Randy Schekman: "We both wanted to answer the same question, but in completely different ways: it was magical"

“It was magical. He had his own way of approaching the problem, using electron microscopy and morphology, while I was working in biochemistry and genetics. We both wanted to answer the same question, but in completely different ways”, Professor Randy Schekman said enthusiastically when speaking about Italian researcher Lelio Orci during a discussion session with around thirty researchers from the Universitat Jaume I of Castelló.

Before the colloquium, Nobel Prize laureate Randy Schekman was welcomed by Rector-elect Jesús Lancis, accompanied by Vice-Rector for Innovation, Knowledge Transfer and Science Communication David Cabedo; Deputy Vice-Rector for Research Margarita Vergara; Director of the Doctoral School Mercè Correa; Director of the Science Communication and Citizen Science Unit Lluís Martínez; and Director of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Marisa Flor.

At the beginning of the discussion, moderated by Mercè Correa and Ramón Feenstra, director of the Ethics, Open Science and Research Assessment project, Professor Schekman defended the importance of basic research—the same kind of research that led him to receive the Nobel Prize in 2013. He explained that this line of research, which studies metabolic processes in cells and the role of certain proteins, could help develop biomarkers for diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease.

Schekman is currently involved in a project bringing together more than 35 teams from 14 countries and 165 laboratories with the aim of advancing basic research in Parkinson’s disease. “A few years ago, we started working with a protein genetically linked to this disease that could be useful for diagnosis”, he explained. He also predicted a revolution in the treatment of genetic diseases, one that would be “entirely predictable and based on basic science”.

The professor also spoke about two of his mentors: Arthur Kornberg, from whom he learned a great deal scientifically despite his demanding and uncompromising personality, and Daniel Koshland, who taught him to be a “citizen of science”, a colleague rather than an individual. “That is why”, he said, “you have to optimise your own personality, recognise your strengths and weaknesses; you cannot be someone else.”

Today, he looks for people who can contribute new perspectives, not necessarily those with long publication records, but researchers who, like Lelio Orci, ask the same scientific questions while using different methods to find the answers. For Schekman, technique is not the most important thing; “the question is always what matters”.

Finally, Schekman addressed the issue of scientific journals and open access. The Nobel laureate argued that “journal impact factors are a false and misleading number published by large commercial companies that take advantage of people’s insecurities”. In his view, the pressure on young researchers to publish is “toxic”. Although he continues to believe in scientific journals, he considers that active scientists should be responsible for deciding whether articles are published.

He also stressed the need to continue educating young scientists about appropriate standards and conduct, “about what is acceptable and what is not”, and emphasised the importance of ethics training at the beginning of a research career because “I do not think a young researcher can fully understand the damage that misconduct can do to their own career; it can be devastating”.