Venter's DNA Major Source of Celera's Database

dh003i writes "According to this article, Dr. Craig Venter's DNA is the major source of Celera's database of the human genome. Interesting stuff." Includes interviews with lots of aggravated geneticists.

Comments

Re:Wow, another NYT story.

[Anonymous Coward]

I must say I'm getting sick of this BS as well.

Doesn't suprise me in the least

[CmdrTaco (editor)]

As I've mentioned before, I think most researchers work in their field, not for the money, but simply for the joy of doing something they are interested in. The competition to get funding is the main motivation for being the best in a specific are, so no doubt some researchers thought they would even the playing field and share Venter's DNA. Of course, as with any other situation, some people disagreed with this sharing of data (most likely the people who had invested something, either money or time) and felt compelled to report it.

I'm going to guess these people will be shunned by the rest of the research community, though no light will be shed on these acts. Monetary motivation is needed to keep innovation at its current rate (look at the drug companies for god's sake), but this has to be the best place in the world to point out a case in which the freedom of information sharing is most successful- open source! I believe eventually we will see a splintered scientific community based on the open source premise of sharing, and it will evolve something similar to what we know as the open source movement today.

Re:Doesn't suprise me in the least

[Rich0]

There are many things that motivate things to do the things that people do. A person gets paid a lot if:

1. Their product is in high demand (if you're dying of cancer, you really don't care how much the anti-cancer drug costs).
2. Their product is scarce (how many people are there that have the skills necessary to make that drug?).
3. Their work is distasteful - trash haulers are paid disproportionately in light of the skill necessary, and conversly musicians tend to be underpaid relative to their skills (probably because the work is so enjoyable).

If any or all of the above are the case, the costs of the product will be high to pay the various wages involved. You can try to legislate the cost away, but everyone is at heart a capitalist. People will move to where the capital is. If you take the money out of a job, the most talented and entreupenurial will move elsewhere.

As far as people not being motivated by greed goes - you're mostly right. However, the fact is there are a lot of things I'd like to do with my life, and money is the only reason I'm not doing them. I enjoy the job I do right now, but it also pays well, so if opportunities to do other enjoyable things come up I'll probably turn them down unless they pay equally well. Money isn't the only reason I'm where I am, but it is a strong reason.

And as far as the Marxist proposition that your pay is simply an abstraction of the work you perform goes - that's just silly:

I can sprint around my back yard until I pass out from utter exhaustion. In one sense I may have done more work than I do all week at my job, but nobody is going to pay me for it.

Money is simply a measure of value. If somebody values your labor they will give you money for it. Money forces us to prioritize our buying and our labor. We are free to do whatever we want, but labor spent on tasks of no value to anyone will not be rewarded.

I bought a house, and I value the bank's money, so I give them some of my money over time in exchange for their giving me their money up front. In my opinion, their lump sum up front is worth more to me than the larger sum I forfeit over time, because I have opportunity to use their money now that I would lose if I waited until I could save up the whole sum.

Capitalism is a win-win. If a person pays $50 for a pill, it is because the pill is worth more to the recipient than $50, and the $50 is worth more to the seller than the pill. If you don't think it is worth $50, then don't pay for it - you'll probably still live longer than people did 100 years ago.

Other systems don't work, because they depend on citizens accepting a governmental body's system of values. If you pay everyone the same, you have to then use force to compel them to perform the tasks you want them to. And who gets to be the one who decides what has value? Capitalism requires only freedom to thrive.

does this really matter?

[CheechBG]

from what I can remember, the human genome, as is with all other living things, stays constant to the species, with minute mutations occuring here and there as a result of evolution. I really don't see a big deal. Guy got a big head and decided that he would make himself to be one really fat lab-rat, fine by me. Just as long as the research was completed.

Creepy Scientist

[eples]

Kinda reminds me of that fertility doctor in Florida that artificially inseminated all of his patients with *his own* sperm....

very disappointing

[myc]

As a Celera stockholder (and a professional molecular biologist) I must say I am extremely disappotinted that the CTO would allow his own ego to get in the way of creating an unbiased, useful genome map, even taking into account the fact that it's probably irrelavent in the long run (i.e., his genome is probably fairly representative of the human populace in general). What does this say WRT any future projects that Celera might undertake? It seems to me that under Venter's direction such future projects may not utilize what science and ethics dictate.

On another related semi-off topic note, I am sick of listening to people complain about NYT articles and registration. One of the most influential newspapers in the world is giving you free daily access to their articles and all they require is some bogus registration info. Sheesh, stop whining already.

Re:very disappointing

[DNAGuy]

I can sort of see where you're coming from. From a scientific point of view, it probably makes very little difference. In fact, as mentioned in the article, being able to map the genotype to the phenotype of a known, living specimen may be mildly helpful.

Nonetheless, I can understand the loss of trust some shareholders and collaborators might be feeling. Dr. Venter acted dishonestly and in direct violation of the instructions given him. This does not speak well of his character.

On the other hand, it seems he spearheaded one of the most significant scientific expeditions of our time, and on a very impressive schedule. Maybe a little eccentricity is manageable given the results. Each shareholder and colleague will have to determine for themselves their tolerance for this sort of thing.

As an aside, a few years back I was lucky enough to work with some excellent geneticists, neuroscientists, and neurologists in the field of Parkinson's disease. In order to reach the highest levels of their profession, these folks have had to jump through many hoops related to funding, collaboration, and peer review. Justly or unjustly, they tend to be very proud of their accomplishments with egos to match. I think it's something you have to learn to deal with if you want to play the game at this level.

Ethical Indicator

[Bob9113]

I'm a pretty serious economist (frequently mistaken for a capitalist), and I believe that non-monopoly commercial enterprises (or more specifically, any enterprise which is incapable of altering the free market) should not be constrained by ethics. Our laws should be the clear-cut guide that companies can follow without having to worry about what one board member or another feels is "right".

But sequencing the human genome is an inherently research oriented venture. When research opens entirely new areas of human knowledge, the laws cannot possibly contain sufficient information to guide a person or company's actions; as a result, pure commerce orientation is insufficient to produce the optimal outcome. This is why pure scientists and pure science institutions have to be ethical. They have to understand that new science is capable of actions that the market and the law aren't prepared to handle.

Reactions among scientists range from amusement to indifference, most saying that it is unimportant whose genome was sequenced.

The problem I see with Venter's act is not the effect on the information gathered. The problem is that it suggests (at least to me) deep ethical problems. I'm commercially oriented, but I have many friends who are researchers. There is not one of them who would be capable of even forming the concept of using his or her own DNA as the dataset for the project. IMHO, that is a fairly important qualification for being a pure scientist.

Addendum: In previewing this comment I am struck with the impression that pure research and monopolies require ethical inhibitions for the same reason. They are both capable of altering the course of the free market, so the free market cannot be an accurate guide. (too lazy to figure out where this fits into the above :)

Advisory boards

[dachshund]

I really don't care whose DNA Celera uses in their projects. What's a little nervous-making is the fact that this company so easily and blithely ignored the recommendations of their donor advisory board. Sort of makes you think that, just perhaps, private companies "ethics boards" and other mechanisms that are supposed to reassure the public, might not be much good.

If this revelation leads us a step closer to Federal regulation of just about everything to do with Genetic technology, you can thank this guy.

Re:Wow, another NYT story.

[Anonymous Coward]

what happened to all 'cypherpunks' l/p?

Re:Another Corp. stealing from Open Source

[sean-mccorkle]

Oh, I suppose you feel that it was a race, and that since one of those horrible FOR-PROFIT companies was working on the same thing, then everyone EXCEPT them is allowed to see and work with the data.

It shouldn't come down to "for-profit companies vs. publicly funded research". There is a strong symbiotic relationship between business and public research, especially in molecular biology these days. Both need each other, and we all benefit from this relationship.

There are many, many, many examples of business providing products and services for research groups, far more cheaply than those groups could themselves provide (i.e restriction enzymes, oligonucletide synthesis, sequencing machines, etc). Research is thriving now because of these developments. Our standard of living is very high because of these developments, and it continues to improve.

At the same time, its important for businesses to recognize that publicly-funded research is a goose that has laid and continues to lay golden eggs for new business opportunities, and therefore it should not be killed. On the contrary, it should be nourished to keep it thriving. It drives me berserk when some personality makes some short-sighted recommendation to reduce (or even eliminate) public funding for research, and just let for-profit companies do everything, because the economic health of those companines (and therefore, our lifestyle) depends on a vibrant public research program. It drives me beserk because that kind of ignorant short-sightedness threatens our well-being in the long term.