 to 42 years. Only 5.1 percent of the total population was female.

Every state of the Union was represented in the reporting of birthplaces. New York was represented by the largest number of scientists (1,989); Pennsylvania and Illinois followed with 880 and 855, respectively; and 631 were born in California; in all, 12,439 had been born in the United States, and 1,866 were foreign-born. All but 41 of the foreign-born regarded themselves as permanent residents of the United States at the time of the questionnaire. The foreign-born life scientists had come to our shores from 81 different nations. The major sources were Canada (292), Germany (236), England (162), Taiwan (142), India (97), Austria (89), Hungary (68), Poland (55), and Japan (50).

• WHERE LIFE SCIENTISTS WORK

Two thirds of the 12,383 investigators were employed by institutions of higher learning; as shown in Table 7 , 14 percent were employed by the federal government, 10 percent by industry, and the remaining 10 percent by a variety of nonprofit organizations—e.g., hospitals, clinics, museums, state and local governments—and a few are self-employed. In a general way, this pattern is relatively independent of the field in which these life scientists were trained ( Figure 33 ). With the exception of horticulturists, those trained in the agricultural sciences are more likely to work for the federal government than those trained in any other scientific area. Of the 68 percent who were trained in the basic biological sciences, biochemists are by far the largest single group, constituting 15 percent of the total population of this study, with microbiologists and physiologists 8 percent and 7 percent of the total, respectively. Although, because of their numbers, these groups are predominant on the faculties of institutions of higher education, biochemists, microbiologists, and pharmacologists are also in great demand outside these institutions. Over 40 percent of those trained in these three disciplines operate in nonacademic environments, with all three unusually well represented in the laboratories of industry.

Principal Employment of Life Scientists.

Type of employment of life scientists, by field of doctoral training. (Source: Survey of Individual Life Scientists, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences.)

Of the 17 percent of our population who were originally trained as physicians, one third also obtained Ph.D. degrees. Seventy percent of the M.D.'s are on the faculties of universities, including virtually all the M.D.-Ph.D.'s; rather few research-performing M.D.'s are in industry, but there is unusually high representation in nonprofit institutions, particularly independent hospitals and clinics and public-health organizations. Those trained as physicians constituted 44 percent of the 3,170 reporting members of faculties of medical schools (and these schools corresponded to 39 percent of the total academic population); these were 87 percent of all reporting physicians. The remainder of the medical faculty was drawn largely from among those originally trained in the basic medical sciences; biochemists predominated in this last group (15 percent of the gross total), with major representation also from physiology, microbiology, and pharmacology.

Because of their relatively large total number, those trained in biochemistry are found throughout the system in substantial numbers. Of 1,834 trained biochemists reporting, 59 percent (1,069) were in institutions of higher learning, including 491 in medical schools, 225 on arts and sciences faculties, 126 in agricultural schools, and 37 in liberal arts colleges. Substantial numbers were also found elsewhere: 247 in the federal government, 275 in industry, and 231 in other nonacademic, nonprofit organizations. (The disciplinary designation, “biochemist,” relates only to the field of original doctoral-level training, and not to the area of science in which the scientist is currently working.)

Of the life scientists in our sample employed by institutions of higher learning, slightly less than 5 percent were at liberal arts colleges. Undoubtedly, a much larger fraction of life scientists, particularly botanists and zoologists, are on the faculties of such institutions, but relatively few engage in research on a scale sufficient to have put them within the scope of this study.

The questionnaire addressed to department chairmen yielded an aggregate faculty for all responding departments of 17,172, of whom 3,852 were on faculties of arts and sciences, 3,907 on the faculties of agricultural schools, and 8,915 on the faculties of medical schools. Although the general employment patterns in the two questionnaire files are similar, the discrepancies are of some interest. Whereas 39 percent of all individual respondents were on the faculties of medical schools, 52 percent of the total departmental faculties reported were so employed. To place this in perspective, it should be noted that, of the 1,256 departments represented in the study, 267 are in agricultural schools, 246 in faculties of arts and sciences, and 694 in medical schools. Of the medical departments, 361 were departments of the preclinical and 333 of the clinical segments of medical schools. Undoubtedly, the returns from the chairmen's questionnaire should be taken as a more valid description of the distribution of the faculties of life scientists than that provided by the individual returns.

The 1,689 individual scientists who indicated that they are employed by the federal government appear to represent a large fraction of the senior life scientists in the federal establishment. The major employers of the 1,689 reporting life scientists within the federal establishment are the Departments of Agriculture (36 percent), Health, Education, and Welfare (27 percent), Defense (15 percent), and the Veterans Administration (11 percent). The patterns of employment of scientists in the various biological disciplines reflect the character of the agency missions rather closely. Thus, 84 percent of all those trained in agricultural sciences now in the federal establishment are employed by the Department of Agriculture; 53 percent of all federally employed M.D.'s actively engaged in research work for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 29 percent of the M.D.'s work in the Veterans Administration; and 18 percent of the M.D.'s work in the Department of Defense.

The disciplinary employment patterns in other areas are repeated in the federal establishment: 32 percent of all federal life scientists were trained in the basic medical sciences, varying from 12 percent in the Department of Agriculture to 55 percent in the Department of Defense. Except for the physicians employed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Veterans Administration and the agronomists employed by the Department of Agriculture, biochemists again constitute the largest single group of scientists in all federal agencies, ranging from 7 percent in the Department of Agriculture to 16 percent in the Department of Defense, 21 percent in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and 26 percent in the Veterans Administration.

An additional 135 scientists were employed in federal contract research centers, which are managed by educational or other nonprofit organizations. State governments employed 229 life scientists (1.8 percent of the grand total), largely in hospitals or state health departments and their laboratories, and approximately half as many life scientists were found in municipally controlled institutions of the same character. A significant number, 462 scientists (3.7 percent of the total), were employed by nonprofit institutes, foundations, and privately controlled museums.

There are no reliable indicators to determine whether the 1,155 individual respondents who indicated that they are employed in industry constitute either a large or a true sample of the total number of senior life scientists employed in that sector of the economy. Seventy-six percent were employed by manufacturing industries; two thirds of these were in the pharmaceutical industry. Again, those trained in the basic medical sciences predominate: 262 biochemists were the largest group, followed by 178 microbiologists and 107 pharmacologists. The low representation of other disciplines among investigators in industry is somewhat disconcerting. For example, only two embryologists, three anatomists, four cell biologists, four ecologists, eight animal pathologists, 10 biophysicists, 13 botanists, and 25 zoologists reported that they were in the employ of some industrial establishment.

Finally, in this regard, it should be remarked that of the 12,151 life scientists responding, 442 had obtained Ph.D.'s in chemistry and 114 in other fields of the physical sciences (about one half in physics), while 105 individuals were originally educated as psychologists. (No questionnaires were sent to individual practicing research psychologists or to the chairmen of either psychiatry or psychology departments.) The employment distribution of these 662 converts to the life sciences among institutions of higher learning, the federal government, industry, and other organizations was much like that of the groups described earlier.

• MOBILITY OF LIFE SCIENTISTS

Geographic mobility, so prominently a characteristic of American society, is nowhere more evident than in the scientific community. As shown in Table 8 , scientists born in each of the standard census regions can currently be found in each of the other census regions. Presumably, the direction of these migrations is dictated largely by increasing employment opportunities. This is particularly evident in the considerable migration from all other census regions to the Pacific Coast region and the South Atlantic region. Of at least equal interest, however, is the even greater tendency for relocation to regions likely to produce the least “cultural shock.” Not only is there the expected tendency of a substantial fraction of all scientists in all census regions to remain within the states or census regions within which they were born, but the most frequent move from one region to another has been to an adjoining area where life patterns are similar—e.g., from the lower South to the upper South, or within the Midwest.

Migration Patterns of Life Scientists.

For the entire population of life scientists, the average length of employment in the current position was 9.6 years, with the median 6 to 7 years. Fifty-five percent of all respondents had held at least one previous position with a different employer, quite apart from any number of postdoctoral appointments. The average length of employment in that previous position was 4.7 years, and the median was 3 to 4 years. Although 90.5 percent of all such moves had been made after less than 10 years with the previous employer, employment translocation was reported by some scientists even after as long as 40 years with the initial employer.

The pattern of these moves is of interest in itself. Although institutions of higher learning were the principal source of those who entered the employ of the federal government, private industry, and other organizations, in a general way each employing entity in the system also tended to recruit from other institutions in the same category. For example, 36 percent of all those in private industry had been employed by a different corporation, and 19 percent of those now working for an independent hospital or clinic had previously worked for some other independent hospital or clinic.

Two thirds of those who had moved to an institution of higher learning had come from another such institution. Of the remainder, 13 percent had left the federal government, 5 percent private industry, 5 percent other nonprofit organizations, and 8 percent various other state and community institutions. Perhaps the major surprise in these data is the fact that, ignoring graduate and postdoctorate education, institutions of higher learning appeared to be a net importer of scientific employees. Whereas 1,750 individuals whose previous employers had been nonacademic institutions currently were employed by the universities, only 1,260 individuals currently employed by nonacademic institutions had previously been employed by universities or colleges.

Respondents to the questionnaire were not queried about their motivation in accepting offers of new positions. It may be assumed that these were responses to offers of higher pay, of opportunity to engage in independent research or research under more desirable conditions, or to locate in geographical areas attractive to the families of the scientists concerned.

• PREVIOUS EDUCATION OF WORKING LIFE SCIENTISTS

In the foregoing summary, the initial training of working life scientists was categorized in disciplinary terms that are familiar as the titles of academic departments and that are employed in most statistical collections. However, the reader who has considered earlier chapters will have recognized that these conventional subdisciplinary titles have, in considerable measure, lost their meaning and convey false distinctions. Whereas biochemists were formerly concerned largely with elucidation of metabolic maps, they may today be concerned with macromolecular structure, the chemistry of cell-cell recognition, or the phenomena responsible for atherosclerosis. Not so long ago, microbiologists were overwhelmingly concerned with the taxonomy of microbiological forms, yet today they may be concerned with genetic mechanisms or the nature of the immune response to invasion by some specific organism. Hematologists, who only yesterday were describing changes in the morphology of blood cells in leukemia as seen with a light microscope, are now intimately involved in understanding the manner in which nucleic acids control the differentiation process among white blood cell types. Physiologists, who formerly engaged in studies of the mechanics of muscular contraction or morphological changes induced by steroid hormones, are today inquiring into mechanisms of transmembranal transport or the molecular events by which steroid hormones affect protein biosynthesis in receptor cells. Botanists, once engaged in taxonomic studies or in gross plant physiology, are today concerned with the phenomena by which plants interact with other organisms and with their environment, the cardinal aspects of ecology, while zoologists may be concerned with all those aspects of the environment that have favored rapid proliferation of new species in one set of circumstances or remarkably prolonged survival, unchanged, of other species, studies that embrace all aspects of ecology, genetics, biochemistry, and physiology. Even more dramatic have been the changes in the character of research in clinical medicine, pathology, and pharmacology. Investigators in these areas have learned to use the most recent developments in understanding such phenomena as protein structure, enzyme kinetics, transmembranal transport, neural transmission, immunochemistry, viral reproduction, lipid metabolism, and behavioral genetics as they explore disease mechanisms in man or animals, design and test new drugs, or prepare a patient for organ transplantation. And their laboratories cannot be distinguished from those of other scientists so engaged.

Because of these rapidly evolving and profound trends, it appeared desirable to reconsider individual scientists, not under classical disciplinary labels, but in relation to the nature of the research conducted during their initial formal education in graduate school and in relation to the research in which they are currently engaged. That two individuals are studying cellular structure and function is more significant than that one considers himself a zoologist and the other a botanist. The plant pathologist may have more in common with an animal pathologist than with a plant taxonomist, and similar considerations are obvious for plant and animal physiologists, or for plant, animal, and microbial geneticists, for example.

Thus, we have found it useful to recategorize life sciences research into the following dozen classifications:

Behavioral biology

Cell biology

Developmental biology

Disease mechanisms

Evolution and systematic biology

Molecular biology and biochemistry

Pharmacology

It will be evident that even these categories are somewhat arbitrary and are by no means mutually exclusive. They fail to make clear the fact that biochemistry, a research area itself, is also the common language and the tool for almost every other entry in the classification scheme. However, the questions being asked of nature by scientists within each category are sufficiently distinct to permit self-identification by our respondents, while providing a more revealing description of the life sciences endeavor than that offered by more traditional disciplinary titles.

Tables 9 and 10 summarize the current research areas of some of our respondents, comparing their current areas of involvement with the disciplines and research areas in which they had been trained as graduate students. As a consequence of an awkwardness in the design of the layout of the printed questionnaire, almost a quarter of all respondents failed to provide information concerning the research fields, as here categorized, in which they had been trained and in which they are currently engaged. However, as indicated in Appendix A , it appears fair to assume that the patterns revealed by those who did not overlook this question are representative of the total.

Comparison of Current Research Areas with Areas of Most Recent Ph.D. or D.Sc. Degree.

Comparison of Current Research Area with Disciplines in Which Life Scientists Were Trained.

As indicated by the diagonal of Table 9 , current research in any given area is conducted predominantly by individuals who were trained in that area, varying from 49 percent of those currently engaged in behavioral biology to 85 percent of those working in genetics. Equally impressive, however, is the degree of intellectual migration among research fields. Thus, 48 percent of all those trained in morphology are now engaged in some other area, as are 39 percent of those originally trained in cell biology, 33 percent of those trained in developmental biology, and 30 percent of those trained in physiology. Maximum field retention was found among those trained in pharmacology, ecology, genetics, and molecular biology and biochemistry. Perhaps the most striking fact shown by the table is that every possible crossover was reported. Noteworthy, too, are the fields that, on balance, have either attracted more investigators than they have lost, or vice versa. The “gainers” include molecular biology and biochemistry, behavioral biology, cellular biology, disease mechanisms, ecology, and pharmacology. The most significant “losers,” in absolute numbers rather than percentages, were genetics, morphology, nutrition, and physiology, with developmental biology and systematic biology remaining approximately in balance.

Many biologists currently consider that there has been a rapid growth in the opportunities for fruitful studies in behavioral and developmental biology and in ecology. But these data indicate that, although there has been some modest influx into these fields, it is not yet particularly striking, although graduate enrollments have been affected in the predicted directions. Moreover, the changes are generally immediately lateral in the sense that most of those who have changed research areas have moved into areas in which they can apply the skills and insights of their primary training. This is most certainly the case for the 184 of 287 individuals who left molecular biology and biochemistry to enter upon studies in cellular biology, disease mechanisms, pharmacology, or physiology, as it must also be true for the 317 individuals who left physiology to enter other biological categories.

Only 741 scientists were sufficiently certain of their plans to change research areas in the future to so indicate. And again, the planned changes were, in the main, relatively conservative ( Table 11 ) and into closely related areas, e.g., molecular biology to genetics, genetics to molecular biology, physiology to pharmacology, botany to ecology. Molecular biology will be the chief gainer (19 percent of all who plan to change), largely from cellular biology and physiology. However, it will lose a slightly larger number (20 percent), mainly to cell biology, developmental biology, and disease mechanisms. Disease mechanisms attracts the second largest group (15 percent), largely from among those now engaged in cellular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, while developmental biology also seems attractive to those in the same group of research areas (12 percent). The survey revealed a particularly interesting trend. Some ecologists indicated plans to enter behavioral biology, while a significant number of physiologists and students of disease were seriously considering switching to ecology.

Projected Research Areas of Some Life Scientists.

Moreover, the perhaps not unexpected conservative migratory pattern is again evident from the responses of life scientists who intended to change the biological material with which they were working. In a general way, those now seriously contemplating such a change are, in the main, thinking of switching either to the next higher or the next lower level of biological organization, e.g., from broken cell preparations to cells or tissue culture or to molecular systems; or from intact organs to either intact organisms or cellular preparations.

Table 12 relates research areas to the principal employers of the 8,139 individuals for whom such information is available. Of this subset, institutions of higher learning employed 68 percent, the federal government 14 percent, industry 9 percent, and all other nonprofit organizations, hospitals, etc., 9 percent. Noteworthy are the high levels of employment by the federal government of those studying ecology and disease mechanisms; the government shows much less interest in developmental biology, morphology, and pharmacology. Private business employs an unusually high fraction of all nutritionists and pharmacologists, but appears to have little interest in ecology, systematic biology, or morphology.

Distribution of Investigators in Various Research Areas by Principal Employer.

A small insight into the changing dynamics of the life sciences is provided by observation of the fraction of the total population within each research area under 34 years of age. This fraction is remarkably close to 21 percent for virtually all research areas, with a few interesting exceptions. Only 11 percent of those engaged in the study of disease mechanisms are within this age group, presumably reflecting the long period of residency training for physicians. In contrast, 23 percent of those in developmental biology and 28 percent of those in molecular biology and biochemistry were under the age of 34 at the time of this survey, indicating that in the recent past these two fields, as compared with the other research areas, have become increasingly attractive to young scientists. Only 18 percent of all those attracted into the life sciences from the physical sciences were within this age group, indicating that there has been no dramatic upsurge of interest in the life sciences among young chemists or physicists.

The reverse situation is in accord with the same suggestions. For the entire population, 18 percent were 50 years of age or older, but only 12 percent of those in molecular biology and biochemistry fell within that age range, in contrast with 25–28 percent in the areas of disease mechanisms, evolutionary and systematic biology, morphology, and nutrition.

Of some interest are the attributes of the group of investigators originally trained only as M.D.'s or in the other health professions. They are older, with only 15 percent under 34 years of age, but 42 percent within the age span 40–49. Logically, disease mechanisms constitute their principal single interest (27 percent of the total), but they are also represented in every other research area with the exception of systematic biology, major interests being physiology (22 percent), molecular biology and biochemistry (15 percent), cellular biology (9 percent), and pharmacology (8 percent).

The 456 women showed only a few distinct tendencies to differ from the distribution of the men. Women tended to avoid physiology, ecology, and systematic and behavioral biology, and 28 percent of all female respondents work in molecular biology and biochemistry.

• POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING

Prior to World War II, postdoctoral research training experience was a privilege granted very few young scientists. Fellowships were scarce, and only the most highly talented could aspire to such opportunity. Since available research grants were decidedly limited in size, few senior academic investigators commanded the means to support eligible new M.D.'s or Ph.D.'s desirous of embarking upon the apprentice training characteristic of the postdoctoral experience. That situation no longer obtains. Postdoctoral experience has become almost the norm rather than the exception, and we are entirely convinced that this is in the national interest.

However, the situation has given rise to concern among those less closely associated with research in these disciplines. For example, agencies that provide support for postdoctoral training are uncertain of its value. Educational institutions in which postdoctoral fellows abound are uncertain of their institutional responsibility for this enterprise. Institutions that, perhaps until 1969, have had difficulty in recruiting sufficient staff to meet teaching obligations—largely the four-year colleges and junior colleges, but also a significant number of medical schools, as well as industry and some federal laboratories—have complained that the postdoctoral system is a holdup in the pipeline that, in the steady state, keeps a substantial number of bright young investigators out of the regular job market. We appreciate these problems, but consider that the benefits of postdoctoral education far outweigh these transient difficulties. Let us consider here the postdoctoral training experience of our responding population of life scientists. In the following chapter there is a summary of the numbers and activities of postdoctoral fellows in training in 1967–1968, as well as an analysis of the contribution of postdoctoral education to the operation of the entire endeavor.

Of the 12,151 investigators in the study, 5,041 had had at least one postdoctoral appointment, including 1,402 M.D.'s who had had postdoctoral experience in which research was their major responsibility. Three fourths of those who had had postdoctoral experience are now in academic life. Indeed, 45 percent of the 8,143 scientists now employed by universities had enjoyed postdoctoral experience, compared with 21 percent of the scientists in industry and 31 percent of those in the federal establishment. Taken across all disciplines, postdoctoral experience somewhat enhances the opportunity for employment in the federal government and markedly enhances the opportunity for employment in the universities. It is our impression that in universities with major commitments to graduate education and research, measured in supporting dollars and number of graduate students, faculty appointments for individuals who have not had postdoctoral experience are probably rare indeed. According to a National Academy of Sciences study of postdoctorals, * 74 percent of all new appointees to the rank of instructor or assistant professor in 21 departments of biological sciences in 10 “leading” institutions either came from other university faculties or had just held postdoctoral appointments.

However, the trend to postdoctoral education is not universal across all biological fields. For example, of the 855 individuals with graduate training in agricultural fields, only 35 had had postdoctoral appointments. In contrast, postdoctoral training was commonplace among M.D.'s since it has become the conventional medium for obtaining research training among this group.

As shown in Table 13 , postdoctoral training was less frequent among botanists (29 percent) than among biochemists (53 percent), with the other disciplines ranging in between. Postdoctoral training was frequently taken in fields other than those in which scholars had their initial doctoral experience. Thus, of the zoologists and botanists who did take postdoctoral training, less than half did so in zoology and botany departments. Again, the biochemists appear as the other extreme. Not only did a larger fraction of biochemists than other life scientists take postdoctoral training, but a decidedly larger fraction remained within biochemistry for their postdoctoral experiences. Since an additional 540 individuals who had taken their original graduate education in fields other than biochemistry sought postdoctoral training in biochemistry, postdoctoral education is a major aspect of life in biochemistry departments. Large numbers of those trained in biochemistry in graduate school later work in other disciplinary areas, while many individuals enrich their original disciplinary education by a one- or two-year postdoctoral experience in biochemistry and then, when they become independent investigators, return to their original disciplines and research areas or enter yet other research areas.

Postdoctoral Experience of Scientists in a Limited Group of Biological Disciplines.

These data uphold one of the primary arguments in support of the trend toward postdoctoral experience as a normal component of the education of those who later will espouse careers in which research is a major activity, viz., that this constitutes a unique opportunity to broaden one's horizons, learn new techniques, and become familiar with the style of other subdisciplines, while profiting by the examples of different master scientists. The overall situation is reflected in the totals of Table 13 . Of 5,765 Ph.D.'s in this file, 2,395 undertook postdoctoral experience, of whom 1,463, or 61 percent, extended their experience in the same disciplines in which they had studied in graduate school. But the impression that postdoctoral experience is a continuation of graduate education in 61 percent of all cases is misleading, since it is weighted by the fact that more than half of all of those who did experience this continuation were biochemists. If the biochemists are excluded, only 50 percent of the remaining scientists who undertook postdoctoral training did so in their graduate disciplines. Moreover, such an experience is but rarely a mere continuation of graduate education. This is borne out by the following consideration: In a subfile of 3,234 postdoctoral fellows, only 14 percent had taken postdoctoral education in the same university in which they had obtained their doctoral degrees, and only 6 percent in the same departments that had awarded their doctoral degrees. This migratory pattern is particularly evident among the M.D. population. However, about one third of all Ph.D.'s in agriculture and forestry who undertook their postdoctoral training—a rather small group—did so in their original universities and, indeed, in the departments that had awarded their degrees. The rather small proportion of students who remained in the same department for postdoctoral study was almost twice as great in public universities as in private universities.

In sum, it is clear that the norm for postdoctoral experience, by a wide measure, consists of apprenticeship to a different set of investigators in an environment different from that in which graduate education has been completed. Further, in the experience of our panelists, the current internal heterogeneity of the classical disciplines assured that even the postdoctoral trainee who remains within his original discipline is likely to engage in a problem remote from his graduate research experience. The biochemist who studied intermediary metabolism may later become preoccupied with the mechanism of enzyme action; the physiologist who traced neural pathways as a graduate student may focus upon ion transport across the nerve membrane during his postdoctoral years. The botanist who was concerned with nutritional requirements for plant growth may later become involved in the ecology of a cornfield, while the entomologist concerned with patterns of insect distribution may switch to a study of insect sex attractants. Intellectual inbreeding is rare in the life sciences community, and the postdoctoral experience is among the chief means of assuring the hybrid vigor of the entire enterprise.

A few notes comparing the bioscience subculture with the subcultures of the physical and social sciences may be warranted. The data in support of the following statements are derived largely from the recent National Research Council study of postdoctoral education, The Invisible University . *

In the nation's leading academic institutions, postdoctoral experience has become the expected prelude to faculty appointment. In recent times, 70 to 80 percent of all initial faculty appointments at such institutions in physics, in chemistry, in biology departments of faculties of arts and sciences, and in the preclinical departments of medical schools have been made to individuals with postdoctoral experience either at the same or at some other institution. In contrast, initial faculty appointments in the social sciences, the humanities, and engineering relatively rarely require postdoctoral experience. The play of the academic marketplace is such that the frequency of postdoctoral experience among initial appointees to the faculty decreases with the general academic status of the institution. Postdoctoral experience is less frequent among the faculties of “developing” universities, is rare for scientists who are appointed to the faculties of liberal arts colleges, and is even less common among those who enter industry.

The converse is equally evident; 30 to 40 percent of all relatively young faculty at all universities who have not had postdoctoral experience feel this lack in their current professional lives. In all branches of natural science, promotion up the academic ladder occurs somewhat less rapidly for those who have not had postdoctoral experience, although this may reflect similar appraisal of human potential by the committees who select postdoctoral-fellowship recipients and those who recommend academic promotions, rather than the intellectual rewards of postdoctoral study. These trends are undoubtedly enhanced by the advice given to aspiring scientists by their mentors in graduate school, who strongly urge students in the natural sciences to undertake postdoctoral experience if they aspire to academic careers but rarely do so when this is not the case. In general, such mentors recommend a postdoctoral experience of about two years, with a specific senior scientist in a field somewhat different from that in which the student's dissertation research was conducted, thereby broadening his understanding of his discipline. When queried, postdoctoral students advance the same general purpose as their reason for undertaking postdoctoral study, but place more emphasis than do their graduate mentors upon the acquisition of additional research techniques.

Attempts by statistical means to assess the influence on subsequent scientific productivity of postdoctoral training are not revealing. Differences among those who took postdoctoral training immediately after graduate school, those who deferred such training for several years, and those who had no such training are trivial when measured by counting numbers of scientific publications, reviews, books written, and similar measures. What cannot be assessed by this means is the quality of the work or its significance to the field. One indicator has been reported in The Invisible University * : the fact that papers published by those who have had postdoctoral experience are cited about twice as frequently in the Citation Index † as are papers by those who have not had such experience. Statistically, frequency of citation of a paper is some measure of its significance or fundamentally. It is our contention that, in all scientific fields, scientific boldness—willingness to venture beyond the frontier or to undertake large and challenging problems—is established relatively early. Certainly, if this is not encouraged in graduate school or in the immediate postdoctoral years, it is rarely evident in subsequent careers. But statistical assessment of this all-important quality is not readily feasible; hence, the enhanced opportunity to develop such habits of mind is another argument that we would advance in support of a year or two of postdoctoral study, preferably not in the same institution or with the same mentor that provided the graduate experience.

Data purporting to compare the consequences of graduate or postdoctoral study in the 10 or 20 leading academic institutions with those in other institutions are probably not completely valid. The selection process that operates at the level of admission to graduate school and then to postdoctoral study in the most productive academic laboratories already serves as a screen almost sufficient to assure the ultimate outcome. It is not readily possible to distinguish between the consequences of differences in the quality of the educational experiences in such institutions and the consequences of the quality of the initial human input. Certainly it must be undeniable that those most highly qualified will benefit most from a stimulating environment in which science is being conducted at its outermost frontiers.

• EDUCATIONAL LIMITATIONS

An attempt was made to estimate the extent to which working life scientists sense deficits in the educational preparation for their careers. Respondents to the questionnaire were asked to state whether their current research programs are significantly limited by their own educational preparation in chemistry, mathematics, physics, electronics, statistics, other areas of the life sciences, or the use of computers. In all, 4,396 scientists, 30.6 percent of the entire responding population, indicated that full development of their current research effort is indeed very seriously hindered by insufficient personal training in one or more of these disciplines. Lack of knowledge of chemistry was most frequently felt to be limiting (1,766 individuals), followed by computer science (1,569), mathematics (1,427), statistics (1,136), other biological sciences (1,085), and electronics (983), with only 498 life scientists acutely aware of insufficient personal training in physics.

Scientists in academic institutions were not distinguished from those working in nonacademic institutions with respect to this pattern of perceived inadequacies, although 38 percent of academic personnel were aware of some such limitation, and only 30 percent of nonacademic scientists were. In both groups, those in the middle of the age range (35–50 years) were about 30 percent more likely to be aware of such deficits than were younger or older investigators. Again, however, age was essentially without influence on the pattern of perceived disciplinary insufficiency; the rank order of disciplines cited above for the entire population was characteristic of the youngest, oldest, and midrange investigators alike.

• WITH WHAT MATERIALS DO LIFE SCIENTISTS WORK?

The panorama of the biological universe offers such remarkable and diverse organisms, ecological situations, environmental responses, and unanswered questions at levels varying from the molecular to the cosmic that it is not surprising that research biologists employ an almost equally disparate and diverse variety of approaches to the questions they put to nature. In Table 14 is displayed a representation of primary research materials and the extent to which these are utilized by those who work in various biological research areas.

The Research Materials of Life Scientists.

It may come as a surprise to some that mathematical models are utilized by representatives of almost every research area, most frequently by those engaged in the study of physiology, molecular biology and biochemistry, genetics, or biophysics and, increasingly, in studies of ecology. Molecular models are to be found in virtually every biochemical laboratory, and the refined, precise models now available have become an extremely important tool for those seeking to relate molecular structure to biological function. Indeed, 46 individuals stated that such models constitute their primary materials.

It was somewhat surprising to find 6 percent of the entire surveyed population engaged primarily in the development of analytical procedures of various types. Study of molecular systems, utilizing highly purified materials of natural origin, engaged 10 percent of the total population, including one third of the biochemists. A somewhat greater proportion of life scientists were studying the behavior of subcellular organelles, isolated or in situ . Such materials are utilized by scientists, except the ecologists, in all research areas and, as one might expect, are a principal preoccupation of cell biologists and biochemists. A small proportion (3 percent) of our population, most notably the cell biologists, were learning to use disassociated preparations of living cells, from either plant or animal sources, as primary tools in their studies. Tissue culture was twice as popular and was utilized by at least some scientists, including behavioral biologists, in every research area, while intact tissues and organs claimed the attention of 12 percent of the total population, involving all research categories except ecology—most notably morphologists, pharmacologists, physiologists, and developmental biologists.

Intact individual organisms were the test objects of one third of all life scientists in the study, notably the behavioral biologists and those studying disease mechanisms, ecology, systematic biology, genetics, nutrition, pharmacology, and physiology. Decidedly smaller numbers of scientists addressed themselves to entire populations of organisms or to ecosystems.

Of interest is the fact that the pattern of use of materials by those with original training in the health professions cannot be distinguished from that of the remainder of the population; their primary research materials simply reflect the pattern of all others in the research areas in which they now engage. Accordingly, their major research materials are whole organisms (32 percent), tissue and organ systems (23 percent), subcellular fractions (13 percent), cell cultures (8 percent), and molecular systems (9 percent).

Within each research area a few individuals are engaged in comparative studies either within a single phylum or plant division or across several phyla or plant divisions. Although students of evolution and systematic biology were the most numerous such group, these were only 44 of the 123 individuals so engaged.

• WITH WHAT SPECIES DO LIFE SCIENTISTS WORK?

The diversity of living nature never fails to astonish. The workings of evolution have resulted in millions of distinct species of living forms, unicellular, plant, and animal, all located in the thin web of life, which is a film on the surface of our planet. These are the objects of study for life scientists. But which species should one study? The answer depends upon the question that has been raised. Some species are of interest because they are the basis of our agricultural economy. Some make the world more beautiful and exciting; some cause disease of man, plant, or animal. Sometimes even the most obscure species provide excellent models for study of complex biological phenomena. And surely a proper object for study by man is man himself! Thus there are valid reasons for the study of a great variety of species.

Some species are of interest because they are intermediate links in a food chain, because they survive under what appear to be improbable conditions, or because they represent evolutionary extremes. Still others are of interest because they offer unique opportunities to study phenomena of general importance but difficult to analyze or observe in more common species. For example, the nerve net of the crab is of interest as a prototype of the more complex nervous system of the mammal; the response of certain insects to sugars can serve as a model for some aspects of the physiological bases of behavior; the “alarm reaction” of the clam is highly instructive with respect to certain reflex activities; the photosynthetic properties of the chromatophores of purple bacteria and of certain algae are more readily studied than is photosynthesis in a higher plant; regulation of the genome of a bacterium serves as a model for the process of differentiation in a higher organism; and the giant axon of the squid is the favorite test object of numerous neurophysiologists. Nutritionists long since seized on the omnivorous white rat as a model for human nutritional requirements, but primates may be more instructive with respect to human behavior or reaction to disease. The pig offers a surface area and mass somewhat comparable to that of man, and thus should serve as a model for human response to radiation. Comparison of the properties of hemoglobins from a wide variety of species elucidates those properties of the hemoglobin molecule that are imperative to its physiological function, and frog muscle has taught us much of what we understand of muscle physiology and its molecular aspects. The list is well-nigh endless.

And so it is that life scientists continue to study or exploit the properties of a great diversity of organisms. In a highly compressed form, this is displayed in Table 15 . Each of the respondents to the questionnaire was given a choice of 58 genera, phyla, or larger divisions of the plant, animal, and microbial kingdoms and was asked to indicate no more than two that most closely described the objects of his study. Hence, the number of specific responses exceeded the number of respondents. But hundreds of investigators indicated that necessarily and properly they should indicate more than two such entries.

Biological Materials Studied by Life Scientists.

Perhaps the aggregated totals are of greatest interest: 21 percent of all scientists dealt with one or another micro-organism, 15 percent with plant forms, and 54 percent with animal forms. None of the categories of living forms was totally ignored by the current activities of life scientists but, clearly, some are more attractive than others. Viruses and bacteria are the concern of scientists in each research area, particularly those who study disease mechanisms, cell biology, and molecular biology and biochemistry. Lower plants engage the attention of all but the nutritionists and pharmacologists, while higher plants attract the attention of all but the pharmacologists. Invertebrates are of great interest to the ecologists and the systematists as well as to the behavioral biologists, who see in them models for the behavior of more advanced forms. Surprisingly little attention is being given to the species of fish that dominate our commercial harvests, whereas other fish, amphibia, reptiles, and birds are receiving greater attention. Of the mammalia, man and the common laboratory rodents are the most frequent study objects. The great utility of the latter is indicated by the fact that, whereas ecologists and systematic biologists pay them scant heed and only 6 percent of all geneticists make use of their particular attributes, these species are utilized by 12 percent of the behavioral biologists and 37 percent of the pharmacologists. Domestic mammals, i.e., cats and dogs, are particularly useful to the physiologists, pharmacologists, nutritionists, and morphologists and are used to some degree by almost all other groups.

Although 5 percent of all behavioral biologists and 4 percent of the morphologists report that they work with small primates, primates are little used by workers in other scientific areas. However, there is reason to think that this reflects not the utility of these species, but the great costs involved in their acquisition and maintenance, which have inhibited, if not prohibited, their utilization for a variety of studies in which they could be extraordinarily useful.

In contrast, millions of species currently go unstudied, and many others are under scrutiny by only one or two investigators. When, from time to time, such an investigator directs attention to some unique or remarkable attribute of a seemingly esoteric species, it can rapidly claim the attention of many other scientists, an incident that has recurred many times in the past. Thus, the bacterium Escherichia coli has become the most thoroughly studied of all cells, while both neurophysiologists and molecular biologists have recently seized upon the tiny marine organism Aplysia because of its easily studied giant nerve cells. In any case, the diversity of species under study demands an equal diversity of laboratory accommodations for their culture or maintenance. This may engender substantial expenditures and contribute much to the cost of scientific investigation, particularly in extreme instances. Elaborate facilities are required for the conduct of research employing cells in culture. Inadequate accommodations, overcrowding, or infestation can render a colony of dogs or rodents useless to the investigator and give rise to misleading data. Humane considerations demand that larger domestic mammals—cats, dogs, and primates—be housed in decent quarters, be wellnourished, and be subjected to the minimum of trauma commensurate with the purposes of study. This in turn creates further serious financial requirements, which should be borne by some institutional mechanism and not met by taking funds from personal research grants made to individual investigators. Certain plants and animals require carefully controlled environments; a continuing supply of virus may require a colony of host animals, a large-scale fermentor, or a large tissue-culture facility. Most importantly, all these demand substantial expenditures merely to assure a supply of the biological entity to be studied before the research proper can be undertaken.

• WHAT FACILITIES AND TOOLS DO LIFE SCIENTISTS USE?

The classic image of the biologist is an aging gentleman, wrapped in a dirty laboratory apron, in a musty laboratory surrounded by museum jars, an ancient, battered microscope, staining jars for microscope slides, and perhaps an unwashed dissecting table. If that image ever corresponded to reality, it no longer does. As the questions we ask of nature become more sophisticated and the information we seek becomes more remote from that which we can acquire with our naked senses, the requirements for the conduct of research in the life sciences become more complex. Today, in order to achieve his ends, the investigator may have to travel thousands of miles from his home base, armed with telemetering equipment, tape recorders, or remote sensors. He may require a floating laboratory, a deep-submersible vessel, a reconnaissance plane, or even a satellite equipped with infrared sensors. He may utilize the gadgetry of modern biochemistry— ultracentrifuges, equipment for optically following the course of kinetic processes on the scale of milliseconds or of molecular-relaxation times (10 −9 sec), for the quantitation of visible or ultraviolet light or radioactivity. His laboratory may be what amounts to a small electronics plant equipped with the complex electronic apparatus needed for the study of neurophysiology, and his experiment may be guided by an on-line computer. Increasingly, the tools of any biological subdiscipline tend to become the tools in many other areas of biology. As we have noted repeatedly, this is particularly true of the tools of the biochemist, which have become the tools of all biologists.

Specialized Biological Research Facilities

Table 16 summarizes the replies from respondents whose completed questionnaires usefully indicated their utilization of specialized research facilities. The spectrum of such activity is broad indeed. For example, we were surprised at the high rate of utilization of controlled field areas, which seemingly are employed by participants in each of the research areas. Computer centers are available to and utilized by a strikingly high fraction of all life scientists, and general animal care facilities appear to be utilized by almost half the scientists covered by our survey. Indeed, it is difficult to correlate specific types of facilities with specific research areas. Notable exceptions include the 87 percent of all systematists and 44 percent of ecologists who utilized taxonomic research collections, the 51 percent of cell biologists who employed cell- or tissue-culture facilities, and the 76 percent of all pharmacologists who made use of general animal care facilities. The existence of the specialized facilities listed here was known to the Survey Committee, but the extent of use was not anticipated.

Utilization of Specialized Biological Research Facilities.

Rarely can the cost of acquisition and maintenance of such facilities be justified by the research program of a single investigator; hence, no small or medium-sized institution can hope to have a complete selection of these opportunities for conduct of research. This has the effect of either limiting the capabilities of the staff of such institutions or so affecting their recruitment patterns that, at each institution, there are clusters of investigators whose research requires easy access to the same major research facility. For smaller institutions, this fact, in turn, may well prevent the assembly of a staff broadly representative of biology.

Major Instruments

Table 17 displays the utilization of major instruments by life scientists during 1966–1967. Like Table 16 , this table is limited to those respondents whose replies to the questionnaire were found adequate to the purpose. And, as in Table 16 , what is impressive is the extent of use of the wide variety of instruments listed and the relative amount of use without regard to specific research areas, again with a few notable exceptions. This table well illustrates how the tools developed for biochemical studies have become the tools of biology in general; this is evident in the use pattern of centrifuges, gas chromatographs, amino acid analyzers, scintillation counters, infrared and ultraviolet spectrophotometers, as well as electrophoresis apparatus. These common tools of the biochemical laboratory are now the common tools of the biological laboratory. Specialized uses of instruments will, however, be found in the table. For example, large-scale fermentors are used largely by biochemists; multichannel recorders are required by physiologists and pharmacologists; small special computers by physiologists. Biochemists are pioneering in the use of ultrasonic probes, and electron paramagnetic resonance and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers, as well as instruments for measuring circular dichroism. The physiologists are the major users of infrared carbon dioxide analyzers, and the clinicians interested in disease mechanisms utilize complex electronic systems for monitoring human physiology, while systematists use telemetry and sensitive tape recorders.

Utilization of Instruments by Life Scientists.

The utilization of the electron microscope is particularly revealing. This instrument, slowly introduced into biological laboratories in the years following World War II, is now used by investigators in every research area. In absolute numbers, those interested in molecular biology and biochemistry, cellular biology, disease mechanisms, and physiology are the principal users. But 48 percent of all those studying morphology and 44 percent of those studying cellular biology made use of this instrument. The great expense of acquisition and maintenance of these instruments prevents the figures for utilization from approximating 100 percent of those in both of the latter research areas.

One should not leave the subject of instruments without a tribute to the instrument-manufacturing industry. This highly competitive industry has frequently been a jump ahead of most life scientists. In general, instrument manufacturers have recognized needs and potential uses before the scientific community has. Yet, as each instrument has become available—e.g., ultraviolet spectrophotometers, electrophoresis apparatus, scintillation counters, electron microscopes, and multichannel recorders—not long thereafter the scientists involved have wondered how they had ever made progress before these commercial instruments became available. As the markets grow, the instruments become more refined, more reliable, and more versatile, thereby enormously enhancing the reliability, sophistication, and ease of performance of biological research. The availability of such instruments has been made possible by the very scale of federal support of the life sciences. By creating a sufficient market, the manufacturer has, in turn, been able to achieve economies of large-scale production, keeping the unit cost and sales price down. (It is ironic that, although the electron microscope was developed by an American firm, and this country is the major market for this instrument, no American manufacturer now supplies it.)

Nor should we fail to acknowledge our debt to our brethren in physics, chemistry, and engineering. From them came the electron microscope, spectrophotometers, the electron paramagnetic and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers, ultrasonic gear, the great variety of oscilloscopes, x-ray crystallographic analysis systems, the laser, telemetry, and a host of other devices. To their designers and developers, the biological community extends its gratitude.

• THE RESEARCH GROUP

Research in the life sciences is “small science”; only rarely is it organized around some very large and expensive piece of apparatus or facility. Whereas much research in other areas of science revolves about large accelerators, research vessels, telescopes, balloon-launching facilities, rocket facilities, or large magnets, for example, there are few parallels in the life sciences. Occasional exceptions include relatively elaborate hyperbaric facilities, primate colonies, colonies of germ-free animals, phytotrons or biotrons, biosatellites, museums, or marine-biology stations. But these are the exceptions rather than the rule, and even in these instances, the facilities in question are actually utilized by numbers of small research groups, each pursuing its own questions in its own way, while taking advantage of the availability of the facilities. In very few instances have the various groups that, collectively, used such a facility comprised a coordinated whole with common goals and objectives. The functional unit of research in the life sciences, therefore, usually consists of a principal investigator and the postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and technicians who work with him. According to data collected by the Study of Postdoctoral Education of the National Academy of Sciences, * the mean such research group, in addition to the faculty member, is 6.1 members in academic biology departments, 7.6 in biochemistry departments, 5.3 in physiology departments, and 4.0 in clinical specialties. These may be compared with 5.8 members in physics and 8.3 in chemistry. When, however, research groups without postdoctoral are considered, these units are distinctly smaller, receding to 4.6, 3.9, and 4.0 in biology, biochemistry, and physiology, respectively, and 3.2 and 5.2 in physics and chemistry.

This scale of operation was borne out by reports from the individual investigators surveyed in the study. For all principal investigators, the mean was 6.5 persons per research group, in addition to the principal investigator himself, ranging from 4.4 for investigators engaged in studies of systematic biology to 8.0 for those studying disease mechanisms. Perhaps surprisingly, the sizes of groups were much the same in academic and nonacademic laboratories. Approximately equal numbers of co-investigators and professional staff are found in both classes of laboratories. The graduate students, who vary in academic laboratories from 1.5 to 4.0 students per group (the extremes being represented by morphology and behavioral biology, respectively), with an overall average for all biological disciplines of 2.2 students per group, are replaced in nonacademic laboratories by technicians and other supporting staff.

Thus, in general, the typical academic laboratory contains a principal investigator, a co-investigator, and one other scientist with a doctoral degree who may be a visiting scientist, postdoctoral fellow, or continuing research associate, two technicians, and two or three graduate students. Federal laboratories may have one or two postdoctorals in place of the graduate students, while industrial laboratories utilize additional technicians. The routine tasks of the laboratory are generally performed by the technicians, while the graduate students and postdoctoral fellows serve as junior co-investigators and colleagues for the principal investigator. In our view, such a research group does indeed constitute something close to optimal for the conduct of “small science,” particularly in the life sciences. Graduate students and postdoctorals are spared some of the drudgery of routine analyses after they have learned to perform such analyses and understand their limitations, and the total group combines a mixture of experience, expertise, ideas from other disciplines, and youthful enthusiasm. We can only conclude that, however haphazard the various mechanisms by which such an enterprise is funded, the average working unit is sufficiently large to attain an intellectual critical mass and to sustain the pace of exciting investigation while training the novice investigator for his future career.

Although this report gives emphasis to the research and education endeavor of the universities, it remains possible for dedicated scholars to pursue meaningful research in the biology departments of the independent four-year colleges. Biology is still mainly “small science,” and research in many subdisciplines can be conducted with relatively modest support. When access to major equipment is required, this is frequently arranged with the faculty of a nearby university or undertaken during the summer at some properly equipped institution. These efforts constitute a significant part of the total life sciences research endeavor.

There are, however, important exceptions to this “small science” pattern. Decidedly larger aggregates of scientists, focused on a single goal, have been brought together to design a biological experiment for a space probe or to study the ecology of a major biome. The integrated approach to environmental research, stimulated by the International Biological Program, promises to open new levels of understanding of the functioning, resilience, and critical sensitivities of man-dominated ecosystems. In this program, teams of ecologists, social scientists, and physical scientists— as many as 150 individuals—cooperate in the analysis of entire ecosystems, such as the Western grasslands, the Eastern deciduous forests, or the Southwestern desert. Their data are compiled, coordinated, and utilized to construct mathematical models of these large systems, one day to be integrated with models of the atmospheres of the same regions. These systems involve so many components and multiple interactions that realistic abstractions or simplifications must be designed for simulation on large digital computers. The model is a combination of mathematical expressions and statistical probability distributions representing the processes and interactions of the system, as from soil to plant or plant to animal, and the impact of temperature on energy flow. A properly designed model can be used to suggest the potentially most fruitful field experiments from among the multitude that might be conducted, to identify gaps in existing knowledge through deficiencies in model performance, and to suggest optimal courses of action in managing real-world ecosystems. In the medical schools, large groups with representatives from several clinical or preclinical departments coalesce to collaborate on some aspect of cardiovascular, neurological, or neoplastic disease. These groups can number from 20 to 200 scientists and may well serve as forerunners of an era of “big biology.”

• WHAT DO LIFE SCIENTISTS DO?

The average life scientist employed in an institution of higher learning devotes about half his time to research, 10 to 20 percent to administration, a fourth to a third of his time to instruction, and the balance to assorted other responsibilities. The actual distribution, of course, varies with the type of institution and the specific disciplinary field and according to whether he has clinical responsibility. This pattern is clearly in contrast with that of life scientists employed by nonacademic institutions, for whom research is, to an even greater extent, their dominant responsibility, demanding about 70 percent of their effort, while the remainder of their time is largely devoted to administrative responsibilities. Surprisingly, nonacademic scientists report that they engage in instruction that varies in percentages of their time from 0 to 10 percent—about 3 percent for the entire group but 8.5 percent for physicians. The physicians also give a sixth of their time to clinical care and hence can devote only about half their time to research. Some pertinent data in this regard are summarized in Table 18 .

Percentage Distribution of Work Time of Some Life Scientists.

The same set of respondents, 6,125 scientists in academic institutions and 3,054 scientists in nonacademic institutions, were also queried with respect to whether the research in which they were engaged was basic, clinical, or applied. It was made clear that these designations were not necessarily mutually exclusive and, indeed, that an individual could check more than one of these categories if he felt that this was appropriate, particularly if he was engaged in more than one research project. Some of the resultant data are shown in Table 19 . It is not surprising that scientists outside the academic world engage in applied and clinical research. But it may be surprising that 22 percent of all life scientists in institutions of higher learning indicated that their research is applied in some degree. By their own judgment, 76 percent of academically employed physicians indicate that they are engaged in basic research, and only 12 percent state that the research that they are doing is “applied” in some fashion. Quite logically, entomologists and the faculty of agriculture schools consider that a large fraction of their research is directed toward application. Conversely, while it was to be anticipated that 48 percent of all life scientists employed outside the academic world engage in applied research, the fact that 79 percent of all such scientists consider that they are engaged in some fundamental research was somewhat surprising. It indicates that the prejudices of many young scientists against careers outside the academic setting, for lack of opportunity to engage in basic research, may well be ill founded.

Types of Research Conducted by Some Life Scientists.

In any case, the reader will recognize that there is no meaningful close definition of the terms “basic” and “applied” in these regards and that these indications by our respondents reflect their motivation in addressing specific problems and not the character of the work. By this measure, one investigator studying sodium transport in human erythrocytes may classify it as “basic” research; another may consider the same study “clinical,” only because human cells are employed for the purpose; and a third may view it as applied, since he hopes to develop a new drug. Taking into consideration these broad caveats, the data of Table 19 provide a useful description of the world of biological research.

• FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH IN THE LIFE SCIENCES

Research in the life sciences is a substantial national enterprise in which the United States invested $2,264 million in fiscal year 1967*; of this, 30 percent was provided by industry, 4.1 percent by foundations and other private granting agencies, 1.2 percent by academic institutions from their own resources, 0.3 percent by local and state governments, and 60.3 percent by the federal government, principal patron of the endeavor. Table 20 summarizes federal expenditures for life science research in fiscal year 1968. Research supported by industry was largely conducted in-house. In all, biomedical research conducted within federal laboratories required the expenditure of approximately $435 million. In part because of the proprietary nature of industrial biomedical research, and largely because the “principal investigator” in industrial and federal laboratories functions with a large supporting organization for whose expenditures he is not responsible, it was patently impossible to obtain, by questionnaire, meaningful data concerning research expenditures from individual scientists in these two sectors. Our data, therefore, are restricted to information provided by individual life scientists employed by academic institutions and by academic department chairmen. Only the former are considered in this chapter; the latter are discussed in the succeeding chapter. The collected data, summarized in Tables 21 , 22 , and 23 , indicate that in fiscal year 1967 the 4,046 responding academic life scientists, each of whom was principal investigator of one or more research grants or contracts, had available to them, collectively, $162,883,000 in support of the direct costs of research. The growth of this system is indicated by the fact that, in the previous year, the same investigators had available $134,726,000 and, in the prior year, $115,319,000. It is most unfortunate that we have no data for the same group in fiscal years 1969 or 1970, and, hence, no realistic data base with which to examine the consequences of the alterations in federal funding of science that have occurred since our questionnaires were distributed.

Federal Obligations for Research in Life Sciences, by Agency and Discipline—Fiscal Year 1968 (In Thousands of Dollars).

Financial Support of Academic Research in the Life Sciences (In Millions of Dollars).

Numbers of Research Grants and Contracts Awarded to 4,046 Academic Life Scientists.

Average Size of Research Grant (Direct Costs) in Thousands of Dollars.

It will be seen that, using our categorizations of the life sciences, molecular biology and biochemistry commanded one fourth of all reported support, a substantial fraction of which went to individuals with appointments in clinical departments. Following, in rank order, were physiology (17 percent) and disease mechanisms (14 percent). Only 1 percent of the total support went to scientists who stated that they were studying morphological problems and 2 percent, each, to those engaged in behavioral biology and in the study of systematic biology and evolution, with other research areas distributed in between.

The magnitude of support reported for the research area of disease mechanisms is disturbing in that, proportionally, it is very significantly under-represented. While the relative support per research area for all other areas may be considered a reasonably fair indication of the fraction of total national support that they command, this is surely not the case for disease mechanisms, presumably due to the disproportionately low response to our questionnaire by clinical investigators. Thus, it is highly doubtful that the support of research directly concerned with disease mechanisms by the National Institutes of Health is only 15 percent of its extramural research program, since half of its total extramural research support is granted to clinical investigators.

Caution is necessary in interpreting these data, however, because of the failure of the questionnaire to be sufficiently precise in guiding the respondents. Although “disease,” broadly taken, is the concern of clinicians and pathologists, there are no aspects of the study of disease, other than access to human patients, that are unique to their endeavors. In addressing himself to cardiac disease, the clinician may actually function as a physiologist who studies vector cardiography or analyzes the composition of blood obtained by catheterization of one of the cardiac chambers; or he may be concerned with the etiology and pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and so utilize the techniques and understanding of the biochemist or nutritionist. Concerned with a hereditary disorder, he may consider himself a human geneticist; if studying changes in the architectonics of the brain, he may view himself as a morphologist or even a student of evolution. If engaged in elucidation of the causative agent of an infectious disease, he may function, variously, as a cell biologist or a biochemist, while, if he is testing a drug in the hope of finding a successful therapeutic procedure, he is, at least for the time being, a pharmacologist. Accordingly, it is entirely possible that students of disease, its etiology, pathogenesis, incidence, or therapy, may well have indicated that their current research area lies in some category other than “disease mechanisms,” thus unintentionally distorting the interpretation that might be applied to these data.

The pattern of support from the National Science Foundation contrasts with that from the National Institutes of Health. Both supported molecular biology and biochemistry more heavily than any other category, but, whereas the National Institutes of Health also contributed in a large way to the study of physiology and disease mechanisms, the National Science. Foundation was clearly the principal supporter of systematic biology. The Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of the Interior, while contributing only 4 percent and 1 percent, respectively, to the total support of these life sciences, were particularly concerned with ecology. The principal thrust of support by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which contributed only 1 percent of the reported federal total, was in physiology, while only the Department of Agriculture and diverse industrial contributors allocated as much as one seventh of their research funds to studies involving nutrition.

Of interest is the fact that, whereas the voluntary societies were organized to combat the dread diseases, only 22 percent of their funds went to scientists who classified their own research as bearing directly on disease mechanisms, whereas one third of their support went to investigators in molecular biology and biochemistry, and one seventh each to studies of physiology and cellular biology. Clearly, the administrators of these societies were sufficiently understanding of the problems involved in treating and preventing these diseases to recognize the need for relevant basic research.

Table 21 indicates clearly that indeed the federal government is the principal patron of these areas of scientific endeavor. Three fourths of all funds in direct support of research derived from the federal government, while one sixth of such funds was provided out of the academic institutions' own resources. The low figures quoted for support by state and municipal agencies refer to direct granting activity, but the state budgets for the public universities contributed in major degree to the 16 percent of all directly research-supporting funds that are stated to have come from the institutions' own resources.

Particularly disappointing is the low order of contribution to research support provided by industry, private foundations, voluntary societies, and individual contributors shown in Table 21 . This is the consequence not so much of a low frequency of granting activity as it is of the relatively small awards actually made by these sources, as shown in Tables 22 and 23 . Thus, the average grant from industry was only $4,000, that from the voluntary societies, $10,000, and that from private foundations, $13,000. These figures are in contrast to grants from the National Science Foundation ($14,000), the National Institutes of Health ($30,000), and the federal average of $25,000.

Of some interest is the pattern of support by discipline. Typical grants in nutrition, ecology, and systematic biology are of the order of $15,000 per year, whereas grants to investigators in most of the other research areas were about twice as large.

Utilization of Research Grants

Typically, a research grant is utilized to provide consumable supplies, major and minor equipment, salaries of technicians and clerical staff, travel and publication costs, stipends for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting investigators, as well as a variable fraction of the salary of the principal investigator not to exceed that fraction of his annual effort invested in the research project in question. Uniquely, research grants to clinical investigators may require expenditures in support of the basic costs of maintaining patients in hospitals; other grants may provide for unusual purposes such as ship time, international travel either to meetings or for work in the field, and, increasingly frequently, computer time. The relative distribution of expenditures among these various areas from research grants in support of research in the life sciences was not ascertained by the present study. However, data describing the general patterns of funding by the National Science Foundation are summarized in Table 24 .

Utilization of Funds from an Average Two-Year Research Grant in the Life Sciences—National Science Foundation—1968.

Research Support as a Function of the Investigator's Age

In a general way, increasing research support comes to the academic investigator as he gains seniority in the system. As shown in Figure 34 , this is clearly true for investigators supported by the National Institutes of Health and most other sources. The figures shown for “all sources” represent the simple arithmetic means for all grants from all sources. Because of the relatively large number of small grants from the National Science Foundation, industry, foundations, and voluntary societies, the mean grant size for all sources is decidedly less than that shown for the National Institutes of Health. Nevertheless, the trend is quite apparent: individual research support attains a maximum at 50 to 60 years of age and declines thereafter. This phenomenon is scarcely visible for the National Science Foundation, largely because this beleaguered agency strives to stretch its available resources as far as it can to support all qualified applicant investigators whose proposals fall within its purview, thus markedly reducing the amount of money available per applicant investigator.

Research support of life scientists as a function of their age. (Source: Survey of Individual Life Scientists, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Research in the Life Sciences.)

• RESEARCH INSTITUTES

The preceding survey of the major parameters of the world of biological research fails to convey the myriad arrangements for both research and education in biology. It ignores the dozens of small research institutes in which excellent investigators quietly pursue their research, occasionally with profound impact on the conceptual development of biology. The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for Quantitative Biology has had a brilliant record of achievement, and its summer courses have trained virtually all those who have led the modern development of virus and bacterial genetics, a major segment of molecular biology. Developmental biology and some aspects of neurophysiology have received great stimulus from the research and education programs of marine-biology stations such as that at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Much of the current understanding of neurochemistry and the physiology of the brain has been obtained at small research institutes under private or state auspices, while ecology has grown at a multitude of field stations remote from their parent institutions.

• NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS

Natural history museums, with their combinations of scientists, research collections, and field stations are unique non-degree-granting academic institutions for research and graduate training. Quite apart from its role in public education through exhibits, a natural history museum contributes to the acquisition of scientific knowledge in two principal ways.

Its staff of scientists may engage in original research in systematic biology, evolutionary biology, ecology, geophysics, astrophysics, oceanography, and many other fields of science, depending upon their academic training and scientific interests. While many museum scientists depend on specialized collections in conducting their investigations, an increasing number engage in field and laboratory experimental studies of living organisms, or of ecological problems in natural settings. Their collections provide the basis for taxonomic-classification services necessary to many other scientists and also provide a base line for ecological studies.

The combination of resident scientists, research collections, and field research facilities provides intellectually attractive settings for visiting scientists. The number of graduate students who receive part or all of their graduate training in natural history museums is impressive and increasing.

Natural history museums, as both forums and research settings for systematists, ecologists, and environmental scientists, are becoming increasingly important as a national scientific resource, despite a long history of public neglect.

• BIOLOGICAL DISCIPLINES

For brevity and conciseness, we found it useful to structure all the life sciences into a dozen research areas. But this should not conceal the rich and diverse infrastructure of the life sciences. As we have seen, classical disciplinary labels have lost their meaning, but one could readily describe a hundred or more subdisciplines based on the work of groups of likeminded scientists who have blended the approaches of several older disciplines in attacks on some specific subsets of biological problems. A few examples are cited in the following paragraph.

Photobiologists, well versed in optics and the physics of light, are variously concerned with the mechanism of vision, the events in photosynthesis, the emission of light by bacterial and animal forms (the biological purpose of light emission by all but fireflies being not at all evident), and the photoinactivation of enzymes and viruses. Neuroscientists bring the skills of electrophysiology, cellular biology, molecular biology, and communications theory to bear on studies of information processing in the nervous system. Oncologists, focusing on the essential nature of the transformation of normal cells into malignant ones, are similarly a group apart, borrowing from every major discipline that may be of help, while vascular physiologists necessarily borrow from hydrodynamics and studies of urban traffic flow as they study the operation of a capillary bed or a major blood vessel. Physical anthropology is a subdiscipline that contributes to the total endeavor while it provides a bridge from the biological to the social sciences. It is the study of the bodily manifestations of human variation—in particular, the description of human body size, shape, and function in the light of man's history—and the role of heredity, environment, and culture in bringing about man's present diversity. The biological anthropologist aims to understand human physical variation and to apply his knowledge for human betterment through medicine and engineering.

As concern with the environment grows, an increasing number of physicians and biologists of many backgrounds have generated the area of research and practice called “environmental health,” the concern of one of the panels of this survey. More sophisticated understanding of this field should permit society to enjoy the fruits of an advancing technology, a superior living environment, and freedom to develop a society with fewer restraints and tensions. Past effort is minuscule compared with the magnitude of the problem. Since the problems increase with increasing population density and developing technology, efforts at controlling the environment, and thus the health of the population, must keep pace. Indeed, in a very real sense, students of environmental health serve technology by providing the knowledge permitting its benefits to be enjoyed without adventitious adverse effects on the health of man and, more broadly, on the environment of man. Thus, support of an adequate level of competence in environmental health is indispensable to a society that elects to make optimal use of the fruits of technology. Accordingly, the environmental-health resources of the nation must first be expanded to catch up with the problems now with us and thereafter be developed, along with technological development, to provide an adequate preventive program. Current support of research in environmental health probably lies between $30 million and $50 million per year; support for training for both research and practice is between $9 million and $18 million per year and is known to support (in 1969) 974 candidates for the master's degree, 981 candidates for the Ph.D., and 148 postdoctoral fellows.

A broad federal policy is needed, with a long-range plan of attack upon the whole problem of environmental deterioration and with better identification of the separate missions and responsibilities of the several federal departments and agencies. Only with such a policy will it be possible to develop in an orderly way the required training programs to supply the personnel needed for both research and practice, both within and outside the government, necessary to build a strong foundation for effective control programs against environmental-health hazards, a foundation that must rest on the entire current understanding of the life sciences.

Thus, the world of research in the life sciences is marvelously diverse. Tens of thousands of scientists in a thousand institutions contribute to its progress. They migrate between institutions, between classes of institutions, and between subfields of biology. They are quick to seize upon any new instruments or techniques, without regard to whether these are initially devised for use in the physical sciences or for some other research area in the life sciences. Biochemistry has become the language of biology, providing the bridge to the physical sciences, but it has yet to be applied to the farthest reaches of organismal biology. The federal government is the principal sponsor of the entire endeavor and, for the indefinite future, only the federal government can sponsor an effort of this magnitude. Its success will affect all aspects of our lives, and its conduct has become one of the central purposes of our civilization.

Basic Data Relating to the National Institutes of Health 1969, Associate Director for Program Planning and Evaluation and the Division of Research Grants, National Institutes of Health. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1969, p. 4.

The Invisible University: Postdoctoral Education in the United States, Report of a Study Conducted under the Auspices of the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1969.

Science Citation Index; An International Interdisciplinary Index to the Literature of Science. (Published by Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia.)

• Cite this Page National Academy of Sciences (US) Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. The Life Sciences: Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs: The World of Biological Research Requirements for the Future. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1970. CHAPTER THREE, THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH.

In this Page

Recent activity.

• THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH - The Life Sciences THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH - The Life Sciences

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Utility Menu

Why Life Sciences?

What is the life sciences at harvard university.

Studying the life sciences will provide you with a foundation of scientific knowledge and ways of exploring the world.  The life sciences pervade so many aspects of our lives – from health care, to the environment, to debates about stem cell research and genetic testing.  While dramatic scientific progress has been made in recent decades, so much remains unknown.  In studying the life sciences at Harvard, you will engage with how we know what we know, and you will learn to think like a scientist.   You will have the opportunity to engage in original research, in world-class laboratories.  You will be part of a community of students with broad interests across the life sciences.  You will be supported in your explorations by a team of dedicated advisors.

Alert Banner

Japan-based nipro medical corp. will invest $397.8m to develop a new manufacturing facility in greenville, creating more than 232 jobs. full story here ..

What are Life Sciences?

The simplest way to define life sciences is the study of living organisms and life processes..

At NCBiotech, we see it as science involving cells and their components, products and processes. Biology, medicine and agriculture are the most obvious examples of the discipline. However, in recent years, a convergence is underway that requires a multi-discipline approach. For example, biologists, chemists, and robotics and automation engineers will work together to develop new solutions.

What is Biotechnology?

Biotechnology, the most prominent component of the life sciences, is a toolbox that leverages our understanding of the natural sciences to create solutions for our world's problems. We use biotechnology to grow food to feed families and to make medicines and vaccines to fight diseases. We even turn to biotechnology for new innovations, such as leveraging plants to manufacture medicines and create alternative fuels. 

How Biotechnology Works

Biotechnology is grounded in the pure biological sciences of genetics, microbiology, animal cell cultures, molecular biology, embryology and cell biology. Biotechnology discoveries are intimately entwined in the life sciences industry sectors for development in agricultural biotechnology , biomanufacturing , human health , precision medicine and medical devices and diagnostics. For example, biomedical researchers use their understanding of genes, cells and proteins to pinpoint the differences between diseased and healthy cells. Once they discover how diseased cells are altered, researchers can more easily develop new medical diagnostics, devices and therapies to treat diseases and chronic conditions.

History of Biotech

Biotech has led us to the greatest innovations. Since 1984, North Carolina has nurtured its life sciences assets, firmly establishing itself as a leading U.S. life sciences hub characterized by steady growth of companies and talent statewide. Diverse, specialized subsectors, serve a variety of needs globally. The state pivoted from its deep roots in agriculture and furniture manufacturing to focus on biotechnology.  In the early 2000s, as more biotech products gained regulatory approval, companies expanded production capacity. This led to the state's growing demand for skilled biopharmaceutical manufacturing workers. Workforce development programs continue to fuel our state's talent pool. This talent pool, in turn, helps to recruit new life sciences companies and supports local company growth.

The Future of Biotech

Today, North Carolina is home to more than 830 life sciences companies, a talent pool of 75,000 skilled workers and an additional 2,500 companies that support the sector. According to the 2022 TEConomy Report , despite the COVID-19 pandemic and economic challenges, the state's life sciences growth has outpaced national growth, placing itself among the top-tier life sciences hubs. 

North Carolina has long invested in scientific infrastructure to fuel innovation. With three top-tier research universities, scientific innovations are seeding new spinouts and advancing technologies to the next level.  

Through our strengths in research and development, talent, training and scientific infrastructure, North Carolina will remain at the forefront of biotechnology and life sciences.

What is Life Science?

In this article, we will delve into the world of Life Sciences, exploring its various branches and the critical role they play in our understanding of life on Earth.

Life Sciences, often referred to as biology, is a diverse and fascinating field of study that focuses on understanding living organisms and the fundamental processes that govern life. It encompasses a wide range of disciplines, each contributing to our knowledge of the natural world. Life Sciences explore everything from the tiniest microorganisms to the complex ecosystems that shape our planet. In this article, we will delve into the world of Life Sciences , exploring its various branches and the critical role they play in our understanding of life on Earth.

What does Life Science do?

Life Science is a multifaceted field that seeks to answer some of the most profound questions about life itself. Its primary objectives include:

• Understanding Life : Life Sciences strive to comprehend the nature of life, including its origins, evolution, and the mechanisms that drive living organisms.
• Promoting Health : Many aspects of Life Sciences are dedicated to improving human health and well-being. This includes studying diseases, developing new medicines, and advancing medical technologies.
• Preserving Biodiversity : Life Sciences play a pivotal role in the conservation of Earth's biodiversity by studying ecosystems, endangered species, and the impact of human activities on the environment.
• Advancing Agriculture : Botany and genetics are vital for enhancing crop yields and developing pest-resistant plants, contributing to food security.
• Informing Policy : Life Sciences provide the scientific basis for environmental policies, public health measures, and conservation efforts, helping society make informed decisions.

Now, let's explore some of the key branches within Life Sciences.

Ecology is the study of the relationships between organisms and their environments. Ecologists examine how living organisms interact with each other and with their surroundings, from individual species to entire ecosystems. This branch of Life Sciences is crucial for understanding environmental issues like climate change, habitat loss, and biodiversity conservation.

Botany is the study of plants, encompassing their structure, growth, reproduction, and ecological roles. Botanists explore the diverse world of plant life, from the tiniest algae to towering trees. Their research contributes to agriculture, forestry, and our understanding of the natural world.

Zoology focuses on the study of animals, ranging from microscopic organisms to large mammals. Zoologists investigate animal behavior, physiology, evolution, and conservation. This field helps us understand the incredible diversity of life forms on our planet.

Entomology is a specialized branch of Zoology that specifically studies insects. With over a million known species, insects are the most diverse group of animals on Earth. Entomologists delve into their biology, behavior, and ecological roles, with implications for pest control and ecosystem health.

Microbiology

Microbiology delves into the microscopic world of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other microorganisms. Microbiologists play a critical role in medicine, industry, and environmental science. They study the interactions of microorganisms with humans, animals, and the environment.

Cell Biology

Cell Biology focuses on the smallest unit of life: the cell. Cell biologists investigate the structure and function of cells, including processes like cell division, metabolism, and communication. Their research is foundational for understanding diseases and developing therapies.

Physiology explores the functions of living organisms and how they adapt to their environments. Physiologists investigate processes like respiration, circulation, and digestion in various organisms, from humans to animals and plants.

Genetics is the study of heredity and the transmission of traits from one generation to the next. It underpins our understanding of DNA, genes, and genetic variations. Geneticists have made groundbreaking discoveries in fields like medicine, agriculture, and forensics.

Epidemiology

Epidemiology is the study of the patterns, causes, and effects of diseases in populations. Epidemiologists investigate outbreaks, disease transmission, and risk factors. Their work is crucial for public health and disease control.

Paleontology

Paleontology is the study of ancient life through the examination of fossils. Paleontologists reconstruct Earth's history by studying the remains of extinct organisms, shedding light on evolution and the history of life on our planet.

Marine Biology

Marine Biology focuses on life in the world's oceans and other aquatic environments. Marine biologists study a wide range of organisms, from tiny plankton to massive whales, and help us understand the importance of marine ecosystems and their conservation.

Additional Branches

In addition to the major branches mentioned above, Life Sciences encompass numerous specialized fields, including:

• Immunology : The study of the immune system and its role in defending the body against diseases.
• Neuroscience : The exploration of the nervous system and the mechanisms underlying brain function.
• Pharmacology : Investigating the effects of drugs on living organisms and developing new medications.
• Environmental Science : Analyzing the impact of human activities on the environment and finding sustainable solutions.
• Bioinformatics : Combining biology and computer science to analyze and interpret biological data.

Why Go Into Life Science

Embarking on a career in Life Sciences offers a multitude of compelling reasons:

• Exploration of the Unknown : Life Scientists are modern-day explorers, venturing into uncharted territories to unravel the mysteries of life. If you have an innate curiosity and a passion for discovery, this field offers endless opportunities to satisfy your intellectual thirst.
• Impact on Society : The work of Life Scientists directly impacts society by improving healthcare, preserving ecosystems, and addressing global challenges such as climate change and disease outbreaks. You can make a meaningful difference in the world.
• Diverse Career Options : Life Sciences open the door to a wide range of career paths. Whether you aspire to be a research scientist, healthcare professional, environmental consultant, science communicator, or educator, there is a place for you in this field.
• Constant Innovation : Life Sciences are at the forefront of innovation. Advances in biotechnology, genomics, and other cutting-edge technologies continue to revolutionize the field, offering exciting opportunities for those who want to be on the leading edge of scientific progress.
• Interdisciplinary Collaboration : Life Sciences often involve collaboration with professionals from various fields, including chemistry, physics, computer science, and engineering. This interdisciplinary approach fosters creative problem-solving and a broader perspective on complex issues.
• Global Relevance : Life Sciences have global relevance. The challenges we face, such as disease pandemics and environmental crises, require a global perspective and collaborative solutions. Life Scientists work on issues that transcend borders and impact the entire planet.
• Personal Fulfillment : For many, a career in Life Sciences is personally fulfilling. Contributing to the advancement of knowledge, improving human health, or protecting the environment can be deeply rewarding and provide a sense of purpose.
• Job Security : The demand for skilled professionals in Life Sciences remains strong, with opportunities in academia, industry, government, and non-profit organizations. As society continues to face health and environmental challenges, the need for experts in these fields persists.
• Educational Opportunities : Pursuing a career in Life Sciences offers a lifelong journey of learning. You can continually expand your knowledge and expertise through formal education, conferences, workshops, and hands-on research.
• Inspiration for Future Generations : By engaging in Life Sciences, you can inspire the next generation of scientists and researchers. Your passion and discoveries may motivate others to pursue careers in science and contribute to the betterment of society.

In conclusion, Life Sciences are a captivating and dynamic field that delves into the essence of life and its myriad complexities. Whether you're intrigued by the inner workings of cells, the diversity of ecosystems, or the genetics of diseases, there's a branch of Life Sciences that aligns with your interests. Choosing a career in Life Sciences not only offers personal and intellectual fulfillment but also the opportunity to make a lasting impact on our world. So, if you're curious, dedicated, and passionate about exploring the wonders of life, consider venturing into the realm of Life Sciences – a journey that promises continuous discovery and the chance to leave a lasting legacy.

Here are some frequently asked questions (FAQs) Related to Life Sciences:

What are life sciences.

Life Sciences, also known as biology, are a broad field of study that focuses on understanding living organisms and the processes that govern life. It encompasses various branches such as ecology, botany, zoology, and genetics.

Why are Life Sciences important?

Life Sciences are crucial for several reasons. They help us understand the natural world, improve human health, preserve biodiversity, advance agriculture, inform environmental policies, and address global challenges like climate change and disease outbreaks.

What is the difference between ecology and environmental science?

Ecology is a subfield of Life Sciences that focuses on the interactions between organisms and their environments. Environmental science is a broader interdisciplinary field that studies the impact of human activities on the environment and seeks sustainable solutions.

How do Life Sciences contribute to healthcare?

Life Sciences play a vital role in healthcare by studying diseases, developing new medicines, understanding genetics, and advancing medical technologies. This research leads to improved diagnostics, treatments, and overall health outcomes.

What career options are available in Life Sciences?

Careers in Life Sciences are diverse and include roles such as research scientist, healthcare professional, environmental consultant, science communicator, educator, and more. The field offers opportunities in academia, industry, government, and non-profit organizations.

Definition of Science

What Is An Activator In Biology?

Subscribe to new posts.

Life Sciences Demystified: A Comprehensive Guide

‘Life Sciences Demystified: A Comprehensive Guide’ provides an expansive overview of the diverse field of life sciences.

It explores distinct branches such as zoology, botany, and microbiology, and delves into applied sciences and emerging technologies.

This guide serves as a critical resource for novices and seasoned learners, offering insights into the intricate world of genetics, ecological systems, and future trends in life sciences.

Key Takeaways

• Biotechnology is a versatile tool used to solve global problems, including the production of food, medicines, and vaccines.
• North Carolina has experienced significant growth in the life sciences industry, with a large number of companies and skilled workers in the field.
• Biotechnology plays a crucial role in advancing the life sciences industry by contributing to the development of new treatments, precision medicine, and technological advancements.
• The field of life sciences encompasses various branches, such as zoology, botany, genetics, microbiology, and molecular biology, each focusing on different aspects of living organisms.

Understanding the Scope of Life Sciences

The scope of Life Sciences, a multifaceted field of study, encompasses diverse branches such as Biotechnology, Microbiology, and Genetics, all contributing significantly to our understanding and enhancement of life processes.

As we delve into the definition of life sciences, we find that it is an extensive field focusing on the study of living organisms, their structure, functions, and processes. When asked, ‘what is life science?’, one could say it is a discipline that explores all aspects of life, from the microscopic genes in our bodies to complex ecosystems.

Biotechnology leverages life science principles for practical applications in health and agriculture.

Microbiology studies the microscopic organisms that have a large impact on our world, whereas Genetics investigates the hereditary information in living organisms.

The Role of Biotechnology in Life Sciences

Drawing upon the principles of various scientific disciplines, biotechnology paves the way for significant advancements in the field of life sciences. It offers innovative solutions in areas such as healthcare, agriculture, and environmental management.

Biotechnology harnesses cellular and biomolecular processes to develop technologies and products that help improve our lives and the health of our planet. It enables the production of biopharmaceuticals, the genetic modification of crops for increased yield and resistance, and the development of biofuels and bioplastics.

Furthermore, biotechnology has a crucial role in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases, contributing to the rise of personalized medicine.

With its vast potential, biotechnology remains at the forefront of scientific breakthroughs, driving the future of life sciences.

What Are the Different Fields of Study in Life Sciences?

From the intricate study of genetics to the vast field of ecology, each branch of life sciences offers a unique lens through which we can explore and understand the complexities of life.

Zoology and botany expose the diverse world of flora and fauna, while anatomy delves into the structures of living organisms.

Genetics unravels the mysteries of inheritance, and ecology reveals how organisms interact with their environment.

Microbiology, mycology, parasitology, virology, and bacteriology illuminate the microscopic universe of life.

Molecular biology, biochemistry, and biotechnology explore life at the molecular level.

Neuroscience, paleontology, marine biology, and biological anthropology are specialized fields that provide further insight.

Agriculture, biomedical science, environmental health, food science, and conservation biology apply this knowledge practically.

Each branch, distinctly significant, collectively paints a comprehensive picture of life.

The Intersection of Life Sciences and Medicine

Understanding the intersection of life sciences and medicine is essential for advancing healthcare. It brings together knowledge from various disciplines such as genetics, molecular biology, and biotechnology and applies it to the development of new treatments and therapies.

This integration allows for a comprehensive approach to patient care. It enables personalized treatment plans based on individual genetic makeup and the creation of targeted therapies for specific diseases.

Moreover, by incorporating life sciences research into clinical practice, we can better understand disease mechanisms. This understanding leads to improved diagnostic tools and preventive measures.

The symbiotic relationship between life sciences and medicine continually propels us forward in our pursuit of improving global health and wellbeing. It showcases the importance of continued investment and innovation in these fields.

Future Trends in Life Sciences

In the ever-evolving field of life sciences, one can anticipate numerous advancements and innovations that will shape the future of healthcare, biotechnology, and environmental studies.

An increasing reliance on artificial intelligence and machine learning is expected, leading to more accurate diagnoses, personalized treatments, and efficient drug development.

Similarly, advancements in genomics and gene editing techniques promise new solutions for genetic disorders.

The emergence of digital health technologies will revolutionize patient care and data management.

Environmental biotechnology will offer innovative solutions for waste management and pollution control.

Lastly, the integration of different life science fields will foster a multidisciplinary approach, enhancing scientific understanding and technological development.

All these trends indicate a promising future for life sciences, marked by significant societal and economic impact.

Sign up for our Life Sciences Newsletter and boost your engagement with HCPs

In conclusion, ‘Life Sciences Demystified: A Comprehensive Guide’ serves as an indispensable resource for understanding the vast scope of life sciences.

It offers insights into various specialized fields and highlights the crucial role of biotechnology.

The guide underscores the profound interplay between life sciences and medicine, while also forecasting future trends.

This ensures a comprehensive understanding of life sciences, paving the way for further research and advancements in this ever-evolving field.

What Is the Difference between a Life Science and a Natural Science?

Life science and natural science are both major categories of scientific disciplines, yet they focus on different areas of study. Life science is dedicated to the study of living organisms and their life processes, encompassing fields such as biology, botany, zoology, and genetics. It aims to understand the structure, function, growth, evolution, and distribution of living entities. What is a natural science ? on the other hand, is a broader category that includes the life sciences but also encompasses the physical sciences, which study non-living systems. Physical sciences include disciplines such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, and earth sciences. Thus, while life science focuses specifically on living organisms and their interactions, natural science covers both living and non-living matter, exploring the laws and properties of the natural world.

What Is a Scientific Model and How Does it Relate to Life Sciences?

A scientific model is a simplified representation used to explain, understand, or predict phenomena in the natural world. These models can be physical, mathematical, or conceptual, designed to describe complex realities in a more comprehensible manner. In the life sciences, scientific models play a crucial role by allowing researchers to conceptualise biological processes, test hypotheses, and visualize the intricate mechanisms of living organisms.

What Is Life Sciences Content?

Life sciences content refers to the information, data, and knowledge that is related to the study of living organisms and their life processes. This encompasses a wide range of topics within the field of biology and its many sub-disciplines, such as botany, zoology, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, and ecology. In the realm of scientific content , life sciences content can be found in various formats, including academic journals, textbooks, online courses, articles, and multimedia resources.

What Is Scientific Evidence and How Does It Relate to Life Sciences?

Scientific evidence refers to the information and data collected through systematic observation, experimentation, and analysis that support or refute a scientific theory, hypothesis, or claim. In the context of life sciences, scientific evidence is crucial for understanding the complex processes that govern living organisms and their environments. This evidence is derived from rigorous methods, including laboratory experiments, field studies, clinical trials, and observational research, which aim to ensure reliability and validity.

Discover the ScioWire research newsfeed: summarised scientific knowledge ready to digest.

Life Sciences

The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) at Harvard University provides exceptional opportunities for study across the depth and breadth of the life sciences through the Harvard Integrated Life Sciences (HILS) federation. The HILS federation comprises 14 Ph.D. programs of study across four Harvard faculties—Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Dental Medicine. HILS offers flexibility, including options to take courses, do laboratory rotations, and even choose a dissertation advisor from across the HILS federation, subject to specific program requirements and lab availability.

RELATED PRODUCTS

Related tags and topics, related content, what are life sciences.

This article is the first of a 4-part series including the following topics: “What is life science” (current feature), “Translational Research,” “Spatial Research,” and “Biomarkers in Translational/Spatial Research.”

The field of life science continues to grow by leaps and bounds, beginning from evolutionary concepts in the early 20 th century, and rapidly expanding to the emerging utilization of novel technologies like Artificial Intelligence for disease management. As research volume has grown, the life sciences have branched out into several specialized sub-fields, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, biochemistry, genomics, cell biology, and many more.

This article gives an overarching life sciences definition, explains its specialized branches, and explores real-world application. Later in the article is an overview of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, the impact these industries have made to healthcare, and how they have grown globally. Additionally, we highlight the evolving function of contract research organizations (CRO) and academic medical centers (AMC), as both entities produce cutting-edge life science-based research to advance human health.

1. WHAT IS LIFE SCIENCE?

Life science studies living organisms and processes. It spans a vast swath of scientific research, from aiding our understanding of microorganisms such as viruses or bacteria, to deciphering the physiological processes of the largest land and marine animals on the planet. Life science can be divided into basic science (for example, the discovery of life processes, such as cell division), applied science (for example, new drug candidate testing in clinical phases to manipulate uncontrolled cell division), and translational research (for example, screening a drug compound to treat cancer and using it for medicinal practice).

1.1 Basic and Applied Life Sciences

Basic science focuses on generation of novel biological insights and increasing knowledge of life processes, with little concern about immediate application. For example, the study of yeast in understanding the mechanism of the cell cycle was not of any immediate use; however, today this basic observation is applied to study the cell cycle of higher organisms, including the study of several proto-oncogene genes such as p53 and Rb1. Applied science follows basic science and is focused on the practical application of new findings. Exploring the mechanism behind viral infection is basic science, while performing clinical research to better understand this mechanism is an example of applied science. In this way, basic science and applied science are intermeshed, as basic science’s work leads to applied science in the real world.

Basic and applied sciences’ primary aim is to answer scientific questions in a manner that may ultimately address key problems in clinical patient populations. To achieve that goal, translational research tests the viability of ideas by performing human trials.

1.2 Translational research

Translational research includes the evolution of investigational product testing from “bench to bedside”, from studies at the molecular level to preclinical and clinical level testing, to address a clinical problem or improve outcomes. For example, the use of basic biological knowledge translated from cells to animal models to human clinical trials has led to discovery of many drugs to treat cancer patients: a profoundly successful solution to a real-world problem. Translational research focuses on addressing real-life scientific issues leveraging the knowledge established in the basic and applied sciences.

Translational research requires a concerted and coordinated effort from life science professionals including clinicians, biotechnologists, and computational biologists. This multidisciplinary team improves patient lives by bringing novel technology, innovation, and precise treatment to the general population. The effect of this research is far-reaching as it provides a solution to a real-world problem. 1,2,3 A schematic of the interdependency of basic, applied, and translational research is described in Figure 1 .

Figure 1. Basic science, applied science, and translational research are generally dependent on each other, with an aim to improve human life.

2. BRANCHES OF LIFE SCIENCE

In addition to many types of microorganisms, there are around 9 million plant and animal species. 4 Since the concept of life science is broad and multifaceted, the field has been divided into several specialized branches. The most relevant ones to this article are discussed below.

2.1 Biology

Biology comprises fields that explore physiological processes, including molecular biology, biochemistry, and cell biology. Other biology fields study specific organisms, such as virology (study of viruses), microbiology (study of microorganisms), and botany (study of plants). With the recent technological advances, bioinformatics, bioengineering, and biomathematics are now firmly established fields that analyze scientific problems through a novel perspective. 5

2.2 Cell Biology

Cell biology is the study of a cell as an individual unit, exploring physiological processes and mechanisms that allow life processes to operate at the molecular level, including cellular structure, division, energy exchange, signaling pathways, and more. Cell biology research studies many cell types, including prokaryotic, eukaryotic, animal, and plant cells, with the help of rapidly advancing technologies and techniques such as microscopy, cell culture, and cloning.

2.3 Biochemistry

Biochemistry is the study of chemical interactions within or in relation to a living organism. Biochemistry studies the chemistry of a cell and/or organism and the mechanism by which biochemical reactions maintain the fine balance required to sustain life. Biochemical studies also may focus on the structure of a living organism by investigating how molecules, such as lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates, interact in a complex environment to regulate vital body functions.

2.4 Environmental Science

Environmental science addresses environmental problems using a combination of physics, geology, chemistry, and geography to understand and ameliorate these issues.

2.5 Neurosciencev

Neuroscience is the study of the nervous system—its structure, development, and function in an organism. Neuroscience also addresses neural developmental issues and possible solutions.

2.6 Genetics

Genetics is the study of genes and how each gene is passed from one generation to another. A gene is part of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which consists of nitrogenous sequences that code for specific proteins, the expression of which determines individual biological traits. Aberrant genetic makeup could predispose an individual to diseases. Techniques such as DNA sequencing could precisely identify aberrant gene expression, thereby aiding in genetic disease (for example, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, etc.) identification. 6 Genetics has continuously played a role in broadening the understanding of how traits are transferred to progeny. Additionally, the field has opened doors for exploring whether certain types of cancer are germinal or somatic.

2.7 Genomics

Genomics investigates the intricate mechanistic expression of a gene and its interaction with other genes and the environment. Whole genome sequencing, a central testing mechanism within the study of genomics, is a technology that can sequence/decipher an organism’s whole set of genes with a low turnaround time. Accurate sequencing of the genome requires inputs from bioinformatics scientists, clinicians, and laboratory scientists. With the development of relevant technology, genomics is being rapidly used to diagnose and create a plan for once life-threatening diseases, including hypertension, cardiovascular ailments, and diabetes.

2.8 Proteomics

Proteomics is the study of proteins and their structure to understand the biological processes occurring within the organism. This branch helps in detecting a protein’s binding/interacting partners, signaling pathways, and/or subcellular locations. Through proteomics and utilizing techniques such as mass spectrometry, scientists can fully characterize attributes of proteins to identify specific targets for the treatment of a particular disease.

2.9 Other Branches

The definitions of some other branches of life science that are not directly relevant to the current article are described below:

• Ecology – Study of organisms and interactions within their environment
• Botany – Study of plants
• Zoology – Study of animals
• Microbiology – Study of microorganisms
• Entomology – Study of insects
• Epidemiology – Study of diseases and how they spread
• Paleontology – Study of fossils/evolution
• Marine Biology – Study of marine life
• Food Sciences – Study of improving, innovating, and producing nutritious food types

3. LIFE SCIENCE INDUSTRY

The life sciences industry, comprising mostly private companies leveraging biological knowledge, investigates and improves overall well-being of living organisms. This field includes sectors such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and medical device manufacturing.

3.1 Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industry

3.1.1 Biotechnology

Biotechnology is the use of technology to improve life, and it is one of the most important modern tools to address biological problems. For example, human beings have been using microorganisms such as bacteria and yeast to use in fermentation to make cheese, alcohol, and curd. The biotechnology industry is primarily divided into medical and agricultural biotechnology. Medical biotechnology has helped in developing new drug products (for example, the development of an mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), while agricultural biotechnology has contributed to the improvement of crop yield and food products. In addition to medical and agricultural sectors, the branch is also stratified into environmental, animal, and industrial biotechnology. The global biotechnology industry grew to around $860 billion in 2022 and is expected to grow to $1,684 billion by 2030.

3.1.2 Pharmaceutical Industry

The pharmaceutical industry develops, synthesizes, and produces drug products derived from chemicals, including many easily recognizable treatments such as acetaminophen(Tylenol), and acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin). The industry is at the forefront of delivering drug products that can provide accurate treatment to patients. In the year 2021, the global pharmaceutical market stood at close to $1.5 trillion. 7 North America, EU, and Japan are currently the leading pharmaceutical market; however, as product development has reached global collaboration, the Asian market is quickly becoming a pharmaceutical product manufacturing hub. 8

The pharmaceutical industry involves concerted efforts toward drug discovery, drug product development, and approval. For development of a single product, approximately 10,000 candidates are selected, out of which 200 are screened for preclinical analysis and ultimately reduced to approximately 5 candidates for further clinical testing. This whole process of initial candidate selection to commercialization requires the expertise of biochemists, environmentalists, biologists, and other life scientists and takes around 15 years. One of the many challenges for the industry in the future is to continue innovating so that precise treatment for any disease is available to the patient.

3.1.3 Comparative analysis

Biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry are both important drivers of the healthcare industry. While biotechnology-based products use living organisms, pharmaceutical products are chemically derived. The pharmaceutical industry developed before biotechnology began and generates higher global revenue. However, pharmaceutical partners are now merging with biotechnology companies to become a single “biopharmaceutical industry”. Some differences between the 2 fields are described in Table 1. 9,10

Table 1 . Differences between biotechnology and pharmaceutical

3.2 CROs and AMCs

CROs and AMCs are vital organizations where necessary biomedical research is performed. Due to the complexities of total product development, life science and biopharmaceutical companies outsource parts of the development process to a CRO. In addition, AMCs are at the forefront of novel research across the spectrum of life science, from performing vital clinical trials to developing and generating previously unknown basic life science-related ideas.

CROs are contract vendors that offer services to several fields of life science, including biotechnology, medical device manufacturers, and pharmaceuticals. CROs can provide support in any stage of product development, from preclinical to any clinical phase (phase 0 – phase IV) of the study. 11 Sponsors of major research projects collaborate with CROs to speed up their research program. These sponsors look to CROs to be an end-to-end strategic partner to successfully execute development and approval activities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, major pharmaceutical companies outsourced their activities to CROs to achieve a quicker turnaround. It is projected that by 2028, total CRO global revenue will swell to almost $128 billion, up from ~$77 billion in 2023, with an almost 11% annual growth in 5 years (2023-2028). 12

Separately, AMCs are the seat of innovation, especially for conducting clinical and translational research. Collaboration between industry and AMCs is essential for efficient investigational product management. This symbiotic relationship is mutually beneficial and speeds up product innovation, approval, and commercialization. More than 50% of AMCs maintain active collaboration with the life science industry in the form of advisory board membership, start-up partnership, and consultation. 13

4. DISCUSSION

Life sciences have grown immensely in the past two centuries. The contributions of this field to human health are so many that sometimes we tend to underappreciate the importance of the readily available products; for example, common flu, which was once a deadly disease, is now cured by penicillin; polio, caused by a life-threatening virus resulting in debilitating disease, has been nearly eradicated through vaccination.

This article has provided a broad look at life science meaning and application while providing an overview of some of its branches. Additionally, the value of biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry to human/animal health in terms of importance, growth, and revenue generation (Figure 2) have been discussed. 15,16 An overview of CROs and AMCs was given here due to their rapid prominence in collaborative life science breakthroughs. CROs are fast becoming strategic partners of medical device and pharmaceutical companies and take a significant burden for executing successful product approval and commercialization. Similarly, enhanced cooperation in performing applied life sciences-based research between AMCs and industries through joint grant submission has led to increased funding by major funders, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Recent collaborations between CROs and AMCs have also seen an uptick in translational research capabilities, eventually improving potential treatment outreach to the local community.

5. CONCLUSION

In addition to the established life-sciences branches, such as biology, biochemistry, or microbiology, the development of newer fields, including proteomics, genomics, transcriptomics, and bioinformatics, has strengthened the field's impact even more. The effective utilization of the corresponding tools by CROs, AMCs, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical industries has made a paradigm shift to new product development. Life science will continue to push scientific boundaries and improve both human and planetary health.

About the presenters

Shubham Dayal is a Senior Medical Writer at Leica Biosystems and has over 10 years of experience in regulatory/preclinical/clinical writing for studies that are at different stages of the product lifecycle. Shubham has a PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology from the University of Toledo and a Master's in Regulatory Affairs from Northeastern University and has co-authored multiple peer-reviewed articles and poster presentations. He is an active member of the Regulatory Affairs Professional Society and American Medical Writers Association and holds certifications related to scientific writing. In his current role, Shubham's goal is to create awareness for our customers in ways that can advance scientific communication and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Jack obtained his doctorate in molecular and cellular pathology and performed post-doctoral studies on cancer epigenetics and cardiovascular post-translational modifications. He has worked in externally facing roles at Leica Biosystems for 7 years, and currently works in partnership with leading pathologists and researchers to advance scientific study at the cutting edge of anatomic pathology research.

• Basic, Clinical and Translational Research: What’s the Difference? Published on December 12, 2017. Updated on November 16, 2018. https://blog.dana-farber.org/insight/2017/12/basic-clinical-translational-research-whats-difference/
• What is Translational Research? UAMS, Translational research institute. Accessed April 19, 2023. Read More
• Translational Research. University of Virginia, translational research. Accessed April 18, 2023.
• Life Science Overview, Topics & Examples. Study.com. Accessed April 18, 2023. https://study.com/learn/lesson/life-sciences-overview-topics-examples.html
• What is Biology? Swenson College of Science and Engineering. Accessed 15 April, 2023.  Read More
• Genetics. National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Accessed April 15, 2023. https://nigms.nih.gov/education/fact-sheets/Pages/genetics.aspx
• Global pharmaceutical industry - statistics & facts. Statista. Accessed 10 April, 2023. https://www.statista.com/topics/1764/global-pharmaceutical-industry/#topicOverview
• Drug discovery and development. Britannica. Accessed 05 April, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/technology/pharmaceutical-industry/Drug-discovery-and-development 9.
• Biotech vs pharma: Differences and similarities. Qualio. June 16, 2022, Accessed 12 April 2023. https://www.qualio.com/blog/biotech-vs-pharma
• Biotechnology vs. Pharmaceuticals: What's the Difference? Investopodia. Accessed 30 May, 2023. Read More
• The Rise of CROs in Life Sciences. Accessed 23 May 2023. https://focusonlifescience.org/the-rise-of-cros-in-life-sciences/
• Contract Research Organization (CRO) Services Market worth $127.3 billion by 2028 - Exclusive Report by MarketsandMarkets™. Accessed 17 May 2023. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/contract-research-organization-cro-services-market-worth-127-3-billion-by-2028---exclusive-report-by-marketsandmarkets-301737148.html
• Collaborating for value the path to successful academic community relationships. Accessed 20 May, 2023 https://www.bdcadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/0618_HFM_Fairchild.pdf
• Zinner DE, Campbell EG. Life-science research within US academic medical centers. JAMA. 2009;302(9):969-976. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1265. Accessed 20 May, 2023 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772727/
• Precedence Research. Biotechnology Market. Accessed 15 May, 2023. https://www.precedenceresearch.com/biotechnology-market
• Newswires. Global Pharmaceuticals Market Projected Growth Until 2030. Accessed 15 May, 2023. https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/599925140/global-pharmaceuticals-market-projected-growth-until-2030

Related Content

Leica Biosystems content is subject to the Leica Biosystems website terms of use, available at: Legal Notice . The content, including webinars, training presentations and related materials is intended to provide general information regarding particular subjects of interest to health care professionals and is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, medical, regulatory or legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in any third-party content reflect the personal views and opinions of the speaker(s)/author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views or opinions of Leica Biosystems, its employees or agents. Any links contained in the content which provides access to third party resources or content is provided for convenience only.

For the use of any product, the applicable product documentation, including information guides, inserts and operation manuals should be consulted.

Copyright © 2024 Leica Biosystems division of Leica Microsystems, Inc. and its Leica Biosystems affiliates. All rights reserved. LEICA and the Leica Logo are registered trademarks of Leica Microsystems IR GmbH.

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

These are the 10 best countries for life sciences research

China and Australia are shaking up this group of countries leading in the life sciences.

Gemma Conroy

The US dominates in life sciences research in the Nature Index. Credit: Photographer is my life/Getty Images

20 January 2020

Photographer is my life/Getty Images

The US dominates in life sciences research in the Nature Index.

The United States and United Kingdom lead this global top 10, but China achieved the greatest increase in high-quality life sciences research in a single year.

While the US, France, Japan, Canada, and the Netherlands saw a decrease in their life sciences output in the journals tracked by the Nature Index between 2017 and 2018, China achieved a 14% increase, which allowed it to overtake Germany.

China, now in third place, is hot on the heels of the UK.

Further down the ranks, Australia knocked Switzerland out of eighth spot for the first time in three years with a Share+ of 453.33, representing a 7.8% increase in life sciences research output.

Although France’s output fell by 6.8% - the largest drop in Share among the leading countries - it maintained its place as the world’s sixth biggest producer of research in the discipline.

See below for Nature Index's top 10 countries in life sciences research.

1. United States of America

Share: 9,030.22; Change in Share 2017-18: -2.1%

Despite its Share falling by 2.9% since 2017, the US continues its dominance of high-quality life sciences research in this global ranking. Papers in the discipline account for nearly half of the nation’s research in the Nature Index.

The US’s strong performance is bolstered by its top-performing institutions: Harvard University, Stanford University, MIT, and the US National Institutes of Health, which are also among the top 10 institutions in the life sciences in the world.

In the 2019 Nature Index Biomedical Sciences top 200 table , the US claimed seven of the top 10 positions and 15 of the top 20.

2. United Kingdom

Share: 1,551.37; Change in Share 2017-18: 3.6%

The looming shadow of Brexit may be damaging research in the UK, but the nation’s contribution to the life sciences remains strong. For the fourth year running, the UK has held its own as the second biggest producer of life sciences articles in journals tracked by the Nature Index.

The country’s top institutions, the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, and Imperial College London, are major players in the life sciences, with Cambridge ranking among the top 10 institutions in the life sciences in the Nature Index 2019 Annual Tables .

Share: 1,447.47; Change in Share 2017-18: 14%

China’s rise in the research rankings is well-known , but that doesn’t make it any less extraordinary. In just one year, the country’s Share in the life sciences has increased by an impressive 14%, the largest growth of all countries in this global top 10.

Its top-performing institution, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, took fifth place in the top 10 institutions in the life sciences in the Nature Index 2019 Annual Tables .

Peking, Tsinghua, and Zheijiang University are also big names in Chinese life sciences research, and featured in Nature Index's top 200 biomedical sciences ranking and top 100 healthcare institutes for 2019.

Share: 1,328.86; Change in Share 2017-18: 1.5%

With its Share growing by 1.5% between 2017 and 2018, Germany's performance in the life sciences remains strong. The country’s leading institution, the Max Planck Society, is among the top 10 institutions in the life sciences in the world .

German institutions also placed highly in Nature Index's rankings of the top biomedical and healthcare institutions, and are among the top 50 corporate institutions in the life sciences .

Share: 721.78; Change in Share 2017-18: -3%

Japan is working hard to retain its standing among the world’s leading countries for life sciences research. For the fourth year running, the country has maintained its position as the fifth biggest producer of high-quality life sciences articles in the Nature Index.

Among its top-performing institutes are the University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, and Osaka University.

Japan is also gaining prominence in the biomedical sciences. Its institutions took out 10 spots in the global top 200 institutions in biomedical sciences , as tracked by the Nature Index.

Share: 674.3; Change in Share 2017-2018: -6.8%

While France’s life sciences research fell by almost 7% in 2018, it retained sixth place in this global ranking for the fourth consecutive year. The life sciences and physical sciences account for the majority of its Share in the Nature Index.

France's highest-performing institute overall, the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), ranks among the world’s top 20 life sciences institutions, in the Nature Index.

France is also home to multinational pharmaceutical giant, Sanofi, which placed among the top 50 corporate institutions in the biomedical sciences , as well as the top 50 corporate institutions in the life sciences in 2019.

Share: 599.14; Change in Share 2017-2018: -0.1%

With the life sciences accounting for nearly half of Canada’s overall Share in the Nature Index, the country continues to be highly ranked in the field.

Its prominence in the life sciences is reflected in its top three universities: the University of Toronto, McGill University, and the University of British Columbia, each of which has an institutional focus on life sciences research.

Canadian institutions took out seven places in the Nature Index global top 200 biomedical sciences institutions and five spots in the top 100 healthcare institutions in 2019.

8. Australia

Share: 453.33; Change in Share 2017-2018: 7.8%

Between 2017 and 2018, Australia's Share in life sciences research output increased by an impressive 7.8%. The University of Queensland is its best performing institute in the discipline, followed by the University of Melbourne and Monash University.

These three leading institutions also make an appearance in the Nature Index global top 200 biomedical sciences institutions , along with the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney).

9. Switzerland

Share: 450.38; Change in Share 2017-2018: 3.4%

Switzerland may be known as a physical sciences powerhouse, but it punches well above its weight in the life sciences, too.

Its top institutions in the discipline are the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, the University of Zurich, and the University of Lausanne.

Switzerland is also home to F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Novartis International AG, two multinational heavyweights in the pharmaceutical sector, signifying the country’s strength in the biomedical sciences.

10. Netherlands

Share: 306.62; Change in Share 2017-2018: -0.7%

The Netherlands has held its own at tenth place in the life sciences for the third consecutive year, with the discipline accounting for around one-third of the country’s overall Share .

The life sciences also make up the majority of the country’s high-quality research at its leading institutions: Utrecht University, the University of Groningen, and the University of Amsterdam. Utrecht was ranked among the top 100 institutions in the life sciences in the Nature Index 2019 Annual Tables.

Several prominent healthcare institutions are based in the Netherlands, with the Erasmus University Medical Center and University Medical Center Utrecht ranking in the top 50 healthcare institutions in the world .

+ Share , formerly referred to in the Nature Index as Fractional Count (FC), is a measure of a country’s contribution to articles in the 82 journals tracked by the index, calculated according to the proportion of its affiliated authors on articles relative to all authors.

Sign up to the Nature Index newsletter

Get regular news, analysis and data insights from the editorial team delivered to your inbox.

• Sign up to receive the Nature Index newsletter. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy .

251+ Life Science Research Topics [Updated]

Life science research is like peering into the intricate workings of the universe, but instead of stars and galaxies, it delves into the mysteries of life itself. From unraveling the secrets of our genetic code to understanding ecosystems and everything in between, life science research encompasses a vast array of fascinating topics. In this blog post, we’ll embark on a journey through some of the most captivating life science research topics within the realm of life science research.

What is research in life science?

Table of Contents

Research in life science involves the systematic investigation and study of living organisms, their interactions, and their environments. It encompasses a wide range of disciplines, including biology, genetics, ecology, microbiology, neuroscience, and more.

Life science research aims to expand our understanding of the fundamental principles governing life processes, uncover new insights into biological systems, develop innovative technologies and therapies, and address pressing challenges in areas such as healthcare, agriculture, and conservation.

251+ Life Science Research Topics: Category Wise

Genetics and genomics.

• Genetic basis of inherited diseases
• Genome-wide association studies
• Epigenetics and gene regulation
• Evolutionary genomics
• CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology
• Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine
• Population genetics
• Functional genomics
• Comparative genomics across species
• Genetic diversity and conservation

Biotechnology and Bioengineering

• Biopharmaceutical production
• Metabolic engineering for biofuel production
• Synthetic biology applications
• Bioremediation techniques
• Nanotechnology in drug delivery
• Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine
• Biosensors for environmental monitoring
• Bioprocessing optimization
• Biodegradable plastics and sustainable materials
• Agricultural biotechnology for crop improvement

Ecology and Environmental Biology

• Biodiversity hotspots and conservation strategies
• Ecosystem services and human well-being
• Climate change impacts on ecosystems
• Restoration ecology techniques
• Urban ecology and biodiversity
• Marine biology and coral reef conservation
• Habitat fragmentation and species extinction
• Ecological modeling and forecasting
• Wildlife conservation genetics
• Microbial ecology in natural environments

Neuroscience and Cognitive Science

• Brain mapping techniques (fMRI, EEG, etc.)
• Neuroplasticity and learning
• Neural circuitry underlying behavior
• Neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc.)
• Neural engineering for prosthetics
• Consciousness and the mind-body problem
• Psychiatric genetics and mental health disorders
• Neuroimaging in psychiatric research
• Developmental cognitive neuroscience
• Neural correlates of consciousness

Evolutionary Biology

• Mechanisms of speciation
• Molecular evolution and phylogenetics
• Coevolutionary dynamics
• Evolution of antibiotic resistance
• Cultural evolution and human behavior
• Evolutionary consequences of climate change
• Evolutionary game theory
• Evolutionary medicine and infectious diseases
• Evolutionary psychology and human cognition
• Paleogenomics and ancient DNA analysis

Cell Biology and Physiology

• Cell cycle regulation and cancer biology
• Stem cell biology and regenerative medicine
• Organelle dynamics and intracellular transport
• Cellular senescence and aging
• Ion channels and neuronal excitability
• Metabolic pathways and cellular energetics
• Cell signaling pathways in development and disease
• Autophagy and cellular homeostasis
• Mitochondrial function and disease
• Cell adhesion and migration in development and cancer

Microbiology and Immunology

• Microbiome composition and function
• Antibiotic resistance mechanisms
• Host-microbe interactions in health and disease
• Viral pathogenesis and vaccine development
• Microbial biotechnology for waste treatment
• Immunotherapy approaches for cancer treatment
• Microbial diversity in extreme environments
• Antimicrobial peptides and drug discovery
• Microbial biofilms and chronic infections
• Host immune responses to viral infections

Biomedical Research and Clinical Trials

• Translational research in oncology
• Precision medicine approaches
• Clinical trials for gene therapies
• Biomarker discovery for disease diagnosis
• Stem cell-based therapies for regenerative medicine
• Pharmacokinetics and drug metabolism studies
• Clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases
• Vaccine efficacy trials
• Patient-reported outcomes in clinical research
• Health disparities and clinical trial participation

Emerging Technologies and Innovations

• Single-cell omics technologies
• 3D bioprinting for tissue engineering
• CRISPR-based diagnostics
• Artificial intelligence applications in life sciences
• Organs-on-chip for drug screening
• Wearable biosensors for health monitoring
• Nanomedicine for targeted drug delivery
• Optogenetics for neuronal manipulation
• Quantum biology and biological systems
• Augmented reality in medical education

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) in Life Sciences

• Privacy concerns in genomic research
• Ethical considerations in gene editing technologies
• Access to healthcare and genetic testing
• Intellectual property rights in biotechnology
• Informed consent in clinical trials
• Animal welfare in research
• Equity in environmental decision-making
• Data sharing and reproducibility in science
• Dual-use research and biosecurity
• Cultural perspectives on biomedicine and genetics

Public Health and Epidemiology

• Disease surveillance and outbreak investigation
• Global health disparities and access to healthcare
• Environmental factors in disease transmission
• Health impacts of climate change
• Social determinants of health
• Infectious disease modeling and forecasting
• Vaccination strategies and herd immunity
• Epidemiology of chronic diseases
• Mental health epidemiology
• Occupational health and safety

Plant Biology and Agriculture

• Crop domestication and evolution
• Plant-microbe interactions in agriculture
• Genetic engineering for crop improvement
• Plant hormone signaling pathways
• Abiotic stress tolerance mechanisms in plants
• Soil microbiology and nutrient cycling
• Agroecology and sustainable farming practices
• Plant secondary metabolites and natural products
• Plant developmental biology
• Plant epigenetics and environmental adaptation

Bioinformatics and Computational Biology

• Genome assembly and annotation algorithms
• Phylogenetic tree reconstruction methods
• Metagenomic data analysis pipelines
• Machine learning approaches for biomarker discovery
• Structural bioinformatics and protein modeling
• Systems biology and network analysis
• Transcriptomic data analysis tools
• Population genetics simulation software
• Evolutionary algorithms in bioinformatics
• Cloud computing in life sciences research

Toxicology and Environmental Health

• Mechanisms of chemical toxicity
• Risk assessment methodologies
• Environmental fate and transport of pollutants
• Endocrine disruptors and reproductive health
• Nanotoxicology and nanomaterial safety
• Biomonitoring of environmental contaminants
• Ecotoxicology and wildlife health
• Air pollution exposure and respiratory health
• Water quality and aquatic ecosystems
• Environmental justice and health disparities

Aquatic Biology and Oceanography

• Marine biodiversity conservation strategies
• Ocean acidification impacts on marine life
• Coral reef resilience and restoration
• Fisheries management and sustainable harvesting
• Deep-sea biodiversity and exploration
• Harmful algal blooms and ecosystem health
• Marine mammal conservation efforts
• Microplastics pollution in aquatic environments
• Ocean circulation and climate regulation
• Aquaculture and mariculture technologies

Social and Behavioral Sciences in Health

• Health behavior change interventions
• Social determinants of health disparities
• Health communication strategies
• Community-based participatory research
• Patient-centered care approaches
• Cultural competence in healthcare delivery
• Health literacy interventions
• Stigma reduction efforts in public health
• Health policy analysis and advocacy
• Digital health technologies for behavior monitoring

Bioethics and Biomedical Ethics

• Ethical considerations in human subjects research
• Research ethics in vulnerable populations
• Privacy and data protection in healthcare
• Professional integrity and scientific misconduct
• Ethical implications of genetic testing
• Access to healthcare and health equity
• End-of-life care and euthanasia debates
• Reproductive ethics and assisted reproduction
• Ethical challenges in emerging biotechnologies

Forensic Science and Criminalistics

• DNA fingerprinting techniques
• Forensic entomology and time of death estimation
• Trace evidence analysis methods
• Digital forensics in criminal investigations
• Ballistics and firearm identification
• Forensic anthropology and human identification
• Bloodstain pattern analysis
• Arson investigation techniques
• Forensic toxicology and drug analysis
• Forensic psychology and criminal profiling

Nutrition and Dietary Science

• Nutritional epidemiology studies
• Diet and chronic disease risk
• Functional foods and nutraceuticals
• Macronutrient metabolism pathways
• Micronutrient deficiencies and supplementation
• Gut microbiota and metabolic health
• Dietary interventions for weight management
• Food safety and risk assessment
• Sustainable diets and environmental impact
• Cultural influences on dietary habits

Entomology and Insect Biology

• Insect behavior and communication
• Insecticide resistance mechanisms
• Pollinator decline and conservation efforts
• Medical entomology and vector-borne diseases
• Invasive species management strategies
• Insect biodiversity in urban environments
• Agricultural pest management techniques
• Insect physiology and biochemistry
• Social insects and eusociality
• Insect symbiosis and microbial interactions

Zoology and Animal Biology

• Animal behavior and cognition
• Conservation genetics of endangered species
• Reproductive biology and breeding programs
• Wildlife forensics and illegal wildlife trade
• Comparative anatomy and evolutionary biology
• Animal welfare and ethics in research
• Physiological adaptations to extreme environments
• Zoological taxonomy and species discovery
• Animal communication and signaling
• Human-wildlife conflict mitigation strategies

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

• Protein folding and misfolding diseases
• Enzyme kinetics and catalytic mechanisms
• Metabolic regulation in health and disease
• Signal transduction pathways
• DNA repair mechanisms and genome stability
• RNA biology and post-transcriptional regulation
• Lipid metabolism and membrane biophysics
• Molecular interactions in drug design
• Bioenergetics and cellular respiration
• Structural biology and X-ray crystallography

Cancer Biology and Oncology

• Tumor microenvironment and metastasis
• Cancer stem cells and therapy resistance
• Angiogenesis and tumor vasculature
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy
• Liquid biopsy techniques for cancer detection
• Oncogenic signaling pathways
• Personalized medicine approaches in oncology
• Radiation therapy and tumor targeting strategies
• Cancer genomics and precision oncology
• Cancer prevention and lifestyle interventions

Developmental Biology and Embryology

• Embryonic stem cell differentiation
• Morphogen gradients and tissue patterning
• Developmental genetics and model organisms
• Regenerative potential in vertebrates and invertebrates
• Developmental plasticity and environmental cues
• Embryo implantation and pregnancy disorders
• Germ cell development and fertility preservation
• Cell fate determination in development
• Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo)
• Organogenesis and tissue morphogenesis

Pharmacology and Drug Discovery

• Drug-target interactions and pharmacokinetics
• High-throughput screening techniques
• Structure-activity relationship studies
• Drug repurposing strategies
• Natural product drug discovery
• Drug delivery systems and nanomedicine
• Pharmacovigilance and drug safety monitoring
• Pharmacoeconomics and healthcare outcomes
• Drug metabolism and drug-drug interactions

Stem Cell Research

• Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) technology
• Stem cell therapy applications in regenerative medicine
• Stem cell niche and microenvironment
• Stem cell banking and cryopreservation
• Stem cell-based disease modeling

What Are The 10 Examples of Life Science Research Paper Titles?

• Investigating the Role of Gut Microbiota in Neurological Disorders: Implications for Therapeutic Interventions.
• Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Novel Genetic Markers for Cardiovascular Disease Risk.
• Understanding the Molecular Mechanisms of Cancer Metastasis: Insights from Cellular Signaling Pathways.
• The Impact of Climate Change on Plant-Pollinator Interactions: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation.
• Exploring the Potential of CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing Technology in Treating Genetic Disorders.
• Characterizing the Microbial Diversity of Extreme Environments: Insights from Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents.
• Assessment of Novel Drug Delivery Systems for Targeted Cancer Therapy: A Preclinical Study.
• Unraveling the Neurobiology of Addiction: Implications for Treatment Strategies.
• Investigating the Role of Epigenetics in Age-Related Diseases: From Mechanisms to Therapeutic Targets.
• Evaluating the Efficacy of Herbal Remedies in Traditional Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Life science research is a journey of discovery, filled with wonder, excitement, and the occasional setback. Yet, through perseverance and ingenuity, researchers continue to push the boundaries of knowledge, unlocking the secrets of life itself. As we stand on the cusp of a new era of scientific discovery, one thing is clear: the future of life science research is brighter—and more promising—than ever before. I hope these life science research topics will help you to find the best topics for you.

Related Posts

Step by Step Guide on The Best Way to Finance Car

The Best Way on How to Get Fund For Business to Grow it Efficiently

Life science – what is it?

What is Life Science? This is our definition:

• Life Science  is an interdisciplinary research branch devoted to the study of biological life as well as internal and external conditions for continued life. The scientific discoveries within this research branch have a practical application in the Life Science sector, among other areas.
• The Life Science sector  includes the companies, higher education institutions as well as public stakeholders at municipal, regional and national level that contribute to promoting human health through their activities. The sector includes research, higher education and innovation, development of pharmaceuticals, medical technology products and treatments, as well as prevention, implementation and follow-up. (Source: Swedish National Life Science strategy)
• The  Life Science branch  includes companies in biomedicine, bioengineering, medical engineering and pharmaceutical development and manufacturing, including specialised subcontractors and consultants. It also includes companies that work with the development of diagnostics and treatment methods, as well as companies that develop products and services linked to e-health.

Strengths of Life Science Sweden

Sweden has a strong international standing with a history of world-class research and development in both pharmaceuticals and medical engineering. Several vital innovations originate from Sweden, such as Losec, the pacemaker and dialysis machine.

The private sector comprises approximately 42 000 jobs, and today accounts for a significant portion of Sweden’s export revenue and shows an increasing number of small research companies. Sweden’s strengths can be attributed, among other things, to

• high level of education
• strong research tradition
• high-quality clinical trials
• well-developed quality registers and biobanks
• a tradition of collaboration between academia, industry and healthcare.

Challenges to the entire Life Science system

• Lack of a tradition of collaboration and collective action throughout the Life Science ecosystem.
• Since Life Science products are largely developed through testing on patients and in clinical activities (i.e. within healthcare), collaboration between industry and healthcare is often a prerequisite for the development of new drugs, medical technology and diagnostics.
• Swedish healthcare is under immense pressure (financially and in terms of staff).
• Municipal self-government in the 21 Swedish regions has, among other thing, prevented integration of the computer systems across regional borders. Many solutions (e.g. computer systems, but also “soft processes”) are unique to a specific hospital.

Concerns on the horizon

Global competition is increasing throughout the field of health.

Today, Swedish startups in Life Science are rarely listed among the “hottest startup companies in the world” – only when the competition narrows down. Several of Sweden’s neighbouring countries have succeeded in creating a rapidly growing Life Science sector, while Sweden is stagnant (seen over time). Denmark, for example, was quick to embark on a growth strategy for Life Science. However, the focus has, for better or worse, been on the pharmaceutical industry alone.

New stakeholders also affect the market – everything from new pharmacy chains and online doctors to pure IT and gaming companies.

Great opportunities

Swelife’s areas of strength are in need of vigorous further development in order to maintain Sweden’s competitiveness.

Healthcare in Sweden has major potential as a

• competent contracting authority,
• developer together with industry,
• recipient of new innovative solutions.

Patient participation is an increasingly important part of innovation for improved health, and in recent years, several initiatives have been taken to reinforce the patient’s role in healthcare development processes – through both traditional patient organisations and new constellations. In recent research and innovation bills, the strategic significance of the Life Science field is noted. Among other things, Swelife is to promote collaboration between healthcare, academia and industry, as this strengthens Sweden’s position in the field and contributes to improved health and societal development. Such collaboration boosts innovation power, expertise and efficient use of existing resources.

New, innovative medicines, methods and techniques are under development, and herein lies an opportunity for Sweden to be a contender. However, this requires long-term investments in, for example, genomics within healthcare as well as cell and gene therapies.

Sweden’s relatively advanced skills in IT, AI and quantum computing can generate enormous benefits for Swedish Life Science, but only if we act fast.

Sweden has an advantage with its expertise in sustainability work, and this could also create an innovative advantage for the Swedish Life Science ecosystem, not least within ecological sustainability.

As of December 2019, Sweden has a national Life Science strategy, and it provides an opportunity for consensus and cooperation. It states, among other things, that “Sweden is to be a leading Life Science nation. Life Science helps to improve the health and quality of life of the population, ensure financial prosperity, develop the country further as a leading knowledge nation and realise Agenda 2030.”

Subscribe for Swelife's newsletters

Privacy overview.

Insights on Life Sciences

Generative AI in the pharmaceutical industry: Moving from hype to reality

Making more medicines that matter

Spurring innovation in animal health: An interview with Elanco’s Jeff Simmons

Beyond the pandemic: The next chapter of innovation in vaccines

Early adoption of generative AI in commercial life sciences

What to expect from medtech in 2024

Here to stay: An attractive future for medical aesthetics

Accelerating clinical trials to improve biopharma R&D productivity

What early-stage investing reveals about biotech innovation

Special collection.

Future of pharma operations

Coronavirus vaccines progress: What’s next?

McKinsey insights on cell and gene therapy

The rise of health technology

Want to learn more about how we help clients in life sciences, more insights, related practices.

Healthcare Systems & Services

Consumer Health

Public & Social Sector

Connect with our life sciences practice.

Sponsored by

The Future of Life Sciences in a Rapidly Changing World

The pharmaceutical and biotech industries are navigating complex challenges – and emerging opportunities

21 November 2022

Credit: KTSIMAGE/ISTOCK

Getty Images/iStockphoto

The landscape for the life sciences industry is changing. The COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit and the increasingly volatile geopolitical situation relating to the war in Ukraine are influencing the ability to develop, manufacture and distribute therapeutics.

The science is changing too. An improved understanding of disease mechanisms at the molecular level is shifting therapeutic focus from symptoms to underlying causes, moving from treatment to prevention and cure.

At the same time, the digital transformation of healthcare is encouraging new kinds of innovation and attracting technology companies.

All these factors have created numerous challenges for life sciences companies in the risks they face, in managing regulatory affairs, securing supply chains and demonstrating the value of their therapeutics.

But periods of great change bring opportunities too as new products and approaches emerge and markets evolve. A recent New Scientist Debate on The Future of the Life Sciences sponsored by KPMG discussed the forces buffeting the pharmaceutical and biotech industries as well as the challenges and opportunities arising.

One lessons from the pandemic is that, given the right conditions, the development and delivery of healthcare solutions can be dramatically accelerated. “The pandemic has shown the industry’s amazing resilience in its ability to bring both vaccines and covid-19 therapeutics to the market very quickly,” said Alan Morrison, Vice President of International Regulatory Affairs at MSD. “That has been a partnership with regulators and researchers and shows society at its best.”

But, he adds, it brings a challenge: can people and organisations continue to perform at that level? Expectations should be tempered, Morrison reckons: COVID-19 was a unique problem with the entire industry operating on an emergency footing. Today, the systems to bring other innovations through so quickly are not in place.

The panellists (clockwise from top left): Anusha Foy, KPMG; Richard Torbett, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry; Alan Morrison, MSD; Nigel Blackburn, Cancer Research UK

Indeed, some side effects of tackling the pandemic are dragging the industry, For example, clinical trials are a crucial part of drug development and require significant cooperation with Britain’s National Health But various hangovers from the pandemic mean this process is now painfully slow and unable to cope with the sheer volume of clinical trials that need to be done, said Nigel Blackburn, Director of Drug Development at Cancer Research UK.

That said, one emerging benefit is increased global partnerships. “There were so many great examples of collaboration and there are some good signals coming through as global regulators and governments coordinate their activities now,” said Anusha Foy, Head of Life Sciences Biotech Regulatory Solutions Practice at KPMG. She cites Project Orbis, which aims to allow patients all over the world access to emerging cancer treatment options, as a good example.

Another accelerated success is in the use of digital technology. It happened in a wide range of contexts during the pandemic: access to GPs via online platforms such as Zoom; “virtual” clinical trials, where use of digital technologies meant that subjects could enrol for programmes that were centred far from their own geographical location; sharing of trial data and even use of artificial intelligence-based technologies for diagnosis.

Indeed, AI is playing an increasingly important role in diagnosis, drug discovery and management of treatment. It is already having an impact in cancer research, said Blackburn. “I believe AI will help us bring down the cost of drug discovery,” he says. He points to the Galleri trial running in the UK, in which AI-based algorithms analyse blood samples to potentially provide early diagnosis of up to 50 different kinds of cancer.

The growing sources of healthcare data provide other opportunities. “We’re living through incredibly exciting times on this,” said Richard Torbett, Chief Executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. But, he pointed out, there are challenges, such as issues concerning data-protection and transparency. “The challenge for the regulators is to stay on top of the developments in science while creating the right regulatory framework. That way, innovation is still able to flourish but society is still able to have confidence and trust in the work people do,” Torbett said.

A similar challenge is emerging in the era of “omics” technologies—genomics, proteomics metabolomics and so on—that analyse biological samples at the molecular level looking for associations between those molecules and disease pathways. These technologies are already leading to personalised therapies such as gene therapy — interventions that replace a faulty or absent gene with a working copy — or cell therapy, where diseased or damaged cells are replaced by healthy ones. While exciting, this too requires careful regulation and data protection innovations.

They are also expensive and healthcare providers must solve the problem of making sure innovations are available to everyone, not just to wealthy individuals or those living in rich countries (see box).

But in general the future looks promising. “The pace of change in development of new biotherapeutics puts us in an exciting period of time for the life sciences sector,” Morrison said.

Torbett agrees. “We’re in a golden era right now,” he said. “From discovery science to the way we do clinical development and even the way we manage affordability and access: these things really have been accelerated through the pandemic and I think they can help us bring through the next generation of biotherapeutics.”

For more information visit KPMG Life Sciences     

Access for all

In an age of expensive medical solutions, how do we ensure that everyone can benefit, regardless of income and geography?

It’s an important question, according to Anusha Foy. “Access to medicines is one of the greatest challenges that the life sciences industry is facing,” she said. “Even in the western world it’s not possible to pay for a treatment that costs £1.8 million for every patient. Governments will need to balance the risk benefits and the costs.”

Richard Torbett agrees but believes there are reasons to be optimistic — especially when it comes to vaccines. “I’m yet to meet anyone in the pharmaceutical industry who isn’t dedicated to making vaccines available to patients that need them,” he said. But he pointed out that many challenges are beyond the remit of the pharmaceutical industry alone. For example, in some areas of the world, the infrastructure for storing and delivering vaccines efficiently and effectively is lacking.

When it comes to expensive drug treatments, or cell therapy and gene therapy, there are few easy answers. “We want to make sure that the prices of these therapies are reflective of the value they are delivering to patients,” Torbett said. This value can be challenging to calculate. There’s no way, for instance, to prove that a new treatment will add 50 years to a child’s life until those 50 years have passed. “We have to develop novel payment mechanisms,” Torbett said.

Advertisement

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

Quantum holograms can send messages that disappear

Why is the US military getting ready to launch new spy balloons?

Subscriber-only

Generative AI creates playable version of Doom game with no code

Does mpox cause lingering symptoms like long covid?

Popular articles.

Trending New Scientist articles

What is life?

• Open access
• Published: 27 July 2021
• Volume 48 , pages 6223–6230, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jaime Gómez-Márquez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6962-1348 1  

10k Accesses

11 Citations

50 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Many traditional biological concepts continue to be debated by biologists, scientists and philosophers of science. The specific objective of this brief reflection is to offer an alternative vision to the definition of life taking as a starting point the traits common to all living beings.

Results and Conclusions

Thus, I define life as a process that takes place in highly organized organic structures and is characterized by being preprogrammed, interactive, adaptative and evolutionary. If life is the process, living beings are the system in which this process takes place. I also wonder whether viruses can be considered living things or not. Taking as a starting point my definition of life and, of course, on what others have thought about it, I am in favor of considering viruses as living beings. I base this conclusion on the fact that viruses satisfy all the vital characteristics common to all living things and on the role they have played in the evolution of species. Finally, I argue that if there were life elsewhere in the universe, it would be very similar to what we know on this planet because the laws of physics and the composition of matter are universal and because of the principle of the inexorability of life.

Similar content being viewed by others

General Introduction

Revolutionary Struggle for Existence: Introduction to Four Intriguing Puzzles in Virus Research

Reflections upon a new definition of life

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Life is a wonderful natural process that occurs in highly organized dynamic structures that we call living beings. Today, thanks to the enormous advance of Biology, we know and understand much better the vital phenomenon, the molecular biology of the cells, the enormous biodiversity on our planet, the evolutionary process, and the complexity of ecosystems. However, despite these enormous advances, biology still lacks a solid theoretical framework necessary to understand the vital phenomenon and to answer questions such as what is life? or are viruses living entities? To answer these and other fundamental questions related to life, in addition to the universal laws of physics, biology needs its own principles to help us find answers to major theoretical challenges such as the origin of life, the construction and maintenance of genomes, or the concept of life itself. Regarding the principles governing life, there have been several contributions from different perspectives (e.g. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]) and I myself have proposed a series of principles (named as the commandments of life) to explain and understand the vital phenomenon from an evolutionary perspective, far from any vitalist, pseudo-scientific or supernatural considerations [ 6 ].

In the words of B. Clark, a definition of life is needed more than ever before to provide defendable objective criteria for searches for life on other planets, to recognize critical distinctions between machine life and robots, to provide insight into laboratory approaches to creating test-tube life, to understand the profound changes that occurred during the origin of life, and to clarify the central process of the discipline of biology [ 7 ]. It is worth noting what E. Koonin wrote about the complexity of defining life: “In my view, although life definitions are metaphysical rather than strictly scientific propositions, they are far from being pointless and have potential to yield genuine biological insights” [ 8 ]. However, despite its importance there is no widely accepted definition of what life is and some of the most commonly employed definitions (see below) face problems, often in the form of robust counter-examples [ 5 , 9 ]. Even some scientists and philosophers of science suggest that it is not possible to define life [ 5 , 8 ].

We can define life in very different ways depending on the context and the focus we want to give to the definition. For example, we can define life as the period from birth to death or as the condition that occurs only in living organisms. We can also say that life is a wonderful and ever-changing process that occurs in highly organized receptacles that we identify as living entities. Likewise, the popular encyclopedia Wikipedia define life as “a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes ….. from those that do not …” [ 10 ]. However, with these expressions we are not defining precisely what life is and therefore we need to create a definition that concisely but informatively reflects our scientific knowledge of the vital phenomenon. We have to distinguish between life and living matter, which is the place where life lives, and between living beings and non-living matter. In reality, when we ask ourselves “what is life?” we are asking “what are the characteristics that distinguish a living organism from a non-living entity?

There are numerous definitions of life formulated from different characteristics of living beings (replication, metabolism, evolution, energy, autopoiesis, etc.) and from different approaches (thermodynamic, chemical, philosophical, evolutionary, etc.). Often, definitions of life are biased by the research focus of the person making the definition; as a result, people studying different aspects of biology, physics, chemistry, or philosophy will draw the line between life and non-life at different positions [ 11 ]. These strategies create a panoply of alternative definitions that makes it very difficult to reach a consensus on the best definition of life because they all have pros and cons. [ 12 , 13 ]. Let me briefly discuss some of the most representative definitions of life. There is a short definition “Life is self-reproduction with variations” [ 14 ] that is interesting for its brevity and because it includes two fundamental characteristics of living organisms: reproduction and evolution. However, this minimalist definition is clearly insufficient [ 8 ] and it does not include some of the most important traits we see in living things. Along these lines, there is also the definition coined by NASA: “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution” [ 15 , 16 ]. This is a more complete and, I believe, better definition than the previous one, as it incorporates, in addition to reproduction and evolution, metabolism. However, both definitions are unsatisfactory because neither cell nor multicellular organisms are self-sufficient as there is always a dependence on other organisms and external factors to live and reproduce. Furthermore, these definitions say nothing about the chemical nature of living matter, the interactions with the environment or the low entropy of living things. Apart from that, reproduction being essential for the perpetuation of species and evolution, not all living beings are able to reproduce (e.g. the mule, most bees, etc.) and do not thereby lose their living status. A more recent definition of life states: “Life is a self-sufficient chemical system far from equilibrium, capable of processing, transforming and accumulating information acquired from the environment” [ 17 ]. Although this definition is more comprehensive than the previous ones and includes a reference to thermodynamics, in my opinion it has four drawbacks: (i) the term “self-sufficient” is not adequate because the quality of life does not provide self-sufficiency; (ii) the thermodynamic component does not highlight how fundamental low entropy or high order is for any living being; (iii) information can be acquired from “within” and not only from the environment; (iv) life is not a system is a process and living beings are the system where that process occurs (I discuss this point below). From a very different perspective it was defined life as “matter with the configuration of an operator, and that possesses a complexity equal to, or even higher than the cellular operator” [ 18 ]. This proposal introduces a new term, the operator, which is somewhat confusing, excludes viruses and makes a strange classification of living systems. On the other hand, some scientists have also attempted to define life from a handful of key features. Thus, seven “pillars” (the essential principles by which a living system functions) have been proposed on which life as we know it can be defined [ 19 ], but no definition was provided. Life has also been considered as any system that from its own inherent set of biological instructions and the algorithmic processing of that "prescriptive information" can perform the nine biofunctions [ 20 ] which are basically the same as the "pillars" mentioned above. However, no definition of life was proposed, and again it was considered as a system rather than a process. Both definitions exclude viruses as living beings, mainly because the existence of a membrane, a metabolic network and self-replication are set as conditions for life. In short, there are many more definitions of life but as R. Popa says “We may never agree on a definition of life, which will remain forever subject to a personal perspective” [ 21 ].

My definition of life

Traits are measurable attributes or characteristics of organisms and trait-based approaches have been widely used in systematics and evolutionary studies [ 22 ]. Since any definition of life must connect with what we observe in nature, my strategy for finding a definition of life was to establish what are the key attributes or traits common to all living things. What do bacteria, yeasts, lichens, trees, beetles, birds, whales, etc. have in common that clearly differentiates them from non-living systems? In my opinion, living organisms share seven traits: organic nature, high degree of organization, pre-programming, interaction (or collaboration), adaptation, reproduction and evolution, the last two being facultative as they are not present in all living beings.

Organic nature and highly organized structures. Living matter is organic because it is based on carbon chemistry and molecular interactions take place following the laws of chemistry. As R. Hazen wrote “Carbon chemistry pervades our lives. Almost every object we see, every material good we buy, every bite of food we consume, is based on element six. Every activity is influenced by carbon—work and sports, sleeping and waking, birthing and dying.” [ 23 ]. Living organisms are highly organized structures that maintain low entropy (the vital order) by generating greater disorder in the environment, thus fulfilling the postulates of thermodynamics [ 24 , 25 ]; when this vital order is lost, life disappears and the only way to restore life is to generate a new vital organized structure through reproduction [ 6 ]. Living organisms resist entropy thanks to biochemical processes that transform the energy they obtain from nutrients, sun or redox reactions. It could be said that vital order and energy are two sides of the same coin.

Pre-programming. Every living entity has a software (a pre-programme) in its genetic material that contains the instruction manual necessary for both its construction (morphology) and its functioning (physiology). This programme has been modified in the course of evolution, as a consequence of contingency and causality, so it is not a static or immutable program but a dynamic one. Furthermore, there is also another preestablished program that conditions the vital phenomenon and that I have called the principle of inexorability [ 6 ]. Let me give few examples of the principle of inexorability at different levels of complexity. The shape of ribosome is determined (pre-programmed) by the chemical bonds that are established between ribosomal proteins and rRNA. A similar example is the λ phage morphogenesis that depends only on interactions protein–protein and protein-DNA. Evolutionary convergence or the need for wings to fly are other examples of this inexorability guided by the laws of nature.

Interaction and adaptation. If we look at nature in its purest state or at the complex human society, we can see countless interactions between living beings and with their environment necessary for survival and reproduction. We can see interactions at the molecular level (e.g., allosteric interactions, metabolic pathways, cellular signaling, quorum sensing), in the relationships between organisms of the same or different species (e.g., sexual reproduction, symbiosis, infection, parasitism, predator–prey, or sound language), or between living forms and the environment (e.g., photosynthesis or physiological/anatomical interactions for swimming or flying). Interaction is collaboration, it is cooperation at all levels [ 6 ], the ecosystem being the best example of multiple collaborative interactions between very different organisms. In terms of adaptation, living organisms show a great capacity to adapt both to their surroundings and to environmental circumstances; furthermore, adaptations involving new biological characteristics can be seen as an opportunity to find a different way to evolve. In this sense, the evolutionary process reflects this continuous adaptation and anatomy, physiology and genome bear witness to this. Life is adaptative because species adapt to environmental changes modifying their physiology or metabolism, for instance reducing heartbeat during hibernation (e.g. the grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis ) or synthesizing fat from excess sugar to increase the energy reserves of the body (e.g. Homo sapiens ). In addition to these temporal adaptations in response to environmental changes [ 26 ], there are also changes in genotype or phenotype since the adaptation process is the result of natural selection acting upon heritable variations [ 27 ]; a well-known example of this is the peppered moth Biston betularia whose allele frequencies of the locus that controls the distribution of melanin in the wings changed with the industrial revolution in England [ 28 ]. Epigenetic variations also contribute to rapid adaptative responses [ 29 , 30 ].

Reproduction and Evolution. Another property of living beings is their ability to perpetuate themselves and thus make it possible for the species not to disappear and to evolve. Reproduction can be observed at the molecular (DNA replication), cellular (mitosis, meiosis, binary division), and organismal (sexual and asexual) levels. From a different perspective, reproduction is also the way to overcome the second law of thermodynamics and the tyranny of time because when we reproduce, we are creating a new order and resetting the vital clock to zero [ 6 ]. What about individuals such as the mule or the male and female of a species, or the hermaphrodite that cannot self-fertilize, who cannot reproduce because they are sterile or because they need another member of their species to reproduce? Are not these organisms living beings? Of course, they are! In this context, reproduction must be considered as a facultative trait because not all living organisms are fertile or can produce offspring on their own but maintain all other traits necessary for the life process. If an individual is sterile, the species will continue to exist because the evolutionary process must be analyzed at the population level, not at the level of individual organisms; obviously, if the entire population were sterile, then the species would disappear and there would be no life. All species have the capacity to evolve, and this property is unique to life. Evolution allows living beings to adapt to new circumstances and the best genomes are selected and transmitted to the next generations. The concept of evolution (reproduction with variations and permanence in time) allows us to interpret the reality of the life we observe now and to guess what it has been like in the past. We cannot predict the future because evolution is not a finalistic process, it is, to use the words of J. Monod, the fruit of chance and necessity.

There is nothing on this planet, apart from a living being, that complies with all these characteristic features of living beings. It should therefore be possible to define life by logically combining them. Consequently, I define life as a process that takes place in highly organized organic structures and is characterized by being preprogrammed, interactive, adaptative and evolutionary. If life is the process, a living organism is the system in which that process takes place and which is characterized as organic, highly organized, pre-programmed, interactive, adaptative, and evolutionary. Why do I say that life is a process and not a system? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a process is a natural phenomenon characterized by gradual changes that lead towards a certain result. A second meaning defines it as a continuous natural or biological activity or function; and a third one as a series of actions or operations conducing to an end. These three meanings of what a process is fit very well with what we observe happening in living beings, which is none other than the vital process or life. The dictionary itself defines a system as a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole, and as an assemblage of substances that is in or tends to equilibrium or a group of body organs that together perform one or more vital functions. Once again, these definitions fit very well with what a living being represents.

What is the difference between life, living being and a robot? [ 31 ] Life is the vital process and the living being is the system, the “container” in a metaphorical way, where the vital process takes place. Following this reasoning, a robot would be an artificially organized, pre-programmed and interactive system, but unlike a living being it is not alive because it is neither organic, nor does it reproduce, adapt, or evolve. A robot or a population of robots cannot “reproduce and evolve” on its own, without the intervention of its "creator" (the human being), it will always need to be built or programmed by an engineer to do so. I do not dispute that the robot can adapt, especially thanks to advances in artificial intelligence, although I am not sure that it can do so in the biological sense of the term. Biological adaptation is a process by which a species eventually adapts to its environment as a result of the action of natural selection on phenotypic characteristics [ 32 ]. A robot may be able to adapt to its environment, but what it cannot do is adapt itself through a selective process (without intervention from its creator) and change into a new type of robot (evolve). On the other hand, regarding the synthetic lifeforms named as xenobots [ 33 ], I think they cannot be considered as pure robots, but as an interface between living beings and artificial robots, as they are made from cells. In the future we will probably build robots so perfect that we can consider them as almost living beings and as the result of the intervention of a creator (their engineer), something that we cannot say about living beings unless we are creationists.

Are viruses alive?

A. Turing, one of the pioneers in the development of computer sciences, wrote: “Can machines think? This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms “machine” and “think” [ 34 ]. To paraphrase Turing, we could ask ourselves: can viruses be considered living entities? And the answer to this question, so important for biology and still controversial [ 35 ], is to define what a virus is and what life is. At least from a theoretical point of view, biology should seek a clear and definitive answer to this question instead of adopting a skeptical attitude and assuming what K. Smith wrote in his classic book on viruses, “As to the question asked most frequently of all, are viruses living organisms? that must be left to the questioner himself to answer” [ 36 ].

Viruses are entities that straddle the boundary between living and non-living and therefore their biological status is controversial. A virus can be defined as an acellular infectious agent whose structure consists of a macromolecular complex of proteins and nucleic acids. Viruses are not cells, they do not metabolize substances, nor can they reproduce by themselves, grow, or breathe. Yet, regardless of whether we consider viruses to be living beings or not, they are an inescapable part of life and there is an undeniable biological connection between the virus and the organism it infects. Given the close interconnection between viruses and their hosts, it seems plausible that viruses play essential roles in their hosts [ 37 ]. For example, endogenous retroviral elements have shaped vertebrate genome evolution, not only by acting as genetic parasites, but also by introducing useful genetic novelty [ 38 ]. More recently, it was found in the human genome a gene regulatory network based on endogenous retrovirus that is important for brain development [ 39 ] and a new tamed retroviral envelope that is produced by the fetus and then shed in the blood of the mother during pregnancy [ 40 ].

Viruses are capsid-encoding particles that infect all kind of cells and share hallmark genes with capsidless selfish genetic elements, such as plasmids and transposons [ 41 ]. Traditionally, they have been regarded as lifeless agents because they have no metabolism of their own and need a cell to replicate and generate new viruses [ 42 ]. However, while this is true, I believe that this is not a definitive criterion for excluding them from the tree of life (more on this below). There are scientists in the opposite side that consider viruses as living beings that can evolve [ 43 ] and classify them as capsid-encoding organisms as opposed to the ribosome-encoding organisms that include all cellular life forms [ 37 , 44 ]. Viruses have played a key role in the evolution of species [ 35 ] because they are the most abundant source of genetic material on Earth, are ubiquitous in all environments, and have actively participated in the exchange of genes or DNA fragments with their hosts [ 41 , 45 , 46 ].

We cannot say whether a virus is a living thing or not without defining what is life and what is a living thing. Obviously, if we take the cell as the minimum vital unit, we cannot consider viruses as living entities, and any discussion of this is superfluous. As far as I am concerned, considering viruses as non-living creatures because they need a cell to reproduce is not a very strong argument for two reasons. First, viruses are obligate intracellular parasites, and, like all parasites, they use the host for their own benefit, and this is their survival strategy. Viruses need nothing else to pursue the same goal as all species on this planet, which is to generate more viruses better adapted to infect new organisms. They apply the “law of least effort” to achieve this goal and may even decide to remain inside the host cell in a lysogenic manner, as in the case of bacteriophage lambda [ 47 ], or by establishing latency as herpesviruses do [ 48 ]. Second, as I said before no cell or organism is self-sufficient, as it needs at least a supply of food/energy to survive and reproduce. We know that life is absolutely interdependent. For example, we depend directly on our intestinal bacterial flora for our survival, and indirectly on nitrogen-fixing bacteria or photosynthesis. We could take to absurdity the argument that because viruses need a cell to reproduce, they are not alive and say that a man or a woman is not a living being because they cannot reproduce by themselves. The argument that a virus is not a living thing because it is an inert entity outside the cell is also not valid because such a virus could still have the ability to infect cells. Similarly, a spore or a seed cannot be considered lifeless because it is inert, as it is only waiting for the right environmental conditions to germinate, and that wait can last for thousands of years.

To answer the question of whether viruses are alive or not, I base my argument in support of considering viruses as living entities obviously on my own definition of life (this paper), as well as on what we know about the biology of viruses. First, viruses, like all cellular entities in nature, are composed of organic molecules; a virus consists of a nucleic acid (DNA or RNA), which is its genetic material as in all living things, and a protein capsid encoded by the viral genome that protects the viral genetic material and participates in the propagation of the virus in the host; viral capsids show fascinating dynamics during the viral life cycle [ 49 ]. Secondly, viruses are highly organized structures. There is an astonishing diversity of organization and geometric design of viruses, requiring only a few different structural subunits of the capsid to construct an infectious particle. Many viruses have developed very successful self-assembly systems; so much so that the viral capsid can self-assemble even outside the host cell [ 50 ]. The third feature common to all living things is that they are pre-programmed, and viruses also fulfill this characteristic because in their genetic material are written the instructions to make new viruses capable of infecting new cells or organisms. Viruses in their genome have the necessary (though not sufficient because they need elements provided by the host cell) instructions to make new viruses, and in this they are the same as any other living thing. In addition, the process of self-assembly to generate new viruses occurs spontaneously because the instructions to do it autonomously are both in the capsid-forming molecules themselves and in the nucleic acid, either DNA or RNA [ 49 ].

Two other characteristics of living organisms are the ability to interact with other living organisms (interaction) and to adapt genetically to new circumstances (adaptation). Viruses interact with their host in multiple ways: during infection, when their genes are expressed and their genome replicated, when virions are formed, when they integrate into the genome of the host cell, or when they engage in horizontal gene transfer processes. Viruses not only interact with their host, but also adapt by generating new variants that increase their ability to infect other cells, or by taking control of cell metabolism for their own benefit, or even to escape the immune response [ 51 ]. In terms of reproduction and evolution, which are two closely related processes, viruses reproduce in the host cell and evolve through changes in their genome. Viral evolution, like that of all living things, refers to the heritable genetic changes that a virus accumulates during its life cycle, which may arise from adaptations in response to environmental changes or host immune response. Because of their short generation times and large population sizes, viruses can evolve rapidly [ 52 ].

Microbiologist and Nobel laureate J. Lederberg said that “The very essence of the virus is its fundamental entanglement with the genetic and metabolic machinery of the host”. As far as I am concerned, this statement is essentially true and its profound meaning is, at least for me, further proof that viruses are living things. Viruses form part of many integrated biological systems, and they played an important role in the evolution of species [ 53 ]. They can exchange genetic material and participate in horizontal gene transfer [ 43 ] even between individuals from different species [ 54 ]. Due to their high frequency of mutation [ 55 ], viruses are so abundant in nature and present such a high degree of diversity that they constitute by themselves the virosphere [ 46 ]. This great viral biodiversity is proof that these living entities perform fundamental evolutionary and ecological functions [ 56 , 57 ]. In conclusion, I believe that viruses should be considered as living entities that can participate in events as diverse as causing pandemics, destroying bacteria, causing cancer, or participating in horizontal gene transfer.

Following the metaphor of the “container” as the vessel or system (the living being) in which the life process takes place, the fact that viruses are obligated intracellular parasites and do not have a cellular structure and metabolism of their own does not seem to fit this metaphor. It is obvious that the virus cannot be the “container” where the life process takes place, since the virus, when outside the cell, is in a “dormant” state waiting to find a suitable host to infect and complete its life cycle; we could say that it is inert but not yet dead. Therefore, in the special case of viruses, the “container” is the cell. Once the virus finds its specific “container”, it can then reproduce, or integrate into the genome of the host cell, or remain as an episome, or intervene in the evolutionary process through exchange of genetic material. From genomic and metagenomic data, we know that co-evolution between viral and host genomes involves frequent horizontal gene transfer and the occasional co-option of novel functions over evolutionary time. We can say that viruses and their cellular hosts are ecologically and evolutionary intertwined [ 58 ].

I would like to refer to an interesting reflection on the defining characteristics of life and how viruses fit into this conceptual framework [ 59 ]. Thus, Dupré and O'Malley consider collaboration as a common criterion of life and I can only agree with this assessment; in this sense, in a previous paper on the principles that govern life [ 6 ], I use the expression “cooperative thrust” to refer to the importance of collaboration in the origin and evolution of living beings. Without considering collaboration or cooperation as a key interaction, we could not explain endosymbiosis, eukaryogenesis, metabolism, multicellularity, etc. In the present paper, collaboration is implicit in what I call interaction as a common and fundamental feature of all living things. Interestingly, these authors point out that “leaving viruses out of evolutionary, ecological, physiological or conceptual studies of living entities, would allow only an incomplete understanding of life at any level” [ 59 ]. Considering this emphasis on collaboration as a sine qua non condition for life, how does the world of viruses fit in? Dupré and O'Malley propose, and I agree, that viruses can be understood as alive when they actively collaborate (I mean when they are infecting the target cell) and when they do not collaborate (I would say they are inactive), they have at most a potential for life.

Finally, I would like to add that I am aware that there are many scientists who consider that viruses are not living beings basically because they do not have a cellular structure with all that this means. Therefore, this biological dilemma will probably be with us for a long time to come. I think it will only be resolved when we reach a consensus on what life is because only then will we be able to say categorically whether something is alive or not. This is what I have modestly tried to do in this paper.

What would life be like elsewhere in the universe?

The massive number of exoplanets strongly suggests that there is a high probability that life evolved elsewhere in the universe. Astrobiologists are committed to the search for life in the cosmos and for that purpose it is very convenient to have a criterion about what life is [ 16 ]. How can we be sure that there is life on a distant planet? To do so, we need to define some biosignatures that can establish the possible existence of living things elsewhere in the universe [ 60 ], otherwise what are we looking for? In addition to this, it would also help a lot in this search for life on other planets, finding out how life began on Earth.

Some scientists and philosophers of science think that this preconception of what life is may be a problem rather than a solution in the search for life in other planets. C. Cleland in her book about the nature of life states, “Life is not the sort of thing that can be successfully defined. In truth, a definition of life is more likely to hinder than facilitate the discovery of novel forms of life” [ 5 ]. I do not entirely agree with this double statement because although we must be open-minded in the search for life outside our galactic home, at the same time I think it is a good idea to have a hypothesis based on the only certainty we have about vital phenomena, which is life on Earth, that will help in the design of the search for extraterrestrial life.

Is there life elsewhere in the universe? We don't know yet and it is probably only a matter of time before we find life on other planets or aliens find us. In my opinion if there is life elsewhere in the universe, it will most likely be similar to what existed, exists or will exist on our planet. Let us see why. First of all, the laws of physics and chemistry are universal and these laws, directly or indirectly, govern everything that happens with the matter of the universe. According to the cosmological principle, the same physical laws and models that applies here on Earth also works in all parts of the universe [ 61 ]; it is also assumed that physical constants (gravitational constant, speed of light, etc.) remain the same everywhere in the universe. Second, the elements that make up the matter of the stars are the same everywhere in the universe although in different proportions; the “periodic table” is the same for the whole universe. Whether life exists elsewhere in the universe based on a chemistry other than carbon we do not know and can only speculate, but what we do know for sure is that life on Earth is based on carbon chemistry, perhaps because it cannot be otherwise. Third, there is the aforementioned principle of inexorability [ 6 ]. In this context, what does this principle mean? It means that if the environmental conditions are suitable, glucose will be converted into pyruvate in an aqueous medium, chemiosmotic processes will be an important mechanism for generating chemical energy, flying organisms will have wings, or genetic information will be encoded in a language analogous or identical to what we know on Earth. According to this, the differences between the Earth living forms and the “space creatures” could be attributed to a different evolutionary stage or to specific environmental conditions. This hypothetical premise could be very important when developing projects that seek life elsewhere in the universe.

Dhar PK, Giuliani A (2010) Laws of biology: why so few? Syst Synth Biol 4:7–13

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lane N (2015) The vital question. Profile Books, London

Google Scholar  

Shou W, Bergstrom CT, Chakraborty AK, Skinner FK (2015) Theory, models and biology. eLife 4:e07158

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cockell CS (2017) The laws of life. Phys Today 70:43–48

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cleland CE (2019) The quest for a universal theory of life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Gómez-Márquez J (2020) What are the principles that govern life? Commun Integr Biol 13:97–107

Clark B (2019) A generalized and universalized definition of life applicable to extraterrestrial environments. In: Kolb VM (ed) Handbook of astrobiology. CRC Press, Boca Ratón

Koonin EV (2012) Defining life: an exercise in semantics or a route to biological insights? J Biomol Struct Dyn 29:603–605

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cleland CE, Chyba CF (2002) Defining life. Orig Life Evol Biosph 32:387–392

Wikipedia (2021) Life. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Szostak J (2012) Attempts to define life do not help to understand the origin of life. J Biomol Struct Dyn 29:599–600

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Luisi PL (1998) About various definitions of life. Orig Life Evol Biosph 28:613–622

Popa R (2003) Between necessity and probability: searching for the definition and the origin of life. Springer, Berlin

Trifonov EN (2011) Vocabulary of definitions of life suggests a definition. J Biomol Struct Dyn 29:259–266

Joyce GF (1994) Forward. In: Deamer DW, Fleischaker GR, Sudbury MA (eds) Origins of life: the central concepts. Jones and Bartlett, Burlington

Benner SA (2010) Defining life. Astrobiology 10:1021–1030

Vitas M, Dobovišek A (2019) Towards a general definition of life. Orig Life Evol Biosph 49:77–88

Jagersop Akkerhuis GA (2010) Towards a hierarchical definition of life, the organism, and death. Found Sci 15:245–262

Article   Google Scholar  

Koshland D Jr (2002) The seven pillars of life. Science 295:2215–2226

Abel DL (2012) Is life unique? Life 2:106–134

Popa R (2012) Merits and caveats of using a vocabulary approach to define life. J Biomol Struct Dyn 29:607–608

Gallagher R, Falster DS, Maitner BS et al (2020) Open science principles for accelerating trait-based science across the Tree of Life. Nat Ecol Evol 4:294–303

Hazen RH (2019) Symphony in C: carbon and the evolution of (almost) everything. WW Norton & Co., New York

Schneider E, Sagan D (2005) Into the cool: energy flow, thermodynamics, and life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Peterson J (2012) Understanding the thermodynamics of biological order. Am Biol Teach 74:22–24

Somero GN, Lockwood BL, Tomanek L (2017) Biochemical Adaptation: response to environmental challenges from life’s origins to the Anthropocene. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

Gardner A (2009) Adaptation as organism design. Biol Lett 5:861–864

Mueller L (2020) 1973 The evolution of melanism. In: Mueller L (ed) Conceptual breakthroughs in evolutionary ecology. Academic Press, Cambridge

Schmid MW, Heichinger C, Coman Schmid D et al (2018) Contribution of epigenetic variation to adaptation in Arabidopsis . Nat Commun 9:4446

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gómez-Schiavon M, Buchler NE (2019) Epigenetic switching as a strategy for quick adaptation while attenuating biochemical noise. PLoS Comput Biol 15(10):e1007364

Bongard J, Levin M (2021) Living things are not (20th century) machines: updating mechanism metaphors in light of the modern science of machine behavior. Front Ecol Evol 9:650726

Bock WJ (1980) The definition and recognition of biological adaptation. Am Zool 20:217–227

Kriegman S, Blackiston D, Levin M, Bongard J (2020) A scalable pipeline for designing reconfigurable organisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:1853–1859

Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59:433–460

Koonin EV, Starokadomskyy P (2016) Are viruses alive? The replicator paradigm sheds decisive light on an old misguided question. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 59:125–134

Smith K (1962) Viruses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Dupré J, Guttinger S (2016) Viruses as living processes. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 59:109–116

Katzourakis A, Gifford RJ (2010) Endogenous viral elements in animal genomes. PLoS Genet 6:e1001191

Brattas L, Jönsson ME, Fasching L et al (2017) TRIM28 controls a gene regulatory network based on endogenous retroviruses in human neural progenitor cells. Cell Rep 18:1–11

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Heidmann O, Béguin A, Paternina J, Berthier R, Deloger M, Bawa O, Heidmann T (2017) HEMO, an ancestral endogenous retroviral envelope protein shed in the blood of pregnant women and expressed in pluripotent stem cells and tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:E6642–E6651

Koonin EV, Dolja VV (2014) Virus world as an evolutionary network of viruses and capsidless selfish elements. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 78:278–303

Moreira D, López-García P (2009) Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:306–311

Forterre P (2010) Defining life: the virus viewpoint. Orig Life Evol Biosph 40:151–160

Raoult D, Forterre P (2008) Redefining viruses: lessons from mimivirus. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:315–319

Gilbert C, Cordaux R (2017) Viruses as vectors of horizontal transfer of genetic material in eukaryotes. Curr Opin Virol 25:16–22

Zhang Y-Z, Shi M, Holmes EC (2018) Using metagenomics to characterize and expanding virosphere. Cell 172:1168–1172

Casjens SR, Hendrix RW (2015) Bacteriophage lambda: early pioneer and still relevant. Virology 479–480:310–330

Nicoll MP, Proença JT, Efstathiou S (2012) The molecular basis of herpes virus latency. FEMS Microbiol Rev 36:684–705

Bruinsma RF, Wuite GJL, Roos WH (2021) Physics of viral dynamics. Nat Rev Phys 3:76–91

Baschek J, Klein H, Schwarz US (2012) Stochastic dynamics of virus capsid formation: direct versus hierarchical self-assembly. BMC Biophys 5:22–40

Agudelo-Romero P, Carbonell P, Perez-Amador MA, Elena SF (2008) Virus adaptation by manipulation of host’s gene expression. PLoS ONE 3(6):e2397

Duffy S, Shackelton LA, Holmes EC (2008) Rates of evolutionary change in viruses: patterns and determinants. Nat Rev Genet 9:267–276

Koonin EV, Dolja VV (2013) A virocentric perspective on the evolution of life. Curr Opin Virol 3:546–557

Faria NR, Suchard MA, Rambaut A, Streicker DG, Lemey P (2013) Simultaneously reconstructing viral cross-species transmission history and identifying the underlying constraints. Phil Trans R Soc B 368:20120196

Duffy S (2018) Why are RNA virus mutation rates so damn high? PLoS Biol 16:e3000003

Rohwer F, Prangishvili D, Lindell D (2009) Roles of viruses in the environment. Environ Microbiol 11:2771–2774

O ́Malley MA (2016) The ecological virus. Stud Hist Philos Biol Sci 59:71–79

Harris HMB, Hill C (2021) A place for viruses on the tree of life. Front Microbiol 11:604048

Dupré J, O’Malley MA (2009) Varieties of living things: life at the intersection of lineage and metabolism. Philos Theor Biol 1:e003

Jheeta S (2013) Final frontiers: the hunt for life elsewhere in the universe. Astrophys Space Sci 348:1–10

Keel WC (2007) The road to galaxy formation, 2nd edn. Springer-Praxis, Berlin, Heidelberg

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my colleagues M. L. González Caamaño and R. Anadón for their useful discussions. This work is dedicated to my parents.

Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. The author did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Biology - CIBUS, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain

Jaime Gómez-Márquez

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime Gómez-Márquez .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author has no conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised due to funding information update.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gómez-Márquez, J. What is life?. Mol Biol Rep 48 , 6223–6230 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-021-06594-5

Download citation

Received : 05 April 2021

Accepted : 24 July 2021

Published : 27 July 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-021-06594-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Life definition
• Living viruses
• Extraterrestrial life
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Life Science Research

Life Science Research Equipment

What are some key applications of life science research.

• Cancer Research
• Cellular and Molecular Biology
• Drug Discovery
• Gene Editing /CRISPR
• Neurobiology
• Forensic Entomology
• Animal Care

What Instruments are Used for Life Science Research?

• Spectrometers
• Centrifuges
• Thermal cyclers
• Microscopes
• Lab hoods/ Fume hoods
• Lab freezers
• Chromatography instruments

Find Products Here

• Cell Analyzer
• Cell Sorter
• Flow Cytometry
• Fluorescence Microscopy
• Laboratory and Industrial Freezers
• Laboratory Centrifuges
• Laboratory Incubators
• Laboratory Microscopes
• Laminar Flow Hoods / Biological Safety Cabinets
• Life Science Supplies

• Air and Wind Speed Measurement Instrument
• Carbon Dioxide Analyzer (CO2 Gas Analyzer)
• Dew Point Generator
• Environmental Light Measurement Equipment
• Magnetic Field Meter
• Methane Gas Analyzer (CH4 Analyzer)
• Microbial Air Sampler
• Purge and Trap System
• Water Testing Equipment

• Western Blot Processor
• Digital Gel Photography System / Gel Image Capture System
• Electrophoresis Power Supply
• Gel Electrophoresis Instrument
• UV Transilluminator

• Lab Consumables
• Lab Plasticware
• Microbiology Supplies
• Pipette Tips

• Automated Cell Counter

• Chromatography Columns
• Gas Regulators / High Purity Gas Regulator
• HPLC Autosampler
• HPLC Column Heater / HPLC Column Oven
• HPLC Degasser / HPLC Vacuum Degassers
• HPLC Detectors
• HPLC Fraction Collector
• HPLC Pump / Solvent Delivery System

• Chromatography Column Search
• C18 Column / C18 HPLC Columns
• Capillary Column / Capillary GC Columns
• Fused Silica Capillary Column
• LC Columns / HPLC Column
• Reverse Phase Column / Reversed-Phase HPLC Columns

• Clean Room Filter Systems
• Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) System / Sterilization-In-Place (SIP) Systems
• Cleanroom Workstation / Clean Room Workstation
• Glove Boxes
• Laboratory Hoods

• Biological Safety Cabinet (Biosafety Cabinet)
• DNA Thermal Cycler / PCR Instrument
• Liquid Handling Robotics (Automated Systems)
• Microcentrifuge
• Micropipettes
• Minus 20 freezer (-20C to -40C Freezers)
• Minus 80 Freezer (-86 Freezer)
• Multichannel Micropipettes
• Nucleic Acid Purification Instruments
• Nucleic Acid Sample Preparation
• PCR Workstation / PCR Cabinet
• qPCR Machine
• Vortex Mixer (Lab Vortex)

• Capillary Electrophoresis Instrument

• Automated Flow Cytometry System
• Flow Cytometer

• Autosamplers
• Calibration Gas Generator / Gas Calibration Equipment
• GC Autosampler / GC Headspace Autosampler
• Portable GC MS
• Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer / GC MS Instrument
• Multidimensional Gas Chromatography (MDGC / GCxGC)

• Gel Permeation Chromatograph / GPC System (GPC SEC)
• GPC Autosamplers
• GPC Detectors

• Fluorescence Imaging Microscope
• Immunoassay System
• Immunoblotting Equipment
• Protein Purification Systems
• Spectrophotometers

• Cryogenic Refrigerator / Cryofreezer
• Cryogenic Shippers / Cryoshipper
• Laboratory Refrigerator Freezer
• Plasma Freezer / Blood Bank Freezer
• Ultra Low Temperature Freezer (ULT Freezers)

• Animal Pulse Oximeters
• Animal Temperature
• Animal Ventilator
• Animal Warmers
• Cage Changing Hoods
• Glove Box Systems
• Hypoxia Incubator / Hyperoxia Incubators

• Laboratory Centrifuge
• Microplate Centrifuge
• Mini Centrifuge
• Refrigerated Laboratory Centrifuge
• Tabletop Centrifuge
• Ultracentrifuges

• Forensic Workstation / Forensic Hood
• Laboratory Fume Hoods
• Reverse Flow Workstations

• Bottle Roller / Tube Roller
• CO2 Incubator / Cell Culture Incubator
• Dry Bath Incubator / Dry Block Heater
• Hybridization Incubator
• Hypoxic Chamber
• Incubators and Microbiology Incubators
• Insect Growth Chamber
• Laboratory Bioreactors and Fermenters
• Laboratory Test Chambers / Stability Chambers
• Modular Incubation Chamber (Incubator Chamber)
• Plant Incubator / Environmental Growth Chambers
• Refrigerated Incubator
• Refrigerated Incubator Shakers
• Shaking Incubator / Incubator Shakers
• Vortex Mixer (Incubator)
• Water Jacketed Incubator

• Binocular Microscope
• Compound Light Microscopes
• Confocal Microscopy
• Digital Microscope / Video Microscope
• Electron Microscopy / Electron Microscopes
• FTIR Microscope
• Inverted Microscopes
• Light Sheet Microscope
• Micromanipulation Equipment
• Microscope Accessories
• Movable Objective Microscopes
• Raman Spectroscopy / Raman Microscopy (Raman Systems)
• Scanning Probe Microscopy
• Zoom Microscope / Stereo Microscope

• Laboratory Liquid Aspiration System
• Laboratory Peristaltic Pump
• Laboratory Vacuum Pumps
• Liquid Pumps
• Syringe Infusion Pump / Laboratory Infusion Pump

• Agar sterilizer / Media Sterilizer
• Autoclave Sterilizer / Laboratory Autoclaves
• UV Sterilizer

• Deionized Water Systems / DI Water System
• High Flow Lab Water Systems
• Laboratory Water Filters and Accessories
• Laboratory Water System / Lab Water Systems
• Reagent Grade Water Systems
• RO Water System / Reverse Osmosis Water Purification System
• Ultrapure Water System / Ultra Pure Water Systems
• Water Still / Laboratory Water Distiller

• Analytical HPLC System
• Chromatography Sample Preparation Systems
• HPLC Components
• HPLC Instrument
• Ion Chromatography Instrument
• LC MS Instrument
• Preparative HPLC System
• Ultra High Performance Liquid Chromatograph (UHPLC)

• Automated Liquid Handling Modules
• Automated Petri Dish Filler / Agar Plate Pourer
• Automated Solid Phase Extraction System (SPE System)
• Laboratory Burette / Bottletop Burettes
• Laboratory Dispensers / Lab Dispenser
• Liquid Handling Syringes
• Microplate Dispenser / Multichannel Pipetting System (Automated Pipetting)
• Microplate Stacker / Microplate Handler
• Microplate Washer / ELISA Plate Washer
• Pipettes / Micropipettes

• Clinical Mass Spectrometry / Clinical Diagnostics Mass Spectrometer
• Electrospray Ionization Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer
• Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer (ICP MS)
• Maldi TOF Mass Spectrometer (MALDI TOF MS)
• Mass Spectrometers (by Ion Source)
• Mass Spectrometers (by Mass Analyzer)
• Mass Spectrometers (by Systems)
• Thermal Evolved Gas Analyzer / Mass Spectrometer (EGA-MS)

• Microarray Reader / Microarray Scanner

• Microbial Identification System
• Oxygen Measurement
• Slide Stainer

• Automated Microplate Labeler
• Automated Microplate Sealer
• Automated Tube Handling and Picking Equipment
• Dried Blood Spot (DBS) Processor
• ELISA System / ELISA Workstation
• Fluorescent Plate Reader
• Integrated Multi-Assay Workstation
• Microplate Shaker
• Microplate Capper
• Microplate Reader / Microtiter Plate Reader
• Microplate Transport System / Automated Microplate Mover
• Multimode Microplate Reader
• Nephelometer / Microplate Nephelometry Reader
• Plate Luminometer / Luminescence Reader
• Tube Luminometer

• Image Analysis Software
• Microscope Camera / Digital Microscope Cameras
• Microscope CCD Camera
• Microscope CMOS Cameras
• Microscope Controllers
• Microscope Filter Wheels and Shutters
• Microscope Focus Drives
• Microscope Insert
• Microscope Light Sources
• Microscope Power Supply
• Microscope Slide Loader
• Microscope Stages
• Objective Lens / Microscope Objective Lens
• Prepared Microscope Slides
• Tablet Microscope / Microscope Tablet Camera

• DNA Extraction
• Next-Gen Sequencing Library Construction / Fragment Library System

• Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer / Dissolved Oxygen Monitor
• Portable Dissolved Oxygen Meter

• Solvent Recovery System / Bench Top Solvent Recovery Systems
• SPE Cartridge / Solid Phase Extraction Cartridges
• SPE Manifold
• Vacuum Evaporator / Vortex Evaporator

• Atomic Spectroscopy
• Auger Electron Spectrometer
• Czerny-Turner Monochromator / Czerny-Turner Spectrometer
• Electron Spin Resonance Spectrometer
• Fluorescence Spectrometer
• Mass Spectrometers
• Monochromator / Imaging Spectrograph
• NMR Spectrometer
• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
• Portable Raman Spectrometer
• Portable Spectrometer / Handheld Spectrometer
• Raman Spectrometer
• Rotating Disc Electrode (RDE)
• Spectrometers (by Wavelength Range)
• X-Ray Spectrometer / X-Ray Diffraction

• Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
• Double Beam Spectrophotometer (UV Visible)
• Infrared Spectrophotometer
• Laboratory Colorimeter / Digital Colorimeters
• Single Beam Spectrophotometer (UV Visible)
• Spectrofluorometer
• Spectrophotometer
• Spectrophotometers (by Wavelength Range)
• UV Spectrophotometer
• UV VIS NIR Spectrophotometer
• UV VIS Spectrophotometer
• Visible Spectrophotometer

• Calorimeters
• Dropping Point Apparatus
• Laboratory Thermometer
• Melting Point Apparatus
• Thermal Analysis Equipment

Featured Products

alpha300 R Confocal Raman Microscope

ASSIST PLUS Pipetting Robot

Thermo Scientific™ ARL™ QUANT'X EDXRF Spectrometer

Product reviews.

Best Loading Dye for DNA Electrophoresis

Efficient Cas9 Protein for Genome Editing

Ease of Use and Great Performance

Featured articles.

Protein Interaction Assays: Why Working In Solution Can Be The Solution

LABTips: Life Science Sample Prep

Roundtable: Genomics' Most Promising Applications in the Next 5 Years

Newsletter sign-up.

Keep up with the latest laboratory equipment. Plus, get special offers and more delivered to your inbox.

Submit A Review

New Nanoparticles Boost Immune System in Mice to Fight Skin, Breast Cancer

Over 30 Species of Bacteria Identified in a Recent University Hospital Basel Study

Researchers Unveil World's First Cell Atlas of Mammalian Brain

Science and Technology

Life sciences.

Gale provides life science resources for research.

Science and Technology      |      Agriculture      |      Astronomy      |      Chemistry      |      Computing and Information Science     |      Earth Science      |      Engineering      |      Forensics      |      General Science      |      History of Science and Technology      |      Mathematics      |      Nanotechnology      |      Physics

Life Science

Explore the world of the life sciences, which are concerned with the study of living things, such as people, plants, animals, and even microscopic organisms. Life science is one of two major branches in the sciences, with physical science—or the sciences dealing with nonliving matter—being the other.

Biology, which is the study of life and how living things survive and change, is so foundational to the life sciences that some people use the terms interchangeably. There are many disciplines included in the life sciences, however, such as anthropology, ecology, entomology, botany, zoology, microbiology, physiology, biotechnology, evolutionary biology, genetics, human anatomy, marine biology, molecular and cell biology, neuroscience, paleontology, plant biology, and biochemistry.

Some life sciences focus on a particular type of organism, such as animals (zoology) or plants (botany). Others examine aspects that are common to all or many life forms, such as anatomy and genetics. And still others focus on the life that cannot even be seen with the naked eye, such as molecular biology and microchemistry.

The diversity within this discipline means that the life sciences have a broad application in society. Those who study the life sciences can apply their knowledge in the fields of medicine, engineering, scientific research, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, food science, natural resource management, and conservation. Health-related fields are particularly prominent destinations for students of the life sciences.

Life Sciences Resources

Gale provides scholarly life science resources and biology resources, including  databases ,  primary source archives , and eBooks .

Gale databases  offer researchers and educators access to credible, up-to-date life science and biology databases for research. Resources include abstracts, guides, full-text journal articles, and more. Citation tools and intuitive subject indexing provide an unparalleled research experience.

Gale Interactive: Science

Brings science to life with interactive 3D models that empower learners to better visualize and understand concepts in biology, chemistry, earth and space science, environmental science, and more.

Gale In Context: Science

Supports science studies by providing contextual information on hundreds of today’s most significant science topics and showcasing scientific disciplines that relate to real-world issues.

Gale OneFile: Science

With Gale OneFile: Science , researchers can remain current with the latest scientific developments in particle physics, advanced mathematics, nanotechnology, geology, and hundreds of other areas. Includes full-text periodicals and scholarly journals.

National Geographic Virtual Library: National Geographic Kids

National Geographic Kids  includes the complete run of the magazine from 2009 to the present and provides authoritative, age-appropriate digital content suitable for younger students in subjects like English Language Arts, social studies, and science.

Primary Source Archives

Gale Primary Sources  offers life scientific archives and collections that provide researchers with firsthand content.

Nineteenth Century Collections Online: Science, Technology, and Medicine, Part I

The “long” 19 th century is an era characterized by industrial, technical, and social revolution. With a changing society came new approaches to the study of natural history, physics, mathematics, medicine, and public health. Boasting a wealth of curated primary sources, this collection helps researchers place essential subjects in the larger picture of historical study.

Nineteenth Century Collections Online: Science, Technology, and Medicine, Part II

Science, Technology and Medicine, Part II  expands subject coverage in Part I, gathering together periodicals and monographs from renowned sources and providing a global view of science and technology from a critical era of scientific development.

Early Arabic Printed Books from the British Library: Sciences, History, and Geography

Early Arabic Printed Books from the British Library: Sciences, History, and Geography  is a full-text searchable archive of early Arabic printed books on medicine and physiology, classical sciences, mathematics, astrology, chemistry, natural history, philosophy, logic and ethics, politics, history and genealogy, biography, travel, geography, and much more. This collection presents the range of Arab learning that influenced the scholarship and scientific development in Europe through the Middle Ages and Early Modern period.

Gale eBooks

Gale offers a variety of eBooks covering a wide range of topics, including biology publications, biological chemistry, ecosystems, and more. Users can add  Gale eBooks  to a customized collection and cross-search to pinpoint relevant content.  Workflow tools  help users easily share, save, and download content.

Ecotoxicology Essentials: Environmental Contaminants and Their Biological Effects on Animals and Plants, 1 st Edition

Academic Press | 2016 | ISBN-13: 9780128019610

As a thorough guide to the study of environmental contaminants and their effect on the planet’s ecology, this book provides a comprehensive analysis of their impact on microbes, plants and animals, and entire ecosystems, also citing ways that humans can be affected through serious illnesses and even death.

Contact my sales rep >>

Encyclopedia of Biological Chemistry, 2 nd Edition

Elsevier Science | 2014 | ISBN-13: 9780123786319

The four-volume Encyclopedia of Biological Chemistry, 2 nd Edition, represents the current state of a dynamic and crucial field of study. The encyclopedia pulls together over 500 articles that help define and explore contemporary biochemistry, with content experts carefully chosen by the editorial board to assure both breadth and depth in its coverage. Editors-In-Chief William J. Lennarz and M. Daniel Lane have crafted a work that proceeds from the acknowledgement that understanding every living process—from physiology to immunology to genetics—is impossible without a grasp on the basic chemistry that provides its underpinning. Each article in the work provides an up-to-date snapshot of a given topic, written by experts, as well as suggestions for further readings for students and researchers wishing to go into greater depth.

Evolution, 1 st Edition

Facts on File | 2009 | ISBN-13: 9781438117409

The theory of evolution can be observed anywhere—from exotic tropical rain forests to our own backyards—and is based on three main principles: heredity, variation, and selection. In the 19 th century, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace sought to explain how these processes work together to produce new species. Evolution provided the first scientific system to investigate the origins and relationships of living creatures, and today it serves as a grand unifying theory, explaining facts that cannot really be accounted for in any other way.

Evolution  demonstrates why the theory was necessary, describing it as clearly as possible, in order to show how it has been received by society and to explain the central role that it plays in today’s science. This new book also examines the immense impact evolution has had on society and on modern medicine—including the birth of genetic science in the early 1900s and the discovery that genes were made of DNA in the 1950s. Written in clear language, Evolution fills a niche for high school and college students interested in this fascinating topic.

Real World Science: Biology in Your Everyday Life, 1 st Edition

Enslow Publishing | 2020 | ISBN-13: 9781978509443

Why are some people lactose intolerant? What happens to the brain during and after a concussion? What causes acne breakouts? The answers to these questions and many more are found in the biology of the human body. Featuring relatable scenarios and hands-on activities, this book details how biology affects practically everything in a person’s everyday life. Sidebars consider myths about acne, sex testing in sports, antibiotic resistance, mental health, and how microorganisms transform food. Supporting Next Generation Science Standards in middle school life science, this book provides students with a deeper understanding of the process of science and the importance of biology in their lives.

Browse more subjects >>

Resources to boost your research.

From trending social issues to classic literature, Gale resources have you covered. Explore overviews, statistics, essay topics, and more or log in through your library to find even more content.

Access topics >>

150+ Life Science Research Topics for High School Students: From Cells to Ecosystems

• Post author By admin
• September 26, 2023

Explore a wide range of life science research topics for high school students. Enhance your knowledge and skills with our comprehensive guide.

Ever wondered what makes our world tick? The answer lies in the magic of life science, and guess what? You’re about to dive headfirst into this enchanting world.

No need for complicated jargon or boring textbooks. We’re talking about cool stuff like animals, plants, genes, and mysteries waiting to be unraveled. Imagine being a real-life detective of the natural world!

So, what’s the deal? In this article, we’ve got a bunch of mind-blowing life science research topics designed just for you. They’re not like your usual school assignments. They’re more like a journey into the unknown, a chance to discover things no one else has.

Ready to have a blast and become a science superstar? Awesome, because we’re about to kickstart this amazing adventure together. Let’s roll! 

Table of Contents

Why Choose Life Science Research?

You might be wondering why on Earth you should consider diving into the world of life science research, right? Well, let’s unravel the mystery.

It’s Relevant

Life science research is all about the stuff that affects us every day. We’re talking about diseases, ecosystems, genetics – things you encounter in your life.

Problem-Solving Playground

Think of it as a puzzle-solving adventure. Life science research hones your critical thinking skills and turns you into a real-life Sherlock Holmes for all things natural.

Unleash Your Inner Scientist

Ever wanted to be a scientist in a lab coat, conducting experiments and making groundbreaking discoveries? Life science research gives you a taste of that action, letting you form hypotheses and conduct cool experiments.

Career Exploration

Not sure what you want to be when you grow up? Exploring life sciences might help you discover your passion. Whether it’s medicine, ecology, genetics, or something else entirely, the possibilities are endless.

You Can Make a Difference

Believe it or not, your research could contribute to the big book of scientific knowledge. Your discoveries might even change the world!

So, why choose life science research? Because it’s like a thrilling adventure where you’re both the explorer and the discoverer. It’s where your questions lead to answers, and your curiosity shapes the future. Ready to take that first step? Let’s go! 

Getting Started: Research Methodology

Getting started with life science research is like gearing up for a fantastic adventure. We’re talking about your very own treasure map, and it’s not as complicated as it might seem. Here’s your basic toolkit to kickstart your research journey:

1. The Scientific Method – Your Detective Kit

Think of this as your secret code for solving mysteries. You start with a question, make a guess (that’s your hypothesis), do some experiments, gather clues (data), and finally, you put it all together to uncover the truth. You’re basically a scientific detective!

2. Data Collection – Gathering Clues

Imagine you’re on a scavenger hunt, but instead of hunting for hidden items, you’re collecting information. This info comes from experiments, observations, or surveys – like puzzle pieces waiting to be put together.

3. Analysis – Piecing It Together

Now, it’s time to play detective again. You take those puzzle pieces (data) and use special tools to fit them together. It’s like solving a jigsaw puzzle, but the picture you reveal is a scientific discovery!

4. Drawing Conclusions – Telling Your Story

You’re not just a detective; you’re also a storyteller. After analyzing your clues, you get to share your findings with the world. It’s like revealing the thrilling ending of a mystery novel – except this time, it’s your discovery.

5. Replicability – Sharing the Adventure

In the world of science, it’s all about teamwork. You’ll document your journey so well that others can follow your steps and have the same adventure. It’s like sharing your treasure map with friends so they can find the same hidden gems.

So, think of research methodology as your trusty guide through the jungle of science. It’s your way of making sure your adventure is both exciting and trustworthy. Get ready, young explorers! Your scientific journey is about to take off, and it’s going to be a blast.

Life Science Research Topics for High School Students

Have a close look at life science research topics for high school students:-

Microbiology and Disease

• Investigating the Antibacterial Properties of Natural Substances.
• Analyzing the Impact of Hand Hygiene on Reducing the Spread of Diseases.
• The Role of Microbes in Decomposition Processes.
• A Comparative Study of Antibiotic Sensitivity in Bacterial Strains.
• Exploring the Microbiome of Different Ecosystems: Soil, Water, and Air.
• Investigating the Effects of Temperature on Microbial Growth.
• The Emergence and Spread of Antibiotic Resistance Genes.
• Microbes in Food: Fermentation and Preservation.
• Analyzing the Microbiome of Human Skin and Its Role in Health.
• Studying the Microbial Diversity in Extreme Environments: Hot Springs and Deep-Sea Vents.

Genetics and Heredity

• Mapping the Inheritance of Genetic Traits in Families.
• Investigating the Genetics of Taste Perception: Bitter Taste Receptors.
• A Study on the Genetic Basis of Rare Genetic Disorders.
• Genetic Variation in Plant Populations: A Local Species Study.
• The Impact of Genetic Mutations on Disease Susceptibility.
• Exploring the Use of CRISPR-Cas9 for Gene Editing in Model Organisms.
• The Genetics of Flower Color Variation in a Plant Species.
• A Comparative Study of Gene Expression in Different Tissues.
• Studying the Inheritance Patterns of Blood Types in Human Populations.
• Investigating the Genetics of Cancer Predisposition in Families.

Ecology and Environmental Studies

• Monitoring the Impact of Pollution on Local Water Bodies.
• Biodiversity Assessment in Urban Parks and Natural Reserves.
• Studying the Effects of Climate Change on Local Flora and Fauna.
• Soil Health Assessment in Agricultural and Natural Ecosystems.
• Investigating the Impact of Invasive Species on Native Biodiversity.
• Analyzing the Role of Wetlands in Flood Control and Water Purification.
• Ecosystem Services Assessment in Urban Environments.
• Urban Heat Island Effect: Mapping and Mitigation Strategies.
• The Impact of Deforestation on Local Bird Populations.
• Restoration of Native Plant Communities in Degraded Ecosystems.

Human Anatomy and Physiology

• The Effect of Different Diets on Gut Microbiota Composition.
• Investigating the Relationship Between Physical Activity and Heart Health.
• Brain Plasticity: How Learning and Experience Change the Brain.
• A Study on the Impact of Sleep Patterns on Cognitive Function.
• The Influence of Age on Muscle Strength and Endurance.
• Hormonal Changes During Puberty: A Comparative Study.
• The Role of Antioxidants in Cellular Aging.
• Investigating the Effects of Stress on Immune System Function.
• Analyzing the Physiology of Human Senses: Vision, Hearing, Taste, and Smell.
• The Role of Gut-Brain Communication in Mood and Mental Health.

Botany and Plant Science

• The Effect of Different Light Conditions on Plant Growth.
• Investigating the Role of Plant Hormones in Growth and Development.
• Studying the Impact of Soil pH on Plant Nutrient Uptake.
• The Relationship Between Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Health.
• Analyzing the Adaptations of Desert Plants to Water Scarcity.
• The Influence of Plant Root Exudates on Soil Microbes.
• Investigating the Role of Plant Volatile Compounds in Insect Attraction and Repulsion.
• The Effect of Different Fertilizers on Crop Yield and Soil Health.
• Plant-Microbe Interactions: Beneficial and Pathogenic Relationships.
• Exploring the Nutritional Content of Edible Wild Plants in a Local Area.

Zoology and Animal Behavior

• Investigating Social Hierarchies in Animal Groups: A Study on Dominance.
• The Effect of Environmental Enrichment on Zoo Animal Behavior.
• Studying the Impact of Noise Pollution on Bird Song Patterns.
• Migration Patterns of Local Bird Species: Tracking and Analysis.
• The Influence of Predation Risk on Prey Behavior.
• Investigating Animal Camouflage Strategies in Different Habitats.
• A Comparative Study of Parental Care in Amphibians and Reptiles.
• The Impact of Human Disturbance on Wildlife Behavior in Urban Parks.
• Analyzing the Feeding Behavior of Insectivorous Bats.
• Predator-Prey Coevolution: A Study on Adaptations in Predator and Prey Species.

Environmental Conservation

• Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Soil Health and Crop Yield.
• Ecological Restoration of a Local Wetland Ecosystem.
• Investigating Plastic Recycling Methods for Environmental Impact.
• The Role of Urban Green Spaces in Mitigating Heat Islands.
• Promoting Renewable Energy Sources in a Community: Challenges and Solutions.
• Analyzing the Impact of Conservation Policies on Endangered Species.
• Assessing the Effectiveness of Wildlife Corridors in Reducing Habitat Fragmentation.
• E-Waste Management: Recycling and Environmental Consequences.
• Sustainable Fisheries Management and the Preservation of Marine Ecosystems.
• Promoting Green Roof Adoption in Urban Areas: Benefits and Barriers.

Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering

• CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing: Applications in Disease Treatment.
• Investigating the Use of GMOs in Increasing Crop Resilience.
• Cloning as a Tool for Preserving Endangered Species.
• Gene Therapy: Advances and Ethical Considerations.
• Bioremediation Strategies: Cleaning Up Contaminated Sites.
• Analyzing the Potential of Genetically Modified Microbes for Environmental Cleanup.
• Investigating the Use of Biotechnology in Medicine: Vaccines and Therapeutics.
• The Impact of Genetic Engineering on the Pharmaceutical Industry.
• Genome Editing in Microorganisms: Applications in Industry and Medicine.
• Ethical Considerations in Biotechnology: Balancing Progress and Responsibility.

Health and Medicine

• The Effects of Various Diets on Blood Sugar Levels and Diabetes Risk.
• Mental Health Interventions for Adolescents: Efficacy and Accessibility.
• Investigating the Impact of Exercise on Cardiovascular Health in Different Age Groups.
• Analyzing the Microbiome-Gut-Brain Axis and Its Influence on Mental Health.
• The Role of Stress Management Techniques in Improving Overall Health.
• A Comparative Study of Herbal Remedies for Common Ailments.
• The Effects of Different Sleeping Patterns on Cognitive Function.
• Analyzing the Impact of Screen Time on Eye Health in Children.
• The Relationship Between Diet and Skin Health: Acne and Beyond.
• Investigating the Influence of Environmental Factors on Allergies and Asthma.

These research project ideas offer a wide range of opportunities for high school students to explore the fascinating world of life sciences and make meaningful contributions to scientific knowledge.

What are some good research topics for high school students?

Check out some good research topics for high school students:-

Science and Biology

• The Effects of Different Fertilizers on Plant Growth.
• Investigating the Impact of Pollution on Local Water Bodies.
• Analyzing the Efficiency of Various Sunscreens in UV Protection.
• The Role of Microorganisms in Food Spoilage.
• Investigating the Effect of Music on Human Concentration.
• The Influence of Temperature on the Rate of Chemical Reactions.
• A Study on the Behavior of Ants in Response to Different Food Types.
• Investigating the Relationship Between Sleep Patterns and Academic Performance.
• The Effect of Light Exposure on Circadian Rhythms.
• The Impact of Exercise on Heart Rate and Physical Fitness.

Environmental Science

• Analyzing the Impact of Deforestation on Local Climate.
• The Role of Wetlands in Water Purification and Flood Control.
• Investigating the Presence of Microplastics in Local Water Sources.
• Urban Heat Island Effect: Causes and Mitigation Strategies.
• The Effects of Different Soil Types on Plant Growth.
• Renewable Energy Sources: Feasibility and Implementation.
• Analyzing the Environmental Impact of Single-Use Plastics.
• Investigating the Effects of Climate Change on Local Bird Migration Patterns.
• Promoting Recycling and Waste Reduction in Schools.
• Biodiversity Assessment in a Local Ecosystem.

Social Sciences and Psychology

• Investigating the Impact of Bullying on Mental Health.
• Analyzing the Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Academic Success.
• A Study on the Effects of Peer Pressure on Decision-Making.
• The Role of Gender Stereotypes in Career Choices.
• Investigating the Impact of Video Games on Aggressive Behavior.
• The Effect of Music on Mood and Emotions.
• Analyzing the Factors Influencing Voting Behavior in Young Adults.
• The Influence of Advertising on Consumer Choices.
• A Study on the Effects of Stress on Cognitive Performance.
• The Influence of Social Media on Teenagers’ Self-Esteem.

Technology and Engineering

• Investigating the Efficiency of Different Insulation Materials.
• Designing and Testing a Wind-Powered Water Pump.
• Analyzing the Impact of Smartphone Usage on Productivity.
• The Development of a Simple Home Automation System.
• Investigating the Use of Drones in Environmental Monitoring.
• Building a Simple Electric Vehicle Model.
• A Study on Internet Security: Protecting Personal Data.
• Analyzing the Energy Consumption of Household Appliances.
• Designing an Eco-Friendly and Cost-Effective Home.
• Building a Solar-Powered Charger for Mobile Devices.

History and Social Studies

• A Study on the Contributions of a Local Historical Figure.
• Investigating the Causes and Consequences of a Historical Conflict.
• The Role of Women in a Specific Historical Period.
• Analyzing the Impact of Immigration on Local Communities.
• Investigating the Evolution of a Local Cultural Tradition.
• A Comparative Study of Political Systems in Different Countries.
• The Role of Propaganda in Shaping Public Opinion.
• Analyzing the Impact of Social Movements on Policy Change.
• Investigating the History and Cultural Significance of a Local Landmark.
• Analyzing the Impact of Historical Events on Contemporary Society.

These research topics provide a diverse range of opportunities for high school students to explore their interests, develop critical thinking skills, and contribute to their academic and scientific communities.

Students can select topics that align with their passions and curriculum requirements to make their research projects both engaging and meaningful.

What are the possible topics of life science?

Have a close look at the possible topics for life science:-

Microbiology

• Bacterial growth and antibiotic resistance.
• The role of viruses in diseases.
• Microbial diversity in different environments.
• Fermentation processes and their applications.

Genetics and Genomics

• Genetic inheritance patterns in humans and other organisms.
• The impact of genetic mutations on health.
• Genomic sequencing and personalized medicine.
• Gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9.

Ecology and Environmental Science

• Biodiversity and conservation.
• Ecosystem dynamics and food webs.
• Climate change and its effects on ecosystems.
• Environmental pollution and its impact on wildlife.
• Photosynthesis and plant growth.
• Plant adaptations to different environments.
• Plant genetics and breeding for improved crops.
• The role of plants in carbon sequestration.
• Animal migration patterns and navigation.
• Predator-prey interactions in ecosystems.
• Social behavior in animal communities.
• Animal adaptations to extreme environments.

Physiology and Anatomy

• Human organ systems and their functions.
• Cellular processes like respiration and metabolism .
• Comparative anatomy of different species.
• Neurobiology and the workings of the human brain.

Evolutionary Biology

• The theory of evolution by natural selection.
• Fossil evidence of evolution.
• Comparative genomics and evolutionary relationships.
• Human evolution and our closest relatives.

Marine Biology

• Ocean ecosystems and marine biodiversity.
• Coral reef conservation and threats.
• Deep-sea exploration and the discovery of new species.
• The role of marine organisms in biotechnology.
• The immune system’s response to infections.
• Vaccination and herd immunity.
• Autoimmune diseases and allergies.
• Immunotherapy for cancer treatment.

Epidemiology

• Disease outbreaks and epidemiological investigations. 
• Public health interventions to control infectious diseases. 
• Tracking and modeling the spread of diseases. 
• Global health challenges and pandemics.
• Conservation strategies for endangered species. 
• Sustainable agriculture and forestry practices. 
• Habitat restoration and rebuilding efforts. 
• Conservation genetics and preserving genetic diversity.
• CRISPR technology and gene editing. 
• Biopharmaceuticals and the production of biofuels. 
• Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. 
• Bioremediation and environmental cleanup.

These topics within life science provide a rich and diverse array of opportunities for research, study, and exploration. 

Whether you’re interested in understanding the natural world, human health, or the environment, life science offers a wide range of fascinating avenues to explore.

What are the interesting research topics about science?

Certainly, science offers a wide range of interesting research topics across various disciplines. Here are some captivating research topics in science:

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

• Developing advanced AI algorithms for medical diagnosis.
• Natural language processing and understanding for chatbots.
• Reinforcement learning in robotics and autonomous systems.
• Ethical considerations in AI development.

Space Exploration and Astronomy

• The search for exoplanets and habitable zones.
• Understanding dark matter and dark energy.
• Space colonization: Challenges and possibilities.
• The future of space telescopes and observatories.

Environmental Science and Climate Change

• Climate modeling and predictions.
• Impacts of climate change on ecosystems and biodiversity.
• Sustainable agriculture and food security in a changing climate.
• Innovative approaches to renewable energy production.

Nanotechnology

• Nanomedicine and its applications in disease treatment.
• Nanomaterials for clean water and pollution control.
• Nanoelectronics and the future of computing.
• Ethical and safety concerns in nanotechnology.
• Personalized medicine and genomics-based treatments.
• The role of epigenetics in health and disease.
• Human genetic diversity and its implications.

Earth and Geosciences

• Natural disaster prediction and mitigation strategies.
• Plate tectonics and the movement of continents.
• The geology of other planets in our solar system.
• Climate history and the study of ice cores.

Biomedical Research

• Stem cell therapy and regenerative medicine.
• Neurobiology and the quest to understand the brain.
• Vaccine development and immunotherapy for cancer.
• Genetic factors in aging and longevity.

Robotics and Automation

• Advances in humanoid and bio-inspired robotics.
• Applications of robotics in healthcare and surgery.
• Autonomous vehicles and their impact on transportation.
• Human-robot interaction and social robots.

Energy and Sustainable Technology

• Energy-efficient building materials and design.
• The potential of fusion energy as a clean power source.
• Battery technology for renewable energy storage.
• Smart grids and the future of energy distribution.

Particle Physics

• The search for the Higgs boson and beyond.
• The nature of dark matter and its properties.
• Particle accelerators and their role in high-energy physics.
• The Standard Model and its limitations.

Oceanography and Marine Sciences

• Ocean acidification and its effects on marine life.
• Coral reef conservation and restoration efforts.
• Studying the impact of climate change on ocean currents.

Archaeology and Anthropology

• Uncovering ancient civilizations through archaeology.
• Genetic studies to trace human migration and evolution.
• Anthropological research on cultural diversity and adaptation.
• Ethical considerations in the study of indigenous cultures.

These research topics span a wide spectrum of scientific disciplines, offering countless opportunities for exploration, discovery, and innovation in the ever-evolving world of science.

Depending on your interests, you can delve into any of these areas to contribute to our understanding of the natural world and its many complexities.

How do I choose a research topic for high school?

Absolutely, let’s make the process of choosing a research topic for high school more natural, simple, and engaging:

Follow Your Passions

Start by thinking about what really fires you up. What subjects or topics make you curious and excited? Whether it’s space, animals, or history, your interests are a great place to begin.

Zoom In on Your Interests

Now, let’s narrow it down a bit. If you’re into science, do you prefer biology, chemistry, or something else? If you’re leaning towards history, is there a particular time period that fascinates you?

Know Your Strengths

Think about what you’re good at in school. If you’re acing math, maybe a research topic related to mathematics could be your jam.

Real-World Relevance

Look around you. Are there any current issues or events that pique your interest? High school research is a chance to tackle real-world problems you care about.

Seek Advice

Chat with your teachers or mentors. They’re like your research spirit guides and can help you find exciting topics that match your skills and passions.

Use Available Resources

Consider what tools and resources you have access to. Maybe there’s a cool experiment you can do right at home.

Think Long-Term

Imagine where you see yourself in the future. Is there a subject that connects to your dream job or college major?

Reflect on Past Fun

Remember any school projects you actually enjoyed? These can be a goldmine for research inspiration.

Let Your Imagination Run Wild

Brainstorm like you’re dreaming up your favorite adventure. Write down all the questions you’d love to answer.

Share and Chat

Tell your friends, family, or mentors about your ideas and get them in on the excitement. They might have amazing suggestions!

Passion is the Key

Above all, pick a topic that makes your heart race with enthusiasm. If you’re truly passionate, your research journey will feel like an awesome quest, not a chore.

Choosing your high school research topic should be like picking the theme for your grand adventure.

When you’re motivated and captivated, you’ll make incredible discoveries along the way. Ready to embark on this research journey?

We have covered some of the best life science research topics for high school students. These life science research topics are quite simple and engaging for the students.

There are a lot of opportunities associated with these project ideas that can help you to explore a lot more about life science. 

So pick the project as per your interest. You can also take the help of your fellows and mentors. Through the work on these projects you would enjoy and explore new things. So let’s have a try on these project ideas.

• What is the importance of life science research for high school students? Life science research enhances critical thinking, problem-solving, and scientific inquiry skills, preparing students for future academic and career opportunities.
• How can I choose the right life science topic for my research project? Choose a topic that genuinely interests you and aligns with your goals. Consider seeking guidance from teachers or mentors.
• Are there any online resources for high school students interested in life science research? Yes, numerous online platforms offer educational resources and research opportunities for aspiring young scientists.
• Can I collaborate with a mentor or scientist for my research project? Collaboration with mentors or scientists can be highly beneficial and is encouraged in the field of life sciences.
• What are some potential career paths for those passionate about life sciences? Careers in medicine, ecology, genetics, microbiology, and environmental science are among the many options for those passionate about life sciences.
• australia (2)
• duolingo (13)
• Education (284)
• General (78)
• How To (18)
• IELTS (127)
• Latest Updates (162)
• Malta Visa (6)
• Permanent residency (1)
• Programming (31)
• Scholarship (1)
• Sponsored (4)
• Study Abroad (187)
• Technology (12)
• work permit (8)

Recent Posts

Best of Walmart’s Labor Day sale: Up to 78% off a knife set, Levi’s and more

• Share this —

• Watch Full Episodes
• Read With Jenna
• Inspirational
• Relationships
• TODAY Table
• Newsletters
• Start TODAY
• Shop TODAY Awards
• Citi Concert Series
• Listen All Day

Follow today

More Brands

• On The Show
• TODAY Plaza

New report says restricting social media access can help kids ... but only sometimes

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released Wednesday grapples with the questions: Is social media harming teenagers? And what can parents, and the government, do about it? 

The answers are murky.

The authors surveyed hundreds of studies across more than a decade and came to complicated, occasionally contradictory, conclusions. 

On one hand, they found there isn’t enough population data to specifically blame social media for changes in adolescent health. On the other hand, as shown in study after study cited by the report, social media has the clear potential to hurt the health of teenagers, and in situations where a teenager is already experiencing difficulties like a mental health crisis, social media tends to make it worse. 

What is needed: more research and more coordination.

“There is much we still don’t know, but our report lays out a clear path forward for both pursuing the biggest unanswered questions about youth health and social media, and taking steps that can minimize the risk to young people using social media now,” Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health and chair of the committee behind the report, said in a news release.

In adolescents, overly restrictive and controlling parental rules, like confiscating a phone for punishment, are often associated with that teenager taking more risks online.

“Our recommendations call on social media companies, Congress, federal agencies, and others to make changes that will protect and benefit young people who use social media,” he added.

Parents hoping for clear guidelines will have to keep waiting.

“The committee sympathizes with some parents’ desire for authoritative prescription on teenagers’ social media use but is also mindful of overreaching the data,” the report concludes. “Venturing hard and fast rules regarding teenagers’ use of social media, rules that the data cannot support, is not something this committee can do.”

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is an advisory group tasked by Congress with providing guidance on science-related issues.

But its report suggests that parents are closer than ever to arriving at effective strategies for navigating their families through the social media landscape. In the future, calculating the harms and potential benefits of social media will have to take place on a case-by-case basis, it suggests, taking into account factors that will vary widely from teenager to teenager and family to family. 

For instance, the report says that while middle school girls have been found to experience social anxiety, body dissatisfaction and depression when they compared themselves with others on social media, factors such as media literacy, supportive parents and a positive school environment lessened those negative effects.  

The ways social media is used seem to make a difference. When a teenager passively scrolls, as opposed to actively posting, that’s connected by many studies to low life satisfaction and feelings of sadness. It may be that showcasing a hobby or an interest on social media doesn’t produce the same harms. 

But those rates differ by demographic group: Black, non-Hispanic participants in one study reported more negative moods during active social media use, suggesting that the potential benefits of posting on social media are not the same for teenagers of all backgrounds.

And age affects how well certain strategies work. In younger children (12 and under), a family policy that restricts social media except when it’s actively guided by a parent seems to reduce the risk of problematic use and inappropriate behavior online. But in adolescents (13 and older), overly restrictive and controlling parental rules, like confiscating a phone for punishment, are often associated with that teenager taking more risks online. 

“Restrictions on media use are useful for young children,” the authors write, “while increased communication and awareness are more suitable and helpful for teenagers.”

Faced with an urgent need to “create a more transparent industry and a better-informed consumer of social media,” the report calls on companies and regulators to establish international standards, such as clear ways for companies to share data with researchers and accepted best practices to avoid proven harms where possible. 

It recommends that the International Organization for Standardization — a body that sets global rules in areas such as manufacturing and food safety — be tasked with creating a new system, one that could be used by federal and international agencies to track and evaluate social media companies and the algorithms they build. And it asks for funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other agencies to pay for the sort of large, long-term studies that have in the past identified major public health crises. 

This story was first published on NBCNews.com.

Jacob Ward, a technology correspondent for NBC News, is a 2018-19 Berggruen Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where he is writing a book about how artificial intelligence will shape human behavior. 

This kindergarten teacher’s sweet note made one mom cry

Kamala Harris was with her great-nieces Amara and Leela Ajagu — when she learned Joe Biden dropped out

All about Tim Walz's kids: Meet Hope and Gus

Kamala Harris does have kids: Meet her two stepchildren, Cole and Ella

Why this teacher eats lunch with his students in the cafeteria every day

Toby Keith’s 3 kids: All about Shelley, Krystal and Stelen

Pop culture.

She spread her late sister's ashes. Then a sign appeared

What Mariah Carey has said about her parents, Alfred and Patricia

140 'Would You Rather' questions for kids to get them thinking

British mom defends letting her 15-year-old travel through Europe without an adult

• Medical devices and imaging technology

Getty Images

5 Critical Steps for Entering the Life Sciences Market

As new technologies and advancements continue to add to the life sciences space, companies must have a comprehensive understanding of entering the life sciences market..

• Veronica Salib, Associate Editor

Market entry in any industry is complex, and life sciences market entry is no different. As companies enter or plan to enter the life sciences market, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of market entry procedures and best practices. This article will explore five critical steps for entering the life sciences market.

The market entry steps for life sciences companies can be divided into the following:

• Market research and regulatory analysis
• Selecting an entry strategy
• Product adaptation and regulatory compliance
• Building strategic partnerships
• Executing marketing and distribution

Market Research and Regulatory Analysis

Robust market research is necessary before a company can enter the life science market. New life science companies or companies looking to enter new markets should conduct comprehensive market research for greater insight into demand, competition, and trends.

According to an article by LifeSciences Intellipedia , market research provides new companies insight into their customers and preferences, allowing for informed decision-making as companies enter the market and tailor their products.

One of the primary components of understanding market dynamics is market segmentation. Executives in the life sciences space should analyze and break down the markets into various demographics, behaviors, and needs. In healthcare, market segmentation could depend on the conditions of the patients companies intend to serve.

Beyond analyzing the market demographics, market segmentation also acknowledges what specific customers need and prefer.

For example, a company looking to launch a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) may consider medical device connectivity, how patients share information with their healthcare providers, and the average age of CGM users to understand how it can modify the product to best suit consumer’s needs.

“A successful launch is about understanding the needs and wants of a market, including those who pay for it and what they value,” Jeff Ford, principal at Deloitte Consulting, told PharmaNewsIntelligence earlier this year.

In addition to market segmentation, companies should consider the competitive landscape where they are trying to launch products. They may ask themselves whether the market is saturated and what opportunities or gaps exist. Understanding these factors can help organizations craft a unique approach to market entry, which may improve the existing business model or enhance profitability.

During the market research process, stakeholders may also take the opportunity to assess market entry feasibility. Understanding factors like the market size, growth potential, and product demand can help during the product launch.

Companies may also conduct a cost analysis and feasibility study to comprehensively understand how a new product or company will fit into the market share.

Market research may help inform data management strategies, research and development, quality control, chemical inventory management, and collaborations.

Beyond market research, regulatory analysis is vital to successful market entry. Companies should consider regulatory requirements, which may differ between medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. A comprehensive understanding of approval processes, compliance standards, and legal considerations can help pre-emptively prevent potential complications.

Companies may also consider connecting with regulatory authorities early to understand the regulatory process and gather information on best practices. This connection can also help them conduct a risk assessment, identify potential regulatory risks or challenges that may impact market entry, and develop strategies to mitigate them.

Thorough market research and regulatory analysis provide the foundation for informed decision-making, helping companies understand the nuances of the target market and make strategic choices for successful market entry in the life sciences industry.

Selecting an Entry Strategy

Market entry strategies are critical to launching or entering any part of the global market. Market entry strategies may include licensing, partnerships, or direct exporting.

The appropriate market entry strategy begins with strategic considerations. The company should assess its business goals to ensure its market entry strategy appropriately aligns with the business model. The organization should also evaluate its available resources, including capabilities, staff, technology, etc.

Upon assessing the strategic considerations, experts may consider the following market entry strategies.

• Licensing agreements : One potential market entry strategy that can help ease new life sciences companies into the market is partnering with local companies through  to help with product distribution or development. This allows companies to leverage technology , intellectual property, and new products without investing too much into reaching the local market. According to an article published in Biotechnology Healthcare , “Licensing also may afford an aggressive strategy for identifying and providing lead products for the pharmaceutical licensee and the biotech early-stage company acting as the licensor.” In a 2023 Deloitte report on pharma licensing , experts highlight four primary factors to consider when licensing: when to partner, identifying the right partner, preparing offering materials, and deal negotiation skills.
• Partnerships and collaborations : Partnerships and collaborations with manufacturers, distributors, research institutions, and other life sciences companies can allow the company to share the risk associated with entering the market and expedite market entry. Newer startups may partner with more established entities to access more expansive resources.
• Exporting : Exporting strategies such as direct or indirect exporting can be another market entry strategy. If a company has the resources to manage a global supply chain, it may opt for direct exporting, while others who don’t have the capacity may consider indirect approaches.
• Mergers and acquisitions : Acquiring local companies can help entrants into new markets understand and pursue local market access strategies. This strategy provides immediate market access, an established customer base, and operational capabilities.
• Strategic alliances : Another market entry strategy can be developing strategic alliances with local companies or manufacturers to reach a broader market and understand local healthcare systems. These strategic alliances may also help companies when developing their commercial strategy.

Other factors to consider during the entry strategy are market maturity, competitive landscape, regulatory compliance, intellectual property protection, risk tolerance, adaptability, and sustainability.

Product Adaptation and Regulatory Compliance

The next step of the market entry process focuses on adaptability and regulatory compliance. While a company may develop a product with widespread applications, successful market entry acknowledges how different markets in other countries or locations may require slightly different approaches.

Market localization is critical for the continued success of a product. Companies should use their market research, clinical trial data, and real-world evidence to understand how the products must be adapted for different markets.

In addition, regulatory compliance is critical in every stage of the market entry process. Companies should consider how global differences in regulation might require changes in product formulation.

At this stage, researchers may consider conducting case studies or clinical trials to understand the local applications of the product. Additionally, many regulatory organizations may require local clinical trial evidence before regulatory approval.

Connecting with regulatory bodies, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in America, the European Medicines Agency in Europe, the National Medical Product Administration in China, and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization in India, is vital.

Companies should also assess local packaging guidelines and develop new packaging that caters to the regulations and local market. Other considerations may include establishing quality assurance systems and supply chain oversight strategies.

Building Strategic Partnerships

Strategic partnerships play a pivotal role in successful market entry by leveraging local expertise, sharing risks, and enhancing the overall capabilities of a life sciences company. Building and nurturing these partnerships requires careful planning, due diligence, and a commitment to fostering relationships based on mutual trust and shared objectives.

“Corporate alliance deals structured as licensing transactions, co-development agreements, joint ventures, or sales and marketing alliances play an integral role in many growth strategies for biopharmaceutical companies,” noted experts in Biotechnology Healthcare .

According to an article by Ernst and Young , strategic partnerships are another avenue for offsetting risks.

Business leaders should assess local companies and their market presence or reputation to identify a strategic partner. Local strategic partners can help biotech or biopharma companies understand local regulatory environments, the payer space, and reimbursement strategies.

Executing Marketing and Distribution

Biopharmaceutical companies and startups looking to enter the life sciences market should also consider localized marketing strategies tailored to the local community.

A company may consider tailoring its messaging to target specific patient demographics. They may also choose a particular digital channel such as online advertising, social media, or more that reach specific audiences.

Finally, companies should consider their distribution protocols by selecting local distribution partners that align with the company’s mission and optimize these standards.

Executing effective marketing and distribution strategies involves a deep understanding of the local market, cultural nuances, and regulatory requirements. It requires a dynamic and adaptive approach, incorporating traditional and digital channels to reach and engage the target audience effectively. Continuous monitoring, feedback analysis, and adjustments are essential to optimize marketing efforts and enhance market penetration.

• In a Maturing Digital Health Market, Players Must Adapt Their Game Plan
• Comparing Global Pharmaceutical Markets: US, UK, and China
• How Can Pharmaceutical Companies Meet Drug Launch Expectations

Dig Deeper on Medical devices and imaging technology

ESG risks explained: Examples and tips on managing them

2023 USP Report highlights economic factors driving drug shortages

Balancing innovation, safety, compliance, risk in life sciences

10 Strategies for Successful Life Sciences Product Commercialization

A low-cost, AI-enabled ultrasound device has shown promise in helping healthcare workers estimate gestational age on par with ...

Mayo Clinic Platform_Solutions Studio uses a federated 'data behind glass' approach to help developers and health systems build ...

Artificial intelligence has been named one of the most exciting emerging technologies by health system leaders, who see its ...

If the Inflation Reduction Act's enhanced premium tax cuts are renewed in 2025, they could increase enrollment among populations ...

Understanding the quality bonus payment program is critical to appreciating Medicare Advantage and discussing the calls for ...

Only 45% of individuals who received a surprise bill challenged it and only 43% of those who were denied coverage appealed the ...

A 'JAMA Internal Medicine' study found that team-based documentation increased visit volume and reduced physician EHR ...

Ambient AI technology is helping Ochsner Health improve patient-provider relationships by allowing clinicians to spend ...

Epic's goal to bring customers live on TEFCA by the end of 2025 complements Carequality's plan to align with TEFCA as the ...

Representatives introduced the Healthcare Cybersecurity Act in the House following companion legislation in the Senate.

A software vendor data breach at Young Consulting affected covered entities and potentially compromised the medical insurance ...

Atlantic General Hospital reached a data breach settlement over a January 2023 hack.

Meet LUCA, the 4.2 billion-year-old cell that's the ancestor of all life on Earth today

New research gives insight into when the ancestor of all living things lived, and it's earlier than we thought.

Everything alive today descends from a cell that lived 4.2 billion years ago, just a few hundred million years after Earth formed, new research suggests.

That last universal common ancestor, which biologists affectionately nicknamed LUCA, wasn't so different from fairly complex bacteria alive today — and it lived in an ecosystem teeming with other species of life and viruses.

"What is really interesting is that it's clear it possessed an early immune system, showing that even by 4.2 billion years ago, our ancestor was engaging in an arms race with viruses," Davide Pisani , a genomics researcher at the University of Bristol in the U.K. and co-author of the new study, said in a statement.

All cellular life on Earth shares certain key features: It uses the same protein building blocks, everything uses the same energy currency to power its cells ( ATP ), and all cells use DNA to store information. These commonalities are unlikely to be a coincidence; they all point to the life we know today coming from a single origin.

Related: What is the tree of life?

Prior to this study, scientists estimated that LUCA lived 3.9 billion years ago. However, accurately dating genetic events that occurred so long ago is challenging.

In the new study, published July 12 in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution , researchers aimed to pinpoint LUCA's origins more precisely. The team compared all the genes in 700 living species of bacteria and archaea (microbes that are similar to bacteria and often live in extreme environments). They chose organisms in these domains because they are thought to be the oldest life-forms, with eukaryotes evolving from a union between both cell types . Then, the researchers counted the mutations that have occurred over time across the genomes and within 57 genes shared by all 700 organisms, using estimated mutation rates to back-calculate when LUCA lived.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

They anchored their age estimate using fossils that contain traces of ancient life, such as the remains of 3.48-billion year old microbial mats from Australia . Ancient fossils gave them insight into early Earth's atmospheric conditions and provided a lower estimate for when LUCA could have survived.

This pinpointed LUCA as living roughly 4.2 billion years ago.

"We did not expect LUCA to be so old, within just hundreds of millions of years of Earth formation," said co-author Sandra Álvarez-Carretero , a research fellow at UCL in the U.K. At that time, during the Hadean (4.6 billion to 4 billion years ago), Earth was an inhospitable place, with hot oceans and very little atmospheric oxygen .

In addition, by sorting genes based on their cellular function, the researchers could say something about how and where LUCA lived and what it ate. Their analyses didn't identify LUCA's exact habitat but suggest it probably lived in an ocean environment, a shallow hydrothermal vent or a hot spring. In addition they found LUCA could likely tolerate extreme temperatures and "breathed" without oxygen, instead relying on the waste products of others that shared its ecosystem.

— Oldest evidence of life found in 3.95 billion-year-old rocks

— Oldest animal life on Earth possibly discovered. And it’s related to your bath sponge

— 1.6-billion-year-old fossils push back origin of multicellular life by tens of millions of years

Evidence that LUCA wasn't alone comes from the reconstruction of LUCA's metabolic pathways. It suggests that LUCA might have used organic material that had already been broken down by other microbes for energy. Other supporting evidence comes from the surprising result that LUCA was already equipped with genes that could help defend against infectious viruses.

The fact that LUCA lived in a thriving ecosystem even then has interesting implications for life on other planets, study senior author Philip Donoghue , a professor of paleobiology at the University of Bristol, said in the statement.

"This suggests that life may be flourishing on Earth-like biospheres elsewhere in the universe," Donoghue said.

Tiffany Taylor is working at Live Science in the summer of 2024 as a Fellow of the Association of British Science Writers. She is a professor of Microbial Ecology and Evolution at the University of Bath in the U.K., where her research group studies evolution in real-time in the lab, using bacteria to explore how genes and genomes evolve. She has also authored three children’s books on evolution and genetics. When she is not doing research, she’s usually running – sometimes for pleasure, more often after her two small children.

T. rex relative with giant, protruding eyebrows discovered in Kyrgyzstan

Mice on remote island that eat albatrosses alive sentenced to death by 'bombing,' scientists decree

Al Naslaa rock: Saudi Arabia's enigmatic sandstone block that's split perfectly down the middle

Most Popular

• 2 AI 'hallucinations' can lead to catastrophic mistakes, but a new approach makes automated decisions more reliable
• 3 2,200-year old battering ram from epic battle between Rome and Carthage found in Mediterranean
• 4 Arctic expedition uncovers deep-sea microbes that may harbor the next generation of antibiotics
• 5 SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket grounded for 2nd time in 2 months following explosive landing failure

Sleep in this weekend — it may help you live longer and avoid heart disease

• Sleeping in on weekends can reduce heart disease risk by up to 20%, new research shows.
• Quality sleep also boosts fitness, aids weight management, and improves overall longevity.
• If you can't get more hours of sleep, focus on a consistent bedtime routine for better quality sleep.

Forget expensive longevity hacks — one of the best ways to prevent disease and extend your lifespan doesn't cost a thing.

Evidence is piling up that hitting the snooze button is great for your health. And if you struggle to get enough shut-eye during the work week, catching up on your days off can help, science suggests.

People who slept in on the weekends to make up for lost rest were 20% less likely to develop heart disease than peers who stayed sleep deprived, according to new research to be presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2024 on September 1st.

The findings were based about 14 years of data from more than 90,000 UK residents, analyzed by a team of scientists from the National Centre for Cardiovascular Disease in Beijing.

"Our results show that for the significant proportion of the population in modern society that suffers from sleep deprivation, those who have the most 'catch-up' sleep at weekends have significantly lower rates of heart disease than those with the least," Zechen Liu, coauthor of the study and researcher at the Centre, said in a press release.

But sleep isn't just good for your heart. It's become such a longevity trend that the wealthy are paying big money to upgrade their bedtime routine.

Sleeping better doesn't have to cost a thing, though, and research suggests quality rest is key for supporting a long life, better fitness, and even a healthier diet.

Here's all the evidence you should sleep in this weekend.

Skipping sleep can lead to a weakened immune system and higher risk of early death

Nearly 22% of people in the latest study were regularly sleep deprived, defined as getting less than seven hours of sleep per night.

Adults need between seven to nine hours of sleep nights to be well-rested, according to neuroscientists.

Related stories

Sleep too little, and you risk serious consequences like a weaker immune system, increased cancer risk, and reduced focus (which can be deadly if you're doing activities like driving).

People who consistently sleep less than six hours a night have a higher risk of dying early of any cause, studies suggest .

Skimping on rest also ages your brain, with research suggesting a higher risk of dementia and cognitive decline among people who don't get enough rest.

Sleep can help you manage your weight and build muscle

There's good reason to think getting enough sleep can help you live better, not just longer.

Sleep goes hand in hand with fitness, another crucial factor in longevity, since resting between workouts is what allows your muscles to grow back stronger.

Sleeping well can make you more likely to stick to a healthy diet and even lose weight , if that's a goal. A recent study found people who slept less than six and a half hours nightly tended to eat between 270 and 500 calories a day more than peers who slept an hour longer.

If you can't fit in more hours, aim for consistency

When a busy schedule keeps you from sleeping well, the good news is that quality can matter as much or more than quantity.

Sleep consistency , or aiming to go to bed around the same time, can help you get more out of your hours of sleep even if you can't add more hours to the night, a doctor previously told Business Insider.

The caveat is that a regular sleep schedule does mean trying to stick to a routine even on the weekends.

So, while the latest research says you can stay in bed on Sunday if it helps you catch up, don't count on intentionally staying up late Friday or Saturday just because you know you can sleep in.

• Main content

Puzzling Scientists for Hundreds of Years – New Research Solves Sunflower Dance Mystery

A study reveals that densely planted sunflowers use random movements to ensure optimal sunlight capture, highlighting circumnutation’s role in plant growth and mutual support.

A team of researchers from Tel Aviv University has discovered that plants growing in dense environments can optimize sunlight capture and minimize mutual shading through inherent random movements, known as circumnutations. This research, conducted in collaboration with the University of Colorado, Boulder, reveals the importance of these movements in enhancing photosynthesis on a collective level, solving a long-standing scientific puzzle dating back to Darwin’s initial observations.

Insights into Plant Movement and Growth Patterns

“Previous studies have shown that if sunflowers are densely planted in a field where they shade each other they grow in a zigzag pattern – one forward and one back – so as not to be in each other’s shadow. This way they grow side by side to maximize illumination from the sun, and therefore photosynthesis, on a collective level. In fact, plants know how to distinguish between the shadow of a building and the green shadow of a leaf,” said lead researcher Prof. Yasmine Meroz from the School of Plant Sciences and Food Security, Wise Faculty of Life Sciences at Tel Aviv University.

“If they sense the shadow of a building – they usually don’t change their growth direction, because they “know” that will have no effect. But if they sense the shadow of a plant, they will grow in a direction away from the shadow.”

In the current study, recently published in Physical Review X , the researchers investigated how sunflowers “know” to grow in an optimal way (i.e. maximize capture of sunlight for the collective) and analyzed the growth dynamics of the sunflowers in the laboratory, where they exhibit a zig-zag pattern. Prof. Meroz and her team grew sunflowers in a high-density environment and photographed them during growth, taking pictures every few minutes. The photographs were then combined to create a time-lapse movie. By following the movement of each individual sunflower, the researchers observed that the flowers were “dancing” a lot.

Scientific Findings on Sunflower Movement

According to the researchers, Darwin was the first to recognize that all plants grow while exhibiting a kind of cyclical movement (“circumnutation”) – both stems and roots show this behavior. But until today, – except for a few cases such as climbing plants, which grow in huge circular movements to look for something to grab onto – it was not clear whether it was an artifact or a critical feature of growth. Why would a plant invest energy to grow in random directions?

Implications of Circumnutation in Sunflowers

Prof. Meroz explained: “As part of our research, we conducted a physical analysis that captured the behavior of each sunflower within the sunflower collective, and we saw that the sunflowers ‘dance’ to find the best angle so each flower would not block the sunlight of their neighbor. We quantified this movement statistically and showed through computer simulations that these random movements are used collectively to minimize the amount of shadow. It was also very surprising to find that the distribution of the sunflower’s “steps” was very wide, ranging over three orders of magnitude, from close to zero displacement to a movement of two centimeters every few minutes in one direction or another.”

Conclusion and Observations on Plant Dynamics

In conclusion, Prof. Meroz adds: “The sunflower plant takes advantage of the fact that it can use both small and slow steps as well as large and fast ones to find the optimum arrangement for the collective. That is, if the range of steps was smaller or larger the arrangement would result in more mutual shading and less photosynthesis. This is somewhat like a crowded dance party, where individuals dance around to get more space: if they move too much they will interfere with the other dancers, but if they move too little the crowding problem will not be solved, as it will be very crowded in one corner of the square and empty on the other side. Sunflowers show a similar communication dynamic – a combination of response to the shade of neighboring plants, along with random movements regardless of external stimuli.”

Reference: “Noisy Circumnutations Facilitate Self-Organized Shade Avoidance in Sunflowers” by Chantal Nguyen, Imri Dromi, Ahron Kempinski, Gabriella E. C. Gall, Orit Peleg and Yasmine Meroz, 15 August 2024, Physical Review X . DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.031027

Related Articles

Scientists uncover atomic secrets of photosynthesis, revolutionary 3d snapshot unveils secret machine behind photosynthesis, scientists have discovered a “quantum switch” that regulates photosynthesis, “nature’s true survivors” – flowering plants survived the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, cornell researchers supercharge photosynthesis using the power of algae, how two “touch-me-not plants” plants fooled scientists for decades, unparalleled precision: researchers reveal new information about photosynthesis, high levels of anthocyanins give black dahlias their color, increased number of plant species responding to global warming.

Great observation by scientists, long observed by farmers, seen in tropical dense forests where trees jostled fo sunlight…but, where did that mechanism come from? We can say all we want, but man never gets the message about mechanisms. These did not “evolve” .

I’ve always had the feeling that sunflowers are looking at me. Can sunflowers actually see? And help each other. That is really something. Thanks for the article!

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Follow us on LinkedIn
• Watch us on Youtube
• Audio and video Explore the sights and sounds of the scientific world
• Podcasts Our regular conversations with inspiring figures from the scientific community
• Video Watch our specially filmed videos to get a different slant on the latest science
• Webinars Tune into online presentations that allow expert speakers to explain novel tools and applications
• Latest Explore all the latest news and information on Physics World
• Research updates Keep track of the most exciting research breakthroughs and technology innovations
• News Stay informed about the latest developments that affect scientists in all parts of the world
• Features Take a deeper look at the emerging trends and key issues within the global scientific community
• Opinion and reviews Find out whether you agree with our expert commentators
• Interviews Discover the views of leading figures in the scientific community
• Analysis Discover the stories behind the headlines
• Blog Enjoy a more personal take on the key events in and around science
• Physics World Live
• Impact Explore the value of scientific research for industry, the economy and society
• Events Plan the meetings and conferences you want to attend with our comprehensive events calendar
• Innovation showcases A round-up of the latest innovation from our corporate partners
• Collections Explore special collections that bring together our best content on trending topics
• Artificial intelligence Explore the ways in which today’s world relies on AI, and ponder how this technology might shape the world of tomorrow
• #BlackInPhysics Celebrating Black physicists and revealing a more complete picture of what a physicist looks like
• Nanotechnology in action The challenges and opportunities of turning advances in nanotechnology into commercial products
• The Nobel Prize for Physics Explore the work of recent Nobel laureates, find out what happens behind the scenes, and discover some who were overlooked for the prize
• Revolutions in computing Find out how scientists are exploiting digital technologies to understand online behaviour and drive research progress
• The science and business of space Explore the latest trends and opportunities associated with designing, building, launching and exploiting space-based technologies
• Supercool physics Experiments that probe the exotic behaviour of matter at ultralow temperatures depend on the latest cryogenics technology
• Women in physics Celebrating women in physics and their contributions to the field
• IOP Publishing
• Enter e-mail address
• Show Enter password
• Remember me Forgot your password?
• Access more than 20 years of online content
• Manage which e-mail newsletters you want to receive
• Read about the big breakthroughs and innovations across 13 scientific topics
• Explore the key issues and trends within the global scientific community
• Choose which e-mail newsletters you want to receive

Reset your password

Please enter the e-mail address you used to register to reset your password

Note: The verification e-mail to change your password should arrive immediately. However, in some cases it takes longer. Don't forget to check your spam folder.

If you haven't received the e-mail in 24 hours, please contact [email protected]

Registration complete

Thank you for registering with Physics World If you'd like to change your details at any time, please visit My account

• Particle and nuclear
• Research update

Heavy exotic antinucleus gives up no secrets about antimatter asymmetry

An antihyperhydrogen-4 nucleus – the heaviest antinucleus ever produced – has been observed in heavy ion collisions by the STAR Collaboration at Brookhaven National Laboratory in the US. The antihypernucleus contains a strange quark, making it a heavier cousin of antihydrogen-4. Physicists hope that studying such antimatter particles could shed light on why there is much more matter than antimatter in the visible universe – however in this case, nothing new beyond the Standard Model of particle physics was observed.

In the first millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe is thought to have been too hot for quarks to have been bound into hadrons. Instead it comprised a strongly interacting fluid called a quark–gluon plasma. As the universe expanded and cooled, bound baryons and mesons were created.

The Standard Model forbids the creation of matter without the simultaneous creation of antimatter, and yet the universe appears to be made entirely of matter. While antimatter is created by nuclear processes – both naturally and in experiments – it is swiftly annihilated on contact with matter.

The Standard Model also says that matter and antimatter should be identical after charge, parity and time are reversed. Therefore, finding even tiny asymmetries in how matter and antimatter behave could provide important information about physics beyond the Standard Model.

Colliding heavy ions

One way forward is to create quark–gluon plasma in the laboratory and study particle–antiparticle creation. Quark–gluon plasma is made by smashing together heavy ions such as lead or gold. A variety of exotic particles and antiparticles emerge from these collisions. Many of them decay almost immediately, but their decay products can be detected and compared with theoretical predictions.

Quark–gluon plasma can include hypernuclei, which are nuclei containing one or more hyperons. Hyperons are baryons containing one or more strange quarks, making hyperons the heavier cousins of protons and neutrons. These hypernuclei are thought to have been present in the high-energy conditions of the early universe, so physicists are keen to see if they exhibit any matter/antimatter asymmetries.

In 2010, the STAR collaboration unveiled the first evidence of an antihypernucleus, which was created by smashing gold nuclei together at 200 GeV. This was the antihypertriton, which is the antimatter version of an exotic counterpart to tritium in which one of the down quarks in one of the neutrons is replaced by a strange quark.

Now, STAR physicists have created a heavier antihypernucleus. They recorded over 6 billion collisions using pairs of uranium, ruthenium, zirconium and gold ions moving at more than 99.9% of the speed of light. In the resulting quark–gluon plasma, the researchers found evidence of antihyperhydrogen-4 (antihypertriton with an extra antineutron). Antihyperhydrogen-4 decays almost immediately by the emission of a pion, producing antihelium-4. This was detected by the researchers in 2011. The researchers therefore knew what to look for among the debris of their collisions.

Sifting through the collisions

Sifting through the collision data, the researchers found 22 events that appeared to be antihyperhydrogen-4 decays. After subtracting the expected background, they were left with approximately 16 events, which was statistically significant enough to claim that they had observed antihyperhydrogen-4.

The researchers also observed evidence of the decays of hyperhydrogen-4, antihypertriton and hypertriton. In all cases, the results were consistent with the predictions of charge–parity–time (CPT) symmetry. This is a central tenet of modern physics that says that if the charge and internal quantum numbers of a particle are reversed, the spatial co-ordinates are reversed and the direction of time is reversed, the outcome of an experiment will be identical.

RHIC nets strange antimatter

STAR member Hao Qiu of the Institute of Modern Physics at the Chinese Academy of Sciences says that, in his view, the most important feature of the work is the observation of the hyperhydrogen-4. “In terms of the CPT test, it’s just that we’re able to do it…The uncertainty is not very small compared with some other tests.”

Qiu says that he, personally, hopes the latest research may provide some insight into violation of charge–parity symmetry (i.e. without flipping the direction of time). This has already been shown to occur in some systems. “Ultimately, though, we’re experimentalists – we look at all approaches as hard as we can,” he says; “but if we see CPT symmetry breaking we have to throw out an awful lot of current physics.”

“I really do think it’s an incredibly impressive bit of experimental science,” says theoretical nuclear physicist Thomas Cohen of University of Maryland, College Park; “The idea that they make thousands of particles each collision, find one of these in only a tiny fraction of these events, and yet they’re able to identify this in all this really complicated background – truly amazing!”

He notes, however, that “this is not the place to look for CPT violation…Making precision measurements on the positron mass versus the electron mass or that of the proton versus the antiproton is a much more promising direction simply because we have so many more of them that we can actually do precision measurements.”    

The research is described in Nature .

Want to read more?

Note: The verification e-mail to complete your account registration should arrive immediately. However, in some cases it takes longer. Don't forget to check your spam folder.

If you haven't received the e-mail in 24 hours, please contact [email protected] .

• E-mail Address

Tim Wogan is a science writer based in the US

Journals and ebooks in particle and nuclear physics

• Materials for energy

Metamaterial gives induction heating a boost for industrial processing

• Radiotherapy

Gold nanoparticles could improve radiotherapy of pancreatic cancer

Discover more from physics world.

Abdus Salam: honouring the first Muslim Nobel-prize-winning scientist

• Nuclear physics

Half-life measurement of samarium-146 could help reveal secrets of the early solar system

• Particles and interactions

Multiple molecular hexaquarks are predicted by theoretical study

Related jobs, eu support officer, controls software developer (sy-rf-cs-2024-117-grae), monte carlo specialist – radiation transport (231), related events.

• Particle and nuclear | Symposium World Nuclear Symposium 2024 4—6 September 2024 | London, UK
• Particle and nuclear | Symposium Fifth International Symposium on the Casimir Effect 15—21 September 2024 | Piran, Slovenia
• Nuclear power | Conference Europe Nuclear Energy & SMR Conference (ENES 2024) 13—14 November 2024 | Prague, Czech Republic

$1.3M for Research on General Plasma Science Collaborative Research Facilities 

$1.3M for 11 Awards  

This funding will carry out frontier-level plasma science research on one or more of the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) General Plasma Science (GPS) Program-supported collaborative research facilities (CRFs). The focus is on new, one-time, short-term, small “seed” funding for external collaborations with the CRFs and to increase participation at and productivity of these facilities. Through the support of this research, the FES GPS Program plays a key role in training the next generation of plasma scientists and engineers. 

View the Funding Opportunity Announcement  

Research in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering 

$7M for 11 Awards  

This funding will provide frontier-level research opportunities leading to significant advances in the fundamental understanding of basic plasma science and engineering. Proposals focus on dynamical processes in laboratory, space, and astrophysical plasma, such as magnetic reconnection, plasma dynamo, shocks, turbulence cascade, structures, waves, flows and their interactions; behavior of dusty plasma, non-neutral, single-component matter or antimatter plasma, and ultra-cold neutral plasma; and plasma chemistry and processes in low temperature plasma, interfacial plasma, and interaction of plasma with materials and/or biomaterials. 

View the Funding Opportunity Announcement

Research on Computational Materials Science 

$14M for Four Awards  

Research efforts for these awards will develop advanced open-source community software and databases. Solicited topics were computational discovery and design of functional materials with unique physical properties; and computational modeling of emergent and ordered magnetic, superconducting, and/or ferroelectric phases, including their dynamics. A key aim of the current projects is to take full advantage of the nation’s most advanced computers. Funding will provide a bridge to perform fundamental and exploratory research at so-called “exascale” machines recently deployed at DOE national laboratories.  

View the Lab Announcement  

Integrated Biological and Computational Low Dose Radiation Research 

$19.5M for 14 Awards  

Supports research to develop a disease risk prediction and, in the longer term, inform radiation protection measures for the public and the workplace. This funding will take advantage of recent developments in experimental and Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) technologies to understand changes in cellular metabolism due to low dose radiation exposure. The initial projects will develop a series of highly curated experimental datasets across a range of cell types to assess changes in cell function due to low dose radiation exposure. These datasets will serve as training data for a burgeoning AI/ML modeling capability for low dose radiation research. 

Supporting Energy-Relevant Research in Underrepresented Regions of America 

$36M for 39 Awards  

These awards provide funding to 19 states via the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research ( EPSCoR ), working to ensure that scientific funding goes to states and territories that have typically received smaller fractions of federal research dollars in the past. The grants connect innovative ideas from scientists at eligible institutions with leading-edge capabilities at the DOE national laboratories. 

See a full list of Office of Science Topical Funding Opportunity Awards