When most people think of the greatest names
in the history and development of genetic research, their minds immediately jump
to the likes of Gregor Mendel, Charles Darwin, and Watson and Crick. One would think that playing a major role in
such a significant event as sequencing the human genome would also guarantee
that your name be placed among such illustrious figures. In Craig Venter’s case, however, he may be remembered
as an enemy of progress instead of one of its proponent. A quick google search of
his name yields about 662,000 results, while his counterpart from the
government funded Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, has about 80,700,000
results for his name in the search engine.
The official NIH site chronicling the efforts of the HGP makes little to
no mention of Venter or Celera in its official timeline of events or general
fact sheet. From the very beginning of The
Genome War, it is made quite clear to the reader that Venter was a sort of
pariah in the scientific community, mainly due to his talent for coupling his
research with extensive commercial success.
My initial reaction to this general opinion of
Venter was one of mild confusion. Sure,
I can understand the general concerns. Corporations, with their bottom lines
and profit margins circling like sharks, could prove detrimental if involved in
research, as results that could have lead to even more scientific discoveries could
instead be hoarded and only relinquished to those with deep enough pockets. While this is a legitimate worry, it fails to
completely explain the extent to which Venter was maligned by his peers. He
seems to share their zeal for uncovering the wonders of the human genome, yet
this seems to hurt their opinions of him even more than if he had just been in
it purely for the money. In my opinion,
the real source of their vitriol stems from a fear of lessening the exalted
status that science has occupied for most of recent history.
If
you ask the average scientist what drove them to put forth the sizable amounts
of time, energy and possibly money required for them to pursue their chosen area
of study, the answer you will receive in all likelihood will be somewhere along
the lines of a passion for knowledge, the scientific process, and innovation. To
be a scientist is to seek no other gain besides recognition for your work and
the admiration of your peers. It would be incredibly unorthodox for a
researcher to let the purity of scientific enquiry be tainted by something as
base as monetary gain. James Watson, for example, believed that turning a
profit was something any lesser man could accomplish, but only the greatest
among us could fathom the depths of molecular biology (Shreeve 146). The reading even references Francis Collin’s belief
that he “had been given the gift of unusual intelligence in order to understand
the basis of life, which was understanding God” (Shreeve 214). For Venter to come and invade an arena of
such transcendent ideals with his “vision of an enterprise that would break
down the wall between business and academic science and rebuild it into a
platform” challenged that exclusivity that was so carefully guarded by the
scientific community (Shreeve 305). It had the potential to open up the gated
community of research and science to those who had not run the gauntlet that
traditionally led to a scientific career.
Venter represented the making of something that seemed celestial and infinite
into something mundane and finite.
But
is that a bad thing? For many, getting involved in scientific research may seem
like an incredibly draining experience, little reward for only the possibility
of future success. If Venter’s model of
science as a business became commonplace, then those who aspired to join the
scientific community but were previously intimidated by the often extensive
costs of such an endeavor could be encouraged with the thought that, with
enough ingenuity, they could possibly make a living off of their work, instead
of being at the beck and call of research grants. Awards and accolades are lovely and their receivers
desire the recognition given to them, but they do not pay the bills. Venter’s model is a much more practical
approach to research that, while requiring a bit more oversight to prevent the
misuse or misappropriation of data, could broad our scientific horizons exponentially
more while also creating new economic sectors.
Sources
1.Shreeve, James. The Genome War: How Craig Venter Tried to Capture the Code of Life and Save the World. New York: Baltimore, 2005. Print.
2. "All About The Human Genome Project (HGP)." National Human Genome Research Institute. NIH, n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2016.
I find your view of Venter's philosophy very eye opening. I never thought as Venter making the art of science into a business, I just thought he was a greedy man looking for any way to make his name known regardless of consequences to others. After reading your post I can understand his intense want to find the genome.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific community will always hold themselves to the standard that what they do is for the purpose of knowledge. But at the end of the day (business day, bad humor), everything must revolve around money and where it is flowing. Say there is a discovery of the cure for cancer. That discovery will not just be used for knowledge and no more. The cure would have a HUGE effect on money flow, and who's receiving the money flow. To sum it up, science is business. That's the way it works. Venter had it all worked out already and was ahead of the game. Kudos to him.
ReplyDeleteScience is often coupled with business. Pharmaceutical companies, though much vilified lately, have created drugs for everything from growing eyelashes to treating cancer. Companies like P&G make cleaning agents, diapers,shampoos, and perfumes to make our lives easier. When there is a need, businesses and science work together.
ReplyDelete