organisation - the Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência

the relationship of these with the reproductive success of individuals, however,
is unclear to say the least, such that there is little biology at the origin of those
terms and notions. Thus, we very well know that “cooperation” is the essence
of life from its very inception, chemical cooperation in this case. Many examples
of collective “behaviour” are already available in bacteria, some of which
can be seen as “cooperative”, for they configure conditions in which individuals
differentially provide for a range of common goods that are “exchanged” for
mutual benefit. If “purposeless” genetic variability in populations of unicellular
organisms is the solution for the unknown future, it also generates standing
genetic variation in the populations, that is, it creates the “differentiation” of
individuals, however rare the variants may be. As one of my bright young colleagues
puts it, if purposeless diversity is the solution for the unknown future,
the differentiation of individuals is the rule of nature. Large populations may
accumulate many such “differentiated” mutants, all the more so as beneficial
mutations are far more frequent than anticipated, in bacteria, yeast, worms and
flies, at least. Hence, even rare variants may reach considerable representation
in the population. Should one of these produce a “common good”, the whole
population profits, changing environments, naturally modulating the relative
frequency of each “sub-type”. The greater the diversity, the higher the chance
for the emergence of new “common goods”, that is, for cooperation. This does
not infringe Hamilton’s rule, for the populations must remain highly related, as
a condition to use the new “common good”. As Maynard Smith had told us, all
“major transitions” in the ways of being alive have been of a cooperative nature,
such that biologists do have an acute sense of the advantages, of the “fitness
increases”, that are afforded by “sharing” with others any given particular way
of living. If I were to pick one single item from the “ethos” catalogue of the
IGC, I would certainly choose “cooperativity” for all that it implies. Diversity, to
start with, for identical individuals gain little in being together, if we are looking
for “emergent novelty”; the group may gain, particularly if individuals are
submitted to a stringent rule, in (biological) brave new worlds of alphas, betas
and gammas, but those are not the kind of worlds we are after. Naturally, each
IGCer takes a lot from many of the others, as she or he provides various kinds
of “goods” to many of the others. If looking at a single variable “good”, we may
identify those that take more than give, and some would speak of “cheaters”.
However, the “cheaters” for a particular “common good” may well be the most
altruistic for another. In short, the “tragedy of the commons” seems more apparent
than real, again solved by the diversity of individuals. This must be true,
as there is little or no “policing”, few rules, and yet, there are no cheaters at the
Institute. Only because, I would think, we do have a common goal that goes well
beyond the diversity of individual interests.
The last year at the IGC was most successful for many of my colleagues. Over
150 publications have appeared in the international scientific literature with an
affiliation to the IGC, many in the most cited journals in the respective fields:
this was the year in IGC’s life with a highest number of publications (some 1,700
for its whole 50 years of life, with over 1,100 since the last reform). For the first
time in its history, citations of work done at the IGC have reach over 4,000/year
(more than 30,000 citations from its foundation, over 20,000 of which for work
published since 1998). IGC’s scientists gained several prestigious international
grants and awards, and they were joined in this success by IGC’s alumni who are
now at other Portuguese institutions. Given the IGC’s mission of educating or “importing”
and then “incubating” the best young scientists, only to “export” them to
other Portuguese institutions, this is a most rewarding outcome. The numbers for
the last five years help to reveal the IGC’s role in the revolution of Life Sciences
in Portugal. For example, thus far, a total of 18 European Research Council grants
were awarded to scientists working in Portugal, 11 of which in Life Sciences: 10 of
these 11 were given to investigators who are or have been at the IGC. If the Life
Sciences appear as the most competitive research area in Portugal, therefore,
this is largely due to IGC’s alumni. Similar results can be seen with programmes of
other international funding agencies: the recent Howard Hughes Medical Institute
“International Early Career Scientists”, the Human Frontiers Science Programme,
and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “Grand Challenges”. In short, the IGC has
contributed to 20 of 23 such grants given to scientists in Portugal. The Institute
itself has also been recognised: the IGC was awarded an Honorary Membership of
the Ordem de Sant'Iago da Espada, by the President of the Portuguese Republic,
received the Oeiras Medal of Honour, the highest attributed by the Municipality,
and for the second consecutive year, the IGC was ranked by “The Scientist - Faculty
of a 1,000” as one of the 10 best places for post-docs to work outside the USA.
Thus, we very well know that “cooperation”
is the essence of life from its very inception,
chemical cooperation in this case.
Many examples of collective “behaviour”
are already available in bacteria, some of
which can be seen as “cooperative”, for
they configure conditions in which individuals
differentially provide for a range
of common goods that are “exchanged” for
mutual benefit.
The greater the diversity, the higher the
chance for the emergence of new “common
goods”, that is, for cooperation.
If I were to pick one single item from the
“ethos” catalogue of the IGC, I would certainly
choose “cooperativity” for all that it
implies.
IGC ANNUAL REPORT ‘11
THE DIRECTOR'S INTRODUCTION
8