It's not that I can't see the point of view of the other scientists involved in the race to complete the "code of life", a holy grail of sorts for the scientists during the time period of James Shreeve's book. I'd love to have a world where scientists can just complete research without anyone trying to jump on it immediately for profit, or direct benefit. Especially as was the case with the human genome: something that holds lots of connections to many fields of life science should be free in a perfect world.
But the world isn't perfect.
Seeing business in something that's not inherently business related is something that happens all the time in all fields of study. And reading about Craig, our almost main character in this real life story, I was off put by just how harsh his peers were when it came to his attempts to make light business out of providing information. People go to work to get paid, and at the end of the day I don't think making money so you can provide for yourself is such a bad thing.
It's even obvious Craig isn't a true villain, as he's been put through the wringer before with previous business relationships. As talked about in the book, he broke his past relationship over issues of withholding information to the public to excessive degrees as a cash grab. I personally think that while he does have an abrasive personality and large sense of ego, this fact of making some monetary gain on the side of research isn't the worst thing for people to do-- after all, even scientists have to eat.
References
Shreeve, James. The Genome War: How Craig Venter Tried to Capture the Code of Life and Save the World. New York: Ballantine Books, 2005. Print.
I have to admit I'm one of those people who finds scientists with purely monetary motivations rather despicable. Although that's an opinion I'm going to stick with, I do respect your argument; that is, the world definitely is not perfect and though we wish scientific research could be conducted for science's sake alone, that's not necessarily the way the world works. I think it's also important to remember, however, that many of Venter's critical colleagues were also trying to become rich through their work. They could vilify him, essentially, to point the finger away from themselves.
ReplyDeleteI tend to be a bit more idealistic and so I am always a bit taken aback at researchers and scientists who are in it for monetary gain rather than the greater good, but perhaps I should not be. I understand the argument for performing lucrative research and it makes sense that scientists would want a career that actually pays them well. I do not find wanting to monetize findings to be a particularly heinous thing, except in the way that the choice can delay disease treatment or prevent further research. For example, the patent currently held on the BRCA mutation only allows one company to provide testing and drives up the cost. I think that’s why I and many other players in this book felt the whole idea of patenting the human genome to be in poor taste.
ReplyDeleteMaking money from 1000s of hours of hard work and research isn't a problem to me. It becomes a problem to me when it puts lives at risk. For instance, there has been a substantial increase in the price of EpiPens because I believe there's only one company that has a threshold on the market. However, with this increase in price, people are having trouble paying for them and it's not like they only having to buy one, they have to buy multiple EpiPens each year.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, science should never be done for money. Money should be a secondary influence or factor, the primary goal should either be expanding human knowledge or to solve a problem. However, you raise a good point that an imperfect world taints the purity of science. As such, profit will be the goal for some. These are often the ones funding research, and so it becomes necessary to understand that perspective. I still believe science should strive to have pure intent, but I see how difficult that is.
ReplyDeleteFor most of my life, I have always despised researchers and scientists who had purely monetary intentions, but Venter was one of those few who really challenged my view. I agree, he does have a very abrasive personality, but his ego is truly what drives him and his innovations. Cocky personalities and academic research usually do not mix, and as per the book, we saw numerous instances where this cross-section caused drama. However, Venter's intentions were pure, as you said, in that he did want to provide free access to the genome, but also wanted the fame and glory of it. You have to sit there and realize that some people can balance the two worlds rather than fight against one or the other. His personality and drive are the major reasons why he was so successful, but the scientific community ultimately did benefit from his involvement. He may be vilified for many, but I do not think of him as a true villain by any means.
ReplyDelete