The main issue investigated in this
book is an important one that is quite relevant in many aspects of life -
quality versus quickness. The two groups racing to sequence the genome had two
very different agendas. Craig Venter’s group focused on completing the genome
quickly and beating the NIH (arguably at the cost of the project’s accuracy),
while the Human Genome Project’s goal was to carefully and methodically map the
genome for public use. Venter employed the method of whole-genome shotgun
sequencing, which was quite innovative and much faster than any previous
techniques. However, it was also considered to be extremely experimental and
prone to error. The Human Genome Project utilized a similar technique to Venter’s,
but a different method. They separated the genome into smaller, more well-known
groups and then shotgun sequenced them one by one. This decreased the chance of
error, but increased the time it took to complete the project.
“If the Human Genome Project’s byword was
quality, Venter made it clear that his was speed.” (Shreeve 49) But which is
more preferable? Is it better to have a completed genome years before it was
supposed to be finished with a few mistakes here and there? Or a thorough and
more accurate genome completed with time? An Oscar-nominated movie based on
real life, The Imitation Game,
focused on a similar issue. The story details Britain’s efforts to break the
Nazi code, Enigma, during World War II. The leader of the project, a man named
Alan Turing, focused all of his energy on breaking the code, once and for all.
While working as quickly, yet methodically as possible, Turing decoded an
‘unbreakable’ Nazi code. However, along the way, many people disapproved of his
plan, arguing that it was impossible to break the code entirely. By sheer cleverness
and exceptional coding skills, one could decode a message here and there, and
many felt this method was more productive. So, which is better? Quality? Or
quickness? Alan Turing did solve the code, and historians believe that breaking
Enigma shortened the war by two years, saving over 14 million lives. Both
Venter and the NIH completed their projects, and now information from the human
genome is being used worldwide to make advances in science and medicine.
I was truly intrigued and
fascinated by this book. The amount of information we can collect from a
completed genome is amazing. I recently read an article on UC’s website about
the study of bed bug
resistance to pesticides, and how genome mapping has significantly
increased knowledge of the issue.
“Genome design is going to be a key
part of the future.” – Craig Venter
Sources
1. Shreeve,
James. The Genome War: How Craig Venter Tried to Capture the Code of
Life and Save the World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. Print.
I liked your parallel from the Genome War to the Imitation game. I personally think that if they waited an extra year the genome wouldn't have had as many errors and a second run through of the genome would not have been needed saving time and money that could have gone towards finding cures for ailments.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Venter valued speed over accuracy, even naming his company Celera, meaning "quickness" or "speed" in Latin. Like Megan, I believe that adding an extra year for decoding the humane genome would have essentially established a more useful and accurate genome. A thorough run-through of the genome the first time would have taken more time, but would limit that amount of errors if another trial run of the genome is done. Furthermore, if the genome was decoded for a second time, while still priding quickness over quality, there is a possibility that errors would still persist in the decoded genome, even after two runs of the genome.
ReplyDeleteI like the thought of quality vs quickness and think this a key part of the book as well as Craig Venter's success. For me, I believe that quality is much better than quickness. If you compare this to a cake, you can either have a nice red velvet cake that takes of couple of hours to make but is fully cooked and tastes good and looks nice, or you can have a cake that seems like someone just made it because they had to, doesn't taste fantastic, doesn't look pretty, and doesn't seem like it was cooked enough. In my opinion quality is much better than quickness and that's how it turned out.
ReplyDelete