Slashdot Mirror
Human Genome To Be Released To Public
Phizzy writes, "According to this CNN Story, President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair have announced that the information gathered in the Human Genome Project will be released to the public. Maybe we can ease our fears about the Genome being controlled by one party. " Good. This is one of the smartest things I've seen this year.
We will get rid of both of them in time.
That'll be rather difficult to do, considering that the factors we currently use to determine "race" is flawed. For example, would the Irish (or anyone else for that matter) be considered Asian since they share the "turning red" trait, people with curly hair be considered Black/African because they both have curly hair, etc? Yes, I know most people base it on skin color but who is to say dark-skinned Italians aren't White/Caucasian? Oh, yeah, Nazis would just kill off every non-Blond on the planet, but what about non-blonds with the gene (ie one parent is blond)? The same applies to blue-eyed people as well. If both were applied, then that would possibly reduce the whole human population to a size without any genetic diversity to last very long.
AC in hiding
Patents on this have been issued already so even if the genome is open sourced to speak it is NOT "GPLed". So doesnt matter if you KNOW this info legally the patents dictate to do medical research on said genes you still have to pay to the holder of the patents which pretty much makes this the Open sourcing of the human genome kinda well not worth as much at this point in time as it might be in the future.
I remember seeing many books from Human Genome project in Project Gutenberg's list of books. I wonder if this is what they mean?
I don't give a Daemon!
The Human Genome Code screams out for a BSD-Style License.
I should have the choice whether or not to share my Genetic Enhancements with everyone.
I've got 33megs of chromosome 22 sitting on my hd, I was trying to compress it, but I'm not getting better results then if I were compressing random data (does that mean anything?!?).
You should be able to compress DNA pretty well, so I don' know why it acts like it's random. You should get compression because:
- there are only 15 letters per base (4 bases plus NCBI uses a degenerate alphabet, so, eg, "N" means "A", "T", "C" or "G"). That's 4 bits.
- Most of time time you should only need 2 bits, since most of the bases are well known.
- I don't know anything about chromosome 22, but often a gene is available in multiple regions. This should be another source of compression, though compression routines usually reset their table every, say, 64K, and that might be too small to detect some of these.
So I would have expected at least 2-fold compression of your sequence data.This might happen. I have heard a rumor from a reliable source (just a rumor, that is why this is anonymous) that a major academic group working on the human genome project is considering releasing their first draft under the GPL. This would mean that any other group could make changes or updates to the draft, but would have to release those changes to the community at large.
If the human genome is open source the clown will be able to replicate me using Perl (thanks a lot Larry Wall). He will then monitor my clone and learn more about me. Bill Joy is predicting this in the new issue of Wired (he was also on Charlie Rose last night, which I of course saw because I can't sleep). The clown has gathered my genetic material from my trash dumpster. How am I to defend myself? A guy walking up and down Michigan Avenue yesterday with a megaphone was wearing a poster claiming that the Nazis had discovered methods of weather control, and the Russians obtained it from labs at the end of the war, and that the Russians are using it in their current conflicts with breakaway republics. Will they eventually open-source this technology? The clown will then be able to make it rain all night in my neighborhood (because he will discover from my replicant that I can't help sleeping on rainy nights). Please help me, or at least pray for me in church this weekend.
In debates about biotechnology issues, it has become a classical strategy for biotech corporate interests to accept to make special exceptions for the human genome, provided that: 1- patentability is still allowed. 2- plant and animal genomes are not included. That means that they will still be able to control the dissemination of any practical use (for health purposes for instance) of genome data. If one accepts gene sequence patents and dominance of proprietary databases for non-human genomes, the public nature of the human genome will be only "virtual". So this can only be a first step towards getting back to common sense: the general recognition of the public nature of nature.
On a sidenote, for altering your genes theres always gene therapy. At least if you dont mind that some patients die :-)
You just call it something like consulting, your not providing a product, just a service
Come on , this is a huge PR stunt And that is what u must expect in an election year. Outgoing incumbents trying to "immortalise" their "legacy". Next thing we will hear is "all loans should be available without interest". Bottomline is there is no such thing as free beer. You do end up paying somewhere. Read a post above by a reasonable guy who talks about what these patents are. I'd just consider this as a big PR stunt at worst and a populist statement to gain some bargaining mileage before setting up policy. More interesting reading can be found at http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000314/ca_celera_1.html
heh. i say we give it to the guys who ruined quake by writing speed hacks, and see what they can do. It would make things so much more interesting...
TIGR != CELERA! TIGR is a non-profit research institute funded by grants TIGR CELERA is a for profit company funded by stock market and Perkin Elmer. CELERA
TIGR data is publicly and freely available, just go look at their website/ftp... tons of good stuff there.
Yes the head of TIGR went on to found celera but that hasn't changed TIGR. Except maybe that the scientists who remained at tigr when they likely were offered jobs at celera must be quite dedicated to doing non-profit public research
Anonymous Coward
This story is about three years late.
Finally? The Human Genome Project has been dedicated to public release from its inception.
The general rule worked under is public release within 24 hours, go to any of the genome sites and the sequence is on ftp ready for perusal. It's also in Genbank/EMBL and the japanese (JDB?) database which are all publicly availabe/searchable
Most of the programs used in the genome program are open sourced and have been for as long as I can recall, blast Blast, Crossmatch, phred(the basecaller of choice), phrap(the assembler of choice), consed(a great analysis set of tools) are all at phrap.org
grr, there's no finally these scientists are getting the point about it, the point was clear from the get go.
Anonymous coward
Celera is the one without the genome map, they have the genome in tiny little pieces and will have to figure out where they go. The public effort has the maps (mapping is a slow process) which is one reason celera wanted to collaborate with the public effort.
Anonymous Coward
I believe celera plans to sequence the genomes of multiple (6 comes to mind but I don't recall where I heard that figure) people eventually, partially in order to grab all the SNPs they can (although it's turning out to be more difficult to do that just by comparing sequence than it appeared). In any case, if they can assemble multiple genomes then yes their data will be more widely useful.
The part of celera stopping after 4 fold coverage, that's what celera has committed to publicly releasing, not where they'll actuallly stop.
Anonymous Coward
Celera's private data is being progressively devalued each day as the HGP marches on. In a few weeks, nearly the entire genome will be in the public domain. At that point, Celera might as well release the bulk of their data to the public. Celera can't claim the Government is out to get them, because public release of genomic data has been HGP policy all along.
Interestingly, this is rather like a situation Celera's Craig Venter faced just a few years ago with expressed sequence tag (EST) data when he was at TIGR. At first, the non-profit TIGR had access to the world's largest private collection of human EST data. For months (years?), Venter told the community TIGR would make the data publicly available. But the licensing terms to users gave TIGR the rights to 99% of royalties from discoveries made using their data. Few academic researchers were that interested.
Merck pharmaceutical company then funded Washington University in St. Louis in a big way to generate human EST data and release it immediately into the public domain. Realizing a rapid devaluation of their data (and reputation) as the WashU-Merck project cranked out data at a furious pace, TIGR began trickling its ESTs into the public domain when they matched ESTs already in the public domain from the WashU-Merck project. Kind of a silly gesture of TIGR, but this is a similar situation to what Celera faces today. A big difference today, though, is that Celera has shareholders to contend with. So while Celera would make a big hit with academics by releasing their redundant data, shareholders might be a little unhappy if this happened. Craig Venter may again try to save face by saying he's really a good guy but his hands are tied by commercial concerns, which is essentially what happened when he was at TIGR saying his hands were tied by contractual agreements with Smith-Kline and Human Genome Sciences. As if he wasn't smart enough to know what he was signing onto in the first place!
By the way, the UK government has funded precious little of the HGP effort in Great Britain. The vast majority of the Sanger Center's funding has been provided by the Wellcome Trust. It's really great Tony Blair is speaking out, but the UK government could have done more than just talk the talk.
assembling by shotgun isn't mapping, it's assembling. mapping gives you known anchors to tie your sequence to chromosome and location on chromosome, and hopefully order relative to the next bit.
about speed, well the doe (only 10% of HGP) has 80 megabaces (equivalent to 3700) and I know they aren't anywhere near the fastest. MIT (whitehead) has many more machines, so i'd guess that yes he's likely right about the speed of the public effort.
The reason celera got so much data so quickly is that simply the advent of the 3700, research on which was funded by the public effort buying so many 377s
the facts your using are from last fall, it's now a different picture.
Anonymous coward
Oh my god, this should be moderated up.
That's friggen amazing since as has been made clear in many postings here, the statement by clinton/blair was just pr stunt as hgp data has been publicly available since the start and there's been no mention of laws to require private co's to release data.
incyte fell 45, celera fell 52, geez, investors are clueless.
Though actually what the hecks celera being valued at 7 1/2 billion for anyway?
Anonymous Coward
No thanks. Companies are not 'fairly' rational anymore than governments are. A company monopolizing this information would be as likely to use it improperly as anyone else. Science depends on free exchange of information and ideas. Anyone who doubts that need only compare technological achievements in the US (fairly free exchange of ideas) with Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany. The more out in the open and nakedly available this is the better.
Not just humanity but life!!!! This is the exact reason we live, the purpose of life as far as we know it is to continuely improve it, this can be seen in evolution.
In october last celera announced it had filed for 6500 preliminary patents on genes, now what kind of company coughs up the thousands of bucks per patent on 6500 patents and doesn't consider it a major part of their business. (after only been sequencing since may of that year, lord knows how many they've filed by now)
check here
bbc on celera patents
and here legalnews
whipperschappers?
Hey! You won't get me to release my genes just because you want it to be GPL'ed. I want £60 and still want you to sign an EULA.
Except what scares me is that two heads of state should be able to make this decision. All the information on the genome is ultimately under the control of Clinton and Blair?
I thought Celera was mainly after SNPs? And Celera's shotgun approach will find SNPs more quickly - they don't need to anchor anthing - they are not after complete contiguous sequence. And aren't SNPs where the IP money is to be found initially?
And how do you know how fragmented their sequence is?
But can you patent discovered mutations for use in diagnostics? $$$$$$$
So the Human Genome project results will be released to the public. Problem is, Private (re: those Mega Corporations) are about 5 years further along the mapping process than their publically funded counterparts. Witness the numerous patents, gene therapies and the occasionally super absurd patent (like naturally occcuring things). Frankly, releasing this publically is going to make even more corporations Ka-Ching Ka-Ching rich, as a bunch of non immediately profitable research will be available free for all.
with this information, scientists may now be able to isolate and treat people with the ultra-rare and deadly katz gene. people afflicted with this rare genetic disease have been known to randomly spew long-winded tirades of meaningless drivel and expect other people to care about it.
-hemos.
I'm hemos., aka Jeff. Bates.. I help run this site, along with Rob. Malda.. I handle books, and generally posting storie
Wow! Open source is really catching on.
I get the feeling that this is just a move to cover their asses with God. Who would argue Prior Art with the Almighty? After all, instead of sending a lawyer to do his bidding - he sends an Archangel to shove a lightning bolt up your ass.
I think one of the big problems is that companies like Celera could potentially patent the data itself. This could potentially mean that other companies or institutions wishing to use that data in research would have to pay royalties to Celera for using their data. Obviously this is a Bad Thing.
In the UK, LibDem MP Richard Allan was given leave to bring the Protection of Human Genetic Sequence bill in to the commons last Tuesday. This would protect against this kind of thing and ensure that only the results of research based on genome data could be patented and never genome data itself.
Not only has this been going on for the last few years, but as millet posted, is also available online http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/seq/page.cgi?F= HsHome.html&ORG=Hs .
It was decided from the inception of the Human Genome Project that the info would be public domain, but have you ever tried to read a genome? Anybody can get the info, the money will be made by the biotech firms that interpret the code. They don't have to make their interpretations public (does anyone see an intellectual property arguement?)
-theres no such thing as a pink cow
As for science being free ... um well when the people that ask for it will pay my rent, buy my groceries, and take care of my bills I'll be all for it
Seems to me like that's exactly what's happening in the Human Genome Project and others, the people are paying taxes to pay for the project.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
it sounds to me like you just want to fuck everyone else's girlfriend in the name of open source communism :)
Well, to compare this to say, opening the source code to a mythical "one common OS that everyone uses", some folks are nervous about that sort of thing because those BAAAAD hackers out there will write nasty bugs to break into your systems and steal all your pr0n, and email it to your mother. Then the good hackers out there, who also have the source-code can engineer a fix - thus the benefits of open-source goodness.
But the human genome is a different animal. It was not engineered with security and robustness in mind. If BAAAAAD gene-hackers found a way to engineer a nasty bug that would break into your DNA and make you pee blue, or *worse*, who's to say that there is a community of white-hat gene-hackers out there who can quickly engineer a fix? Who's to say that this won't ultimately expose a weakness in the human race that some wacko can exploit indiscriminately?
It has a HUGE potential for abuse, and saying "oh good, they're doing the open source thing" isn't going to erase the fact that lots and lots of people could theoretically die. The science-minded out there think this is a great thing, but they forget that they are WAY outnumbered by the political-minded (and non-minded), and that such power can be used for good or for evil - just like any technology back to the stone axe (hm. I wonder why there aren't any neandrethals around anymore?). The fact that YOU know that YOU wont engineer a nasty race-erasing virus doesn't mean nobody else can't or wont.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, actually, the French did it first, but the UK/USA alliance used Echelon to STEAL it from them, because the French were bribing the Argentinians to use their gene maps. . .
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Celera aren't mapping as such. They're trying to sequence most of the genome, by picking random fragments.
<P>Not correct, I am afraid.
<UL>
<LI>Celera <b>are</b> doing mapping after they have sequenced data. In fact, they have one of the world's largest computing facilities, in order to do this.
<LI>They <b>are</b> sequencing 100% of the genome, with about 4x oversampling. The difference is that they are using the "Shotgun" approach to extract fragments. Earlier this year, they announced that they already had sequenced 90% of the human genome. Later the same week, they had also completed mapping of some type of a firefly (one of the simpler genomes).
<LI>They are doing 4x oversampling, but all from the same individual (possibly Craig Venter). This eliminates gene expressions from coming into effect - and any differences will be known to be due to sequencing artifacts. They can then later take any sequences that were in question and redo them, and also get more individuals sequenced at a later time.
</UL>
</P>
<P><I>WIW, the public consortium have done about twice as much sequencing on the human genome as Celera, and are still sequencing (AFAICT) at almost twice the rate.</I>
</P>
<P>It is true that the HGP has (still) more raw data sequenced, mostly because they perform a larger oversampling (they have to, since they involve several individuals).</P>
<P>However, you are wrong about the speed. Celera has 230 ABI3700 sequencers, each working 24 hours, in full, unattended operation. In comparison, most of the HGP participants use the older ABI377 to do their work; where manual intervention is required between each run. That is why Celera has in 1 year collected about 50% as much raw data as the HGP has done over the last 10 years.</p>
Guys,
Sometimes (more than other times) I am a bit amazed at the level of opinionated bigotry combined with ignorance that the Slashdot readers manage to spew out. Obviously this is a very, very young crowd.
First off, there is no conflict - as far as the availability of genomic data is concerned. The International Human Genome Project is making available to the public all sequences as they discover them. Celera is too, albeit in a lump after they have sequenced the whole thing.
Second off, Celera is <B>not</B> building their business on patents. In fact, Celera is not even lobbying for the possibility of patenting sequences per se. (Unlike, for instance, Incyte - who are more or less building their business on the sale of rights to partiuclar sequences).
On the other hand, if someone in Celera (as result of their genomic knowledge) come up with promotors &al that help manufacture seqences inside the human body - that is an actual product that is already patentable alongside any other drug.
So - guys - forget this "open source" militia stance. Celera is as much "open source" as the government - actually much more (being mostly based on Linux, anyway). That is a non-issue.
As far as Bill goes, he only says what sounds good in populist ears. The fact that he said HGP data will be publicly available, and that he urges the private sector to make their data available as well - all that is already the case. So even though he is a personal friend of Craig Venter, he has obviously not studied this matter too deeply.
There.
-tor
I have. I was asking if this search has been performed in Real Life - not in a work of fiction.
I mailed SETI about but go no reply. They have (or had) no info about such a search in their FAQs. Maybe a few more people should ask the same question.
Regards, Ralph.
This article from Reuters has a quote the CNN article left out.
As a practical matter, he said, the U.S. Patent Office has decided that scientists cannot obtain patents for individual genes. However, he said, "If you develop a vaccine or something off of the genetic data - that will continue to have intellectual property rights."
StickBoy
--- "The problem is not that the world is full of fools, it's that lightning isn't being distributed correctly." -- Mar
Compared to the private effort in the US which claims that they will be something like 95% by the end of this year. Those results of course will only be available to paying partners
Are these going to go away? If my understanding is correct, biotech patents come very close to patents on software (wetware actually), and worse yet, they amount to patents on `secrets of nature' which should never have patents even by the insane US patent system. If the HGP info is made public then do all of these have to go away? Otherwise, making it public would be a useless gesture.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
There is one privately funded project that shows promise of being the first to accomplish the thing.
Celera will have data about 4 deep by the end of June. The HGP will have roughly the same by then, but won't be stopping at that point.
Celera aim to have 4-deep data by the middle of this year. So does the HGP. The difference is that Celera will stop there, while the public project will continue to deepen and edit the data for up to another three years. There probably won't be any point when celera will have produced better data than the HGP.
Issued by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton
JOINT STATEMENT TO ENSURE THAT DISCOVERIES FROM THE HUMAN GENOME ARE USED TO ADVANCE HUMAN HEALTH
In the last decade of the twentieth century, scientists from around the world initiated one of the most significant scientific projects of all time: to determine the DNA sequence of the entire human genome, the human genetic blueprint. Progressing ahead of schedule, human genome research is rapidly advancing our understanding of the causes of human disease and will serve as the foundation for development of a new generation of effective treatments, preventions and cures.
To realise the full promise of this research, raw fundamental data on the human genome, including the human DNA sequence and its variations, should be made freely available to scientists everywhere. Unencumbered access to this information will promote discoveries that will reduce the burden of disease, improve health around the world, and enhance the quality of life for all humankind. Intellectual property protection for gene-based inventions will also play an important role in stimulating the development of important new health care products.
We applaud the decision by scientists working on the Human Genome Project to release raw fundamental information about the human DNA sequence and its variants rapidly into the public domain, and we commend other scientists around the world to adopt this policy.
------------------------------------------
Commenting on today's announcement by the United States and UK Government on the sequence data from the Human Genome Project, Dr Mike Dexter, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:
"The Wellcome Trust is committed to ensuring that sequence data from the collaborative Human Genome Project remains in the public domain. We are delighted with today's announcement as it reaffirms a key underlying principle of the Human Genome Project that sequence data, which can be used to develop medically important therapies, is made freely available to all researchers.
"The Human Genome Project provides a unique resource - today's announcement will help ensure that this global resource is fully exploited and that the information can be developed to provide real healthcare advances. We hope that similar agreements are established between other Human Genome Project collaborators to ensure that this important genetic resource is owned by mankind."
So there we have it. They like the idea that all of the sequence be freely available, but there's no mention of action to ensure this. Companies are encouraged to open their databases, but I suspect that their duties to their shareholders will preclude this.
I'd guess, therefore, that the immediate impact will be slight.
On the other hand, it might be more significant as an indicator of the general tone our respective governments' actions and policies might take. As far as that goes, I guess it's good news.
Celera are doing mapping after they have sequenced data. In fact, they have one of the world's largest computing facilities, in order to do this.
Well, to my mind, doing an assembly doesn't constitute mapping. And I know about asasemblies - that's my job.
The difference is that they are using the "Shotgun" approach to extract fragments.
The difference is that they're doing a whole-genome shotgun, rather than shotgunning mapped clones. This has major implications for accuracy - it's inherently more vulnerable to misassembly.
They are doing 4x oversampling, but all from the same individual (possibly Craig Venter).
You're not the only person here to have said this. Given that they originally said that their income was going to come from variation data, I'd be quite surprised. The main virtue of the whole-genome method is that it generates variation data.
It is true that the HGP has (still) more raw data sequenced, mostly because they perform a larger oversampling (they have to, since they involve several individuals).
Well, each clone is from a single individual : the reason we're aiming for more depth is that we want greater accuracy than Celera. Our aim is for each final contig to be well into the megabase range, whereas Celera were going to produce data in sequences a few kilobases long - until they decided to use our data, of course.
However, you are wrong about the speed. Celera has 230 ABI3700 sequencers,
Here at the Sanger, we've got just over 100 of them. We are one-third of the project.
In comparison, most of the HGP participants use the older ABI377 to do their work; where manual intervention is required between each run.
Yes, we've got 150 or so of them as well.
That is why Celera has in 1 year collected about 50% as much raw data as the HGP has done over the last 10 years.
From my understanding of our recent production figures, we're certainly doing about half what Celera are, and as I say we're only a third of the HGP. A lot of the articles I've seen on the web and in the papers are clearly based on figures we gave out over a year ago. Things have moved on since then.
I believe celera plans to sequence the genomes of multiple (6 comes to mind but I don't recall where I heard that figure) people eventually, partially in order to grab all the SNPs they can
I don't know how worthwhile they'll find that. I think most of the large pharmaceutical companies are doing SNP-hunting in collaboration with the HGP. This has already started.
The part of celera stopping after 4 fold coverage, that's what celera has committed to publicly releasing, not where they'll actuallly stop.
According to this press release, they're moving immediately onto the mouse come the summer.
PE Celera, which just split at 300, is the one with the genome map.
<P>Celera aren't mapping as such. They're trying to sequence most of the genome, by picking random fragments. They haven't done any extra mapping work, and each fragment could come from anywhere in the genome. They're partly going to relate this to the wider structure by finding pre-existing markers in their data, and partly by using the publicly available data from the human genome project, which has benefitted from a lot of detailed mapping work. Interestingly, I believe that Celera are now only planning to do the genome 4 reads deep, rather than the 8-10 they originally announced. I wonder whether this resulted from a decision to scale down the sequencing work, or whether they had problems sequencing on that scale? I doubt they'll tell us soon, but I'd love to know.
<P> FWIW, the public consortium have done about twice as much sequencing on the human genome as Celera, and are still sequencing (AFAICT) at almost twice the rate.
Sure this helps with some of the information
It doesn't affect us in the HGP at all : all our data are released freely to the public within a day or two anyway.
it doesn't really address the underlying problem of private companies patenting gene sequences.
Unless there's more to the statement than CNN are aware of, anyway.
The winner of the Intel (former Westinghouse)
national science fair was a high school student who
inserted coded messages into an artificial gene.
She won $100,000 for the effort.
The gene sequences are low level ATCG sequences
with little direct information. This is similar
to deducing the behavior of computer program
by reading its binary core memory file.
There are some clues to possible proteins and
functionality, but it is largely mysterious.
In fact the main way to determine function is
use to the gene sequence to manufacture a sample
of pure protein and test it in cells. Thats a lot
easier than isolating the protein from a 100,000
others in the cell to figure it out.
No longer will the future of the human race be decided by strangers alone in their bedrooms
Alone??? That's a peculiarly geeky way of viewing human procreation....
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
It is going to be an interesting spring.
It was a long time ago since the success of a single scientific method will (or will not) make such an impact on everyones future.
Venter who invented shotgun sequencing and Gene Myers who managed to assemble the Drosphile (fruitfly) genome, might succeed to assemble the genome before the public project (NiH/Sanger), however it is very likely that they need to use data (maps) from the public project.
The question is if they will get it before the public project has finished (or if they can manage without it)
Copyright 1998 arne Verbatim copying and distribution is permited as long as this message is preserved
Indeed. Now I can stop trying to figure out how to copyright myself.
Well not so much your own genes, but those of your children. I'm hardly opposed to science and how it progresses, but it's scary to think that with this information out there it could be abused. Of course, so can everything.
;)). I can think of one or two improvements.
Who doesn't want a smart strong son? Or a pretty and smart daughter?
Though of course, better we all know than the select few control things. Does anyone have any interesting links about altering the genes of the already living (in Genetic terms, 17 is old
The human genome project is a *huge* project.
Parts of the research were done by:
a) scientific institutions using goverment money
b) scientific institutions using companies money
c) scientific institutions using their own money
d) goverment institutions
e) companies
Most research done in scientific institues will be published eventually since scientists work for publications.
Goverment research will also be published, considering the view expressed in the article.
Private research is more problematic, and unless knowledge is forced out of the companies by legistlation or extreme public pressure - they'd probably try to keep it secret because its the default business point of view. keep it secret unless there's a really good reason not to.
Chen.
Ballerinas have fins that you'll never find
Who doesn't want a smart strong son? Or a pretty and smart daughter?
I direct you towards Nancy Kress's Beggars in Spain , a sci-fi novel in which genetic engineering progresses to the point where it is possible to alter one's children's genes. The main character is genetically engineered so that she does not need sleep; she and many of her fellow Sleepless experience a great deal of backlash.
Obviously, this is not something that can be done in the present day -- it is fiction, after all -- but it presents some fascinating moral and ethical questions, and attempts to answer some of them. I found it fascinating.
Disclaimer: Not flame or troll - just my opinion.
I agree that releasing the data to the public is a good thing, but I do not think it is the safest thing to do. Releasing it to the public will allow any scientist with a little bit of funding to go beserk and start expermenting.
I think that the politico's are not thinking long term on this. Nobody may screw around with genes now, but somewhere down the line - someone will.
Another problem I have with the releasing of the Human Gene Code is that discoveries/drugs/cures developed from it do not have to be made public and or can be copyrighted... In other words - forks can be kept closed source.
If I had to have someone look after the gene code - I would almost prefer a company because I can count on companies to be fairly rational - Governments are not.
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
Oops, moderated this the wrong way. In theory, posting will give me my points back.
Here we go.
Later
Erik Z
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Another neat thing to do would be to create the Sandkings. You know, the small distributed-mind creatures...
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
One of the major issues which has everyone up in arms is the ability for companies in today's environment to patent genes as soon as they isolate them. If they get there before the Genome Project, they can patent the genes and use them to extract royalties, in the event that researchers (who they don't pay for) discover a use for the gene. See this article for just one example. Before you think they did hard work to get large profits off of this gene, listen to the spin-doctoring:
This announcement came out about Feb. 16 of this year. What they're not saying is that they've had the gene isolated for years now, that they applied for the patent immediately after isolating it, and that it was only in February that researchers and scientists not employed by them discovered the link to HIV. This discovery, in turn, prompted the press release.There is some IP which is worth protecting: that which is demonstrably detrimental to being released into the public. This IP would include certain information being held by those protecting our country, and other information which would hurt individuals or their rights. As much as some here don't like it, there is information which should be held tightly, including IP held by some commonly bashed organizations, since the information is being used for your benefit. Information that is tightly held only because it benefits some multi-billion dollar corporation, and could benefit everyone if had royalty-free, on the other hand, shouldn't be patentable in the first place.
I think there should be a moritorium on patents issued for gene isolation. Even if a private firm isolates a gene, they are doing research which will eventually be duplicated by the Genome Project, and that information should be released into the public domain, license-free. If they want to aid the cause, that's fine, go get a government grant. If they want to develop subsidiary products based on a particular gene, that's OK too. Conventional products and procedures which are limited by, among other things, ingredients and physical restrictions, such as complicated and novel processing requirements, are completely covered by today's patent process. IP, on the other hand, should be free for everyone.
For more information about IP in the gene patent area, check out these links:
Property Rights and Ownership
Genome Research and Traditional Intellectual Property Protection
Dave Blau
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
That's a growing concern as science proceeds to have increasing power. On one hand, we've manage to avoid nuking ourselves down to glowing glass, but on the other hand currently only governments have nuclear bombs (at least, I hope that's still true).
Genetic warfare and nanotechnology are two fronts where it is entirely possible that some looney will come up with a brilliant way to destroy the world without needing an amount of money that would prohibit this to rich nations.
Books like Herbert's "White Plague" are excellent fictional studies into what can happen when the power to make sweeping biological weapons becomes accessible to an "average" man.
Unfortunately it's a bit of a quandry. We can't restrict the progress of technology without becoming a repressive world, and we have severe potential consequences if we let it go unchecked.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Is that the Democrats or New Labour?
threadeds blog
I wonder if the people from the Genome Project use Gnome? After all, they are all smart people, and we know that the smartest people use Gnome!
Mike Roberto
- roberto@soul.apk.net
-- AOL IM: MicroBerto
Berto
I think you are talking about biological weapons(diseases & viruses) rather than chemical weapons.
How do you know that these sorts of things have not been developed yet anyway?
Also, the good that will come out of this will most probably far outweigh the bad. I am thinking about the end of disease and extension of lifespan that will most probably arise from this.
The solution to the problem you elucidate is to not advance/learn at all, which in my opinion is not a good solution
$var = <STDIN>
$var =~ s/\\$//;
this is slashchomp
Nutcases, I agree with you, always have, and always will hold the world hostage to some degree. But at the same time, you cannot tell who will be the next Einstein or where he will come from, and witholding information from those who wish to learn and experiment, may be detrimental to progress.
I am speculating here, but I imagine there is a possibility that gene therapy could be able to treat/eliminate unfounded aggression. People one day may not be compelled to design such attrocious weapons. How I long for that day...
$var = <STDIN>
$var =~ s/\\$//;
this is slashchomp
this is a relief to a certain extent. he who controls genomes, in the future, possibly controls everything. giving the control of the genomes to everyone was a good move. it's too bad the average person will have no idea what to do with a genome. on the other hand, maybe it's not too bad...i rather enjoy seeing people the way they are now, and who wants to look at someone who engineered themselves to look like the Slashdot crew?
although we might see an increase in genetically-altered geeks who actually attract girls and still can submit kernel patches...
Sounds like fun to mess around with your own genes...
... something which both countries can be proud of, as seems to be very rare in today's world. The Human Genome Project has been a massive undertaking by scientists and has been supported by both governments, even though its benefits will not be fully apparent for some years to come. Hopefully this model of international collaberation in such huge undertakings will continue as I'm sure there are many projects which could benefit.
It's also nice to see research which will be fully public and used for the benefit of the human race rather than a single company, group or nation. In the years to come we will all feel the results of this and be better for it.
Okay, so I'm being very idealistic for once, but it's nice to see something good happen in the international community.
...in liquid form...on second thoughts maybe I shouldn't be announcing this particular release.
-- SIGFPE
Sizes in genes Compressed Uncompressed
--------------------------------------
Patch 462778 2000341
Full source 19629195 83834880
--------------------------------------
The following files were changed in this release:
CREDITS |32
kernel/female/driving/hability.c | 20
kernel/female/blondes/Makefile | 308
extra arm.c | 49
drivers/vision/myopia.c |30
drivers/vision/hypermetropia.c |43
include/night-googles/Makefiles | 40
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Is it GPL-like or BSD-like or YAOSL-type..? Hynek
"So Bob, what version of the Genome is your daughter at?"
"1.05...we had her grown in vitro pretty early...we're planning to go all out for our next kid, though..."
"You mean you're gonna try the 2.2 beta? Isn't that unstable?"
"We're gonna wait till they iron out the multiple-personality bug, and then...well, you saw the feature list, right?"
"Ohhhh, yeah. That thing is amazing!"
Hehe, I can't wait!
Then again, I could be wrong.
Coming soon to "Slashmeat": Human Genome 2.0!
Good shot. Too bad you aimed at the wrong target. It isn't "scientists" (ie the researchers) that need to get the point because it's not scientists who make those decisions. (In most cases, anyway. There are exceptions to most anything.) It's those running the companies or funding the research that make the decisions on how the knowledge will be controlled and disseminated.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
We already have really ugly biological weapons, and making better ones is not really dependant on the knowledge of human genes, it depends on knowing the genes of viruses and bacteria, as well as the structure of the human body. And for the latter, you really dont need the Human Genome project, any good microscope will do.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Is that the infamous "Genome Public License" ?
<grub> Reading
Yeah...I might need the human genome...in case I ever have to enter in 2 chromosomes from the human genome from memory whilst on the plant Mars.
We should mnemonic genome songs to hlp us rememer them by. (And here's the new one that's screaming up the charts "T-A-C-G-T-A-T-T-G"!)
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
I was stoked to hear this as I'm sure most other "open source people" (for lack of a better phrase) are but then I read this over at ABC News. The Nasdaq tumbled 4.1% - its second greatest fall ever! An excerpt: "Biotech stocks, particularly the shares of companies involved in genetic mapping, took the hit after the United States and Britain agreed to openly share data from a project to decode the human genetic pattern." So is this good or bad? Please read more!
You clearly don't understand open source, freedom and the advancement of knowledge. You cannot restrict knowledge to the "right" people. Repression never works for anything, you probably think we are winning the drug war.
It's scary... think of the projects that will be abandoned or postponed due to profit considerations resulting from having to use a gene that someone else has patented. We could see the resources of genetic research focused on genes that are selected based on who owns them, rather than purely going after the most promising and beneficial treatments.
Now I may be being a bit cynical here, but shouldn't we look at what TB and Bill get out of this, or rather their respective governments. Sorry, just a knee jerk action after all that Echelon/Spying on business' malarky.
Still it has to be good news.
BTW does the Human Genome Project include all efforts to map our genes or is it just one of the attempts.
to know that those who are developing chemical weapons will have free access to the human genome. It will save them time and resources by circumventing that extensive messy human testing and getting right to the genocide.
Why pay for sex when you can buy the cow and get it for free?
I think that scientists are finally starting to get the point. The advancement of science is not just about gaining money. We all know that is what would have happened had the Genome project been fully patented. Science is around to advance humanity, not to sell knowledge to the highest bidder. I am glad some people finally had the common sense to get it right. -Eric Lubow IM: madbombx
When I saw this, I thanked God for the first time in three years. This is the sanest legislature I've seen, since, well, ummm...? Anyways, this just made Clinton's term worth it, IMO.
-raph
Celera Genomics fell 133/8 to 97 on the NYSE. http://dailynews. yahoo.com/h/ap/20000314/bs/wall_street_2117.html
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
It might be possible to make a genetic weapon targeted at specific racial groups. Right now, most nations with a decent scientific base would probably not be interested, but I feel Nazi Germany would have been able to put the research into a succesful "impure race" eradication virus, and 60 years wasn't that long ago.
Is god going to sue them for reverse enginering, hmmm could we use this as a prescedent against the mpaa? If Blair and Clinton can get away with it why can't we?
Grzt, Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
I'd like to applaud Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair for this decision. It makes absolute sense for this momentous scientific data to be freely available, since it is enormously significant for innovative, progressive, life-saving research, and it is near useless for detrimental purposes.
Wow, some politicians did something smart.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
Still leads to some scary possibilities... I understand both that knowledge should be available to anyone, and that security through obscurity does not work for long, But I am worried what some unscrupulous people might do with that level of information.
Cactus Bob
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT d---(!d) s+:++>s+:+ a-- C++++ UH+@>+++$ P+>+++ L++>+++ E---- W++(W+++) !N o? K? w++++$>!w
O M-(M+) V-- PS+++(+(!++)) PE(+) Y+>++ PGP++ t+++ 5 X++@ R !tv>tv- b->++ DI++$ D++
G e* h++(h) r++(r*)>r++ y++*(y+++++**@)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
At issue before was whether or not Craig Venter and Celera Genomics were going to release their version publically and their annotations (which they probably won't), and whether Venter has any intellectual property on which he can obtain patents (which he probably doesn't).
Celera currently has sequence which are not part of the public record sequence yet, but will be shortly. Celera's sequence is badly fragmented and since Celera currently uses shotgun seuencing alone, they're probably having some trouble anchoring the sequence fragments and finishing it, something they won't be able to do before the public effort (but that they could partly do now by using the public information -- greatly decreasing their IP position).
Finally, the Human Genome Project has additional iimportant informations regarding allelic variation and single-nucleotide polymorphisms obtained through sequencing multiple people's DNA as opposed to Celera's ostensibly quicker approach of sequencing the DNA of a single person (Craig Venter himself). I'd really be amazed if Celera will see mcuh profit from its human genome sequencing effort.
Anyway, the point was that the HGP information was always destined to be released into the public domain, there wasn't even a question about it. It's nice for Clinton and Blair to take credit for it, but they didn't do anything. Release of the information still won't cover IP related to genes not identified or detrimental genetic mutations/ variants that cause disease, the majority of which the HGP will not capture. However, the HGP information will make such things far easier to find in the future.
Venter and Hazeltine? What does Bill and Al have to do with it? PE Celera, which just split at 300, is the one with the genome map. BTW, I don't trust people who start their name with an initial like J. Craig Venter, reminds me to much of G. Gordon Liddy, I guess.
I assume you've read Contact. Read it, not watched the movie. If you haven't, do so now.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Unfortunately commercialism is unavoidable in many aspects of science, such as medical research.
The reason is that such vast projects need to be paid for, and governments will not spend millions of zorkmids of public money on a project which will then be given away free to the entire world. Research in medicine always ends up being funded by private investiture, which will only happen if there's some profit to be made out of it.
Unfortunately, if governments force research information to be made public, it will stop being economic to do research as there would be no potential for profit. So projects like this would no longer be undertaken, simply because there'd be no financial incentive.
The release of the human genome under Open Source is an important step forward, but governments cannot and will not do this on a regular basis. If they did, no research would ever take place.
But will they GPL it? I hope whatever licence they use will exclude paying for permission to duplicate.
Our genes become free -
But what of our numbered souls
Reduced to 4 memes?
All this announcement shows is the public is naive and politicians like to take credit for things that have already been done. The data from the human genome project IS and ALWAYS has been freely available. The DOE is funding most of the current research. Therefore the information is in the public domain because its government funded research. All you need to do is go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/ and there you have it... complete and total access to all the genetic code you could possibly want.
What is more likely is that this announcement is in response to Celera Genomics claim to be able to sequence the entire genome in less then a year. The government is probably jealous that Celera is trying to take their fire. Lets face it the first group (being government funded or privately funded) to sequence of the genome is going to get some serious PR.
By the way did any one notice Celera's stock dropped 20% the same day the announcement was made?
Additionally the claim that any one group could ever "control" the genome is unfounded. The information in the genome cannot be patented. In order to patent a gene you must know something about that gene's function... just managing to get the complete sequence of a gene is simplistic. There are undergraduates and high school students that are in essence cloning genes. What the government is doing is not magical or mystical. Its simple. It just takes a large amount of time and resources.
Perhaps this is a big deal... just not to those of use who have known about it since the genome project started in the early 1990's.
"Its coming? Ha! It isn't even breathing hard."
Actually, under UCITA, I can revoke their license to MY genes at any time I feel they are violating it. I wonder if I can retroactively revoke my childrens' genes (effectively mine) if I think they're illegally copying them or sharing them with someone else?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I wonder if SETI have ever tried passing the human genome data through their spot-an-alien filters. Or pi or e if it comes to that.
Why should messages from alien intelligences always be expected to come from Out There? Why not In There?
Regards, Ralph.
Clinton and Blair can make any statments that wish about releasing public research. Writing an executive order changing patent law would undoubtedly become cannon fodder in Congress and the Supreme Court since patent law is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations 37 CFR.
One way public institutions could fight back would be by refusing to collaborate with private companies. Sounds crude but it would force the company to risk spending extra research dollars on somthing that may not be patentable. As it stands I think they are trying to get somthing for nothing by being the first to produce the entire database and calling it a unique piece of art.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Also, there's a slightly more informative story on the BBC's website.
According to the CNN story, Bill and Tony are going to applaud the researchers on the Human Genome Project (just so you know where I stand, that includes me) and call upon other researchers to make their results public with the same lack of attached strings. This sounds like a reference to Celera Genomics (and possibly Incyte and a number of other biotech companies). What it doesn't say is that they're going to make it in any way more difficult for said companies to obtain intellectual property rights over sections of the human genome. They may do, but it doesn't say so in the story.
Is GPL now "General Pubic Licentiousness"?
And if it is GPLed, doesn't that mean you can't resell something that packages it? Does this make prostitution universally illegal due to the GPL???
That'll hurt Las Vegas come next comdex.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Let's GPL the genome, after all it's THE source code... Then, we can all start making cool changes! The CVS is available in any good library, under the author "Darwin".
Don't even mention Beowulf here...
max
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
IT seems appropriate that I put form my proposal at this time, that is similar in spirit.
Each technological group of patents would have its own maximum expiration time. This expiration time would be based on the dynamicity of the technology- which would be determined by the number of patents issued in the group the previous three years.
Further, I would change the patent process such that each patent is automatically granted, with the caveat that a five grand bond must be placed with the patent. Anyone can challenge the validity of the patent by putting up five grand. This money would in turn go to five reviewers, chosen at random from a pool of experts in the technology. Each expert would rate the patent on a scale of 1-10 on its innovativeness. 1 being blantantly obvious, 5 somewhat innovative and a 10 extraordinarily innovative. The patent life would then be based on the average ratings of the experts. If the average rating is less than 5 then the patent is immediately invalidated, and the patenter loses their bond. If it scores 5 or greater, the challenger forfiets his challenge money. The time length of the patent would then be based on the average score. The default would be the maximum time length for that category. The rest would be the average score as a percent of the maximum score multiplied by the category.
Please tell me what you think,
LetterRip
fstmm@yahoo.com
"but I seriously disagree with your suggestion of charging five thousand dollars for the opportunity to dispute a patent"
I assumed that for impoverished programmers with valid claims, an organization similar to the EFF would probably help. Or alternatively, I'm certain that there will be organizations willing to pony up the five grand for a percentage of the take.
This system is mostly to streamline the elimination of obvious patents, and to reduce the strifiling of innovation, especially in those areas that are experienceing rapid growth and change. It's also meant to reduce the whole lawsuit strategy of filing bogus patents that the clerks are undertrained/staffed to realize, and than suing anyone who infringes. If someone attempts to sue- pony up five grand, get the claim invalidated, end of lawsuit. If the claim holds up- settle quickly .
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@yahoo.com
In many ways, this joint statement just states the obvious. The data from the publicly funded Human Genome Project is and always has been intended to be free and publicly available.
Celera is a competing private effort. I really do not believe that governments intend to expropriate Celera's database, which has been privately funded. However, Celera has made extensive use of the public data to augment its own. (The nature of their sequencing methods require many overlapping fragments and redundant coverage to ensure accuracy.) One way to pressure Celera to make its data freely available would be to license the public data under something like the GPL - to demand that any database products that use it or derive from it are made freely available.
Regardless, even if Celera does not share, the HGP will catch up within a few years.
Not sure if this is the correct url, but I've got 33megs of chromosome 22 sitting on my hd, I was trying to compress it, but I'm not getting better results then if I were compressing random data (does that mean anything?!?).
? F=HsHome.html&ORG=Hs
For the curious:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/seq/page.cgi
I'm running to school, but I'll check the url when I'm back, 9 hours from now or so...
There is a little bit more info on yahoo.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
I'm really glad about this turn of events. Having +1 Talent at each base will really cut down on Drone Riots. They don't happen very often in Baltimore, but I've seen a few in D.C.
...but it's not enough. It should be our goal to open up information on all science to the people, to foster the advancement of the knowledge of the human race as a whole.
The more we know, the less possible it will be to accidentially destroy ourselves.
January
The article is nice, but it doesn't give any info on whether or not results from the project will be freely available, or if it is still possible to patent specific genes.
The last part I find the most frightening, because it would impose a deadlock on treating genetic diseases caused by the gene. I would rather see the genes to be freely available, but the treatment to be patented. This would still give the possibility for a workaround.
Use Adsense for Charity
Interesting proposal, and quite intricate, but I seriously disagree with your suggestion of charging five thousand dollars for the opportunity to dispute a patent. If an impoverished programmer wants to dispute a patent claim (perhaps because he had the idea first), he should have priority and protection whether he can pony up the five-K or not.
I certainly agree with the crux of your proposal - that patent expiration dates "would be based on the dynamicity of the technology." I'm not sure what "dynamicity" means, but I assume it means something like "the pace of change." If so, your idea and mine are at heart motivated by the same wish: for a patent system that reflects that long-term monopolies of discovery or innovation can stifle (instead of encouraging) progress in fast-moving fields.
A. Keiper
Thank you kindly for the links, but I disagree with your conclusion. Lots of companies are pursuing patents on their genomic data, and I feel they deserve compensation for the money, time and labor of their work. That's why I think a short-term patent would be effective; companies wishing to do research with that data could pay for it, or wait the short while (perhaps two years? four?) till they get it for free. Other companies that do decide to use the genomic data for research will pay for it - and if they manage to create a successful drug based on that research, the cost will trickle down to the consumers, so in the end the people who benefit from the drug are the ones who pay for the research behind it.
And I disagree also with your argument (which I have perhaps misinterpreted?) that the only intellectual property that should be safeguarded is that which protects the public good or national security. Why shouldn't innovators and discovers benefit from their hard work? We're really debating what I consider one of the most civil notions of modern society: that those who do research or create new things should be rewarded just as if they performed more tangible tasks like bricklaying or farming. There are significant parallels in the copyright discussion (which Katz's post today raises); in that arena, if your argument were carried to its conclusion (ad absurdum), practically nothing could be copyrighted. After all, music and literature benefits the public, so it "should be free for everyone," right?
Perhaps I am being unfair to you; if so, I apologize. And I thank you again for your thoughtful reply and the links.
Yours,
A. Keiper
The discussions about biology here often cause me to grit my teeth and shake my head in dismay. My degree is in molecular and cell biology, and I happen to work in a gene sequencing lab. First of all when these companies patent something it really isn't "the sequence" itself. What gets patented are things like cis and trans promoters/enhancers that are cloned into vectors. In terms of "open" source the genetics world is wide open. You can go to NCBI's homepage and run a sample sequence through the National database and get a few hundred results including H. sapiens similarities. No one has yet mentioned that the human genome project and celera have taken VERY DIFFERENT routes to get their data. HGP uses linear sequencing...one chunk at a time per se, last I heard Celera used a whole genome shotgun approach. Its actually more profitable because only a small percentage of the genome does anything...so they can pick out areas that "look interesting" and go back and linear sequence them. Basically this was a PR stunt and the public along with /.'ers ate it up. This is very old news and the posters/moderators might want to read a decent freshman biology text so they can figure out what's out there and what's not about these stories. As for science being free ... um well when the people that ask for it will pay my rent, buy my groceries, and take care of my bills I'll be all for it, come on let's put both feet on the ground people. Just my two cents.
What if some crack-pot psycho nation gets their hands on this and develops genetic warfare. The last thing we need is for someone to unleash something like that on an innocent civilian population. Imagine you're walking through central park with your girlfriend and realize that she, and you, have been genetically assaulted and you are developing gills and are becoming unable to live outside of a pool of sewage. Yes, that's a little out there but I think it would suck.
If that Gates guy ever comes around I'll rip his fscking kneecaps off!
It doesn't say that the genome will be made available, only that "... all discoveries from the Human Genome Project will be made available to the global scientific community". That is still something different. Furthermore, public is not the same thing as scientific community.
--
This doesn't really solve much. A big part of the controversy is the research that is privately funded. Referencing this Wired Article (noted in this earlier /. article), "Celera Genomics president and CEO Craig Venter said Tuesday that his company is willing to continue discussing a collaboration with its longstanding competitor, the international Human Genome Project."
Sure this helps with some of the information it doesn't really address the underlying problem of private companies patenting gene sequences.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
The EBI has a list of the various genome databases, which are all freely searchable. You can check up on the progress of the various genome sequencing projects here.
But the larger question is whether the private firms will be forced to relinquish their data. The CNN story says nothing about that.
Someone else mentioned Celera, and quoted a story from Wired's website. Celera is, by far, not the only company pursuing patents on genomic data. Other companies (with thousands more patents applied for) include HGS, Incyte and Athersys. (You can read about their efforts on our Biotech page.)
My proposal: Create a new class of patent with a shorter lifespan that will allow these companies to rightly profit from their research (which has helped the public project immensely). This is rather like Jeff Bezos's proposal for Amazon patents; a new category with fewer years of monopoly so innovators can still benefit from their work and their investments, while the public will still benefit in the not-too-distant future.
Is that fair? I know many here on /. don't buy the notion of compromise (ever), but lots of you are eminently fair-minded. Is my proposal unreasonable?
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Seriously, people. HUGEP isn't run by any goverment, and is a scientific project. Scientific means in that case: made by scientists working at public scientific institutions, like universities and such. Which automatically means that the human genome, once sequenced by HUGEP, will be published in Nature or Science or whatever scientific magazine they choose -- not the sequence per se, but due to publishing policy in these journals it will be accessible via WWW or on demand, as it is the case with all scientific research.
Do you know that if you work at a university, and you find something suspicious (or want to repeat the research, or need it for your research, or are just curious) in a published article, you have a right to demand exact informations from the scientist who published it, including getting the original clones / organisms he used for the research? Of course, if the author works for a public institution. This is the major difference between them and such institutions like CELERA / TIGR.
Let me give you an example. This year an article appeared in Nature on a mutagenesis study of the small bacterium I'm working with. It was performed by associated scientists of one of those big commercial research centers. The article and information published on the web did not give you exact details as to where the reported mutations were placed on the genome, only -- which genes have been knocked out. A professor I know, who also works with these bacteria, wrote to the author to get the details of the study -- and never received any answer. This couldn't happen with an academic institution.
There is a book of a polish writer and Nobel prize winner, Sienkiewicz. It tells the story of the Swedish-Polish war from the XVII century. In one of the scenes, the king of Sweden offers to one of local polish princes that he will give this prince a certain polish teritory, which is occupied by the swedish army, if he agrees to colaborate. The prince answers -- "All right, and I will give you Netherlands".
What I want to say, they are giving away Netherlands: making an offer which is of no value just for the sake of telling it -- because it's not their science and because *of course* it will be released to the public. HELLO! This is not CELERA/ Perkin Elmer, for God's sake!
I will repeat myself, because I consider this matter very important: sequencing projects like HUGEP, payed by academic institutions do publish they data. Take a look at the Mycoplasma pneumoniae homepage -- the group I've been working in sequenced the genome and published it, and you can of course download all the data. Only on-going research projects, which have not yet been published in a scientific journal, are not public - yet.
Speaking of which: publishing the HUGEP data before the project is ready is giving a helpful hand to the privat counterpart of HUGEP - namely, Celera Research. And those are the "patent guys" in this case -- I would really like to see HUGEP ready before Celera is.
Regards,
January
This particular document happens to be related to the US portion of the HGP, but as you can see it has been standard policy, for several years now, to release data as it is generated to public databases. For example, the NCBI Genome Guide, which has both sequence and general information.
DOE-NIH Guidelines for Sharing Data and Resources
At its December 7, 1992, meeting, the DOE-NIH Joint Subcommittee on the Human Genome approved the following sharing guidelines, developed from the DOE draft of September 1991.
The information and resources generated by the Human Genome Project have become substantial, and the interest in having access to them is widespread. It is therefore desirable to have a statement of philosophy concerning the sharing of these resources that can guide investigators who generate the resources as well as those who wish to use them.
A key issue for the Human Genome Project is how to promote and encourage the rapid sharing of materials and data that are produced, especially information that has not yet been published or may never be published in its entirety. Such sharing is essential for progress toward the goals of the program and to avoid unnecessary duplication. It is also desirable to make the fruits of genome research available to the scientific community as a whole as soon as possible to expedite research in other areas.
Although it is the policy of the Human Genome Project to maximize outreach to the scientific community, it is also necessary to give investigators time to verify the accuracy of their data and to gain some scientific advantage from the effort they have invested. Furthermore, in order to assure that novel ideas and inventions are rapidly developed to the benefit of the public, intellectual property protection may be needed for some of the data and materials.
After extensive discussion with the community of genome researchers, the advisors of the NIH and DOE genome programs have determined that consensus is developing around the concept that a 6-month period from the time the data or materials are generated to the time they are made available publicly is a reasonable maximum in almost all cases. More rapid sharing is encouraged.
Whenever possible, data should be deposited in public databases and materials in public repositories. Where appropriate repositories do not exist or are unable to accept the data or materials, investigators should accommodate requests to the extent possible.
The NIH and DOE genome programs have decided to require all applicants expecting to generate significant amounts of genome data or materials to describe in their application how and when they plan to make such data and materials available to the community. Grant solicitations will specify this requirement. These plans in each application will be reviewed in the course of peer review and by staff to assure they are reasonable and in conformity with program philosophy. If a grant is made, the applicant's sharing plans will become a condition of the award and compliance will be reviewed before continuation funding is provided. Progress reports will be asked to address the issue.