Eyes on the Wrong Prize

by Randy Atkins

It must be great to be a publicist for movie stars.  I mean, this is an easy job.  The media will stumble all over each other to cover every move of an actor -- a phenomenon used to great effect in hearings on Capitol Hill. And this time of year, even the most journalistically highbrow news organizations can't resist details of the Academy Awards.

Then there are my Academy's awards.

I work for the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) which is part of the nonprofit National Academies -- the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council --  nongovernmental agencies chartered by Congress to ensure independent advice on vital matters related to science, technology, and medicine. The NAE just presented a prestigious, half-million dollar award, along with its own gold trophy, to a biomedical engineer whose creativity is responsible for extending lives and easing the suffering of millions.

The winner of my Academy's award this year was recently honored for a body of work that launched a medical industry, which, in the United States alone, rings up $20 billion annually -- way more than the box office receipts of all this year's Best Picture nominees combined.  But it's unlikely you heard his acceptance speech, or even knew he gave one.  With very few exceptions, the media ignored this award.

One might suggest that's because I didn't do my job -- perhaps the hundreds of journalists I contacted about the NAE's awards weren't the right ones.  One big-name reporter from a major newspaper renowned for its claim to publish  "All the News That's Fit to Print," told me this story wasn't fit because such awards are self-promotional, adding: "News is what we hunger for, ole buddy."

 I guess I could accept this, if I didn't know that this same paper will soon provide their readers with a complete list of every (Motion Picture) Academy Award winner…and throw in dress styles, party locations, pre-analysis, post-analysis, and other such minutiae ad nauseam.

 But he wasn’t the only one who turned me down.

 When I got to the point of outright begging for coverage of our awards, a writer for one national magazine told me the story might see print if my guy had perhaps personally suffered a malady related to his medical achievement.  Unselfish dedication is apparently less interesting.  This reporter added (this is an actual quote): "Of course, if this was a story about Brad Pitt, well, the fact that he showed up at a movie premiere would be enough."  Even if he'd won an Oscar, why are Brad Pitt's accomplishments more newsworthy than those of someone whose work may one day be responsible for saving your life?

 I love movies too.  I read gossip columns.  It's fun.  It's easy.  This engineering stuff can seem, as one network news correspondent characterized it during my pitch, "too arcane." But what if it's your child that needs the innovation to survive?  Then what details do you wish you knew more about?  Then who deserves celebrity?

 I'm not asking for several hours of primetime TV for our awards (nor do I insist upon additional recognition for Best Supporting Lab Technician), but advances in science and medicine unconnected with scandal, sentiment, or celebrity certainly merit some coverage.

 The real issue, however goes much deeper than media attention to awards.  Currently, most of us are ill-equipped to intelligently assess many technology-based concerns facing the country.  Journalists must take some responsibility for this. What if creative media coverage inspired more water cooler discussion on such vital topics such as the environment, stem cell research, cyber-security, genetically modified food, missile defense…and less on who wore the most elegant dress to the Oscars?  Such fascinating technological advances are altering our world, and our children’s future, while we worry about Best Actor nominees.

 The NAE's annual Draper Prize -- engineering's highest honor for achievement and comparable to a Nobel Prize -- was awarded to Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Dr. Robert Langer, 53, for his invention of just such a life-changing medical technology.

 The Langer story, as I tried to let journalists know, is not without human-interest angles.  It is one of a man who, early on, faced considerable professional obstacles.  He was ridiculed for his ideas after initial presentations; his first nine grant requests were turned down, and at one point, he was in danger of losing his job.  Undeterred, he continued to believe what more experienced people told him was impossible and he proved his hunches.

 Langer's groundbreaking work turned on its head the previous scientific dogma that it was impossible to get large molecules, which were promising against cancer and other diseases, through plastic delivery systems in a controlled manner.  He nevertheless discovered engineering principles that for the first time allowed a desired release of such medically important molecules from plastics.

 Langer's creative engineering is now allowing delivery of medicine in unique ways to difficult locations within the human body.  One of his biodegradable polymer inventions broke a 20-year drought in FDA-approved treatment of brain cancer treatments.  It was the first such chemotherapy that could be delivered directly to the tumor site and greatly reduced the side effects of conventional chemotherapy.

 That success is just one of many for Langer.  He's written about 700 papers and has 400 patents that are licensed or sub-licensed to more than 80 companies, some launched on his ideas.  Langer has a reputation for helping his students take their theses to the marketplace.  He has also shepherded more than 80 students into professorships at universities around the world, and has undoubtedly had an impact on advancing chemical- and bio-engineering education.

 So I submit that journalists have their eyes on the wrong Prize.  I also find it ironic that they’ve been so concerned lately about entertainment taking over their turf, when they jump at any opportunity to fill their “news” with entertainment celebrities.  The American public will be better served when American journalists more fully accept the challenge to make the important as interesting as the glitzy.

 Randy Atkins is senior media relations officer for the National Academy of Engineering (www.nae.edu).