Sunday, January 28, 2018

The Cross-Section Between Capitalism and Science

The Human Genome undeniably has many positive and negative consequences to whoever’s hands it would land in. In one stratosphere, scientists will have unearthed the very essence that makes a person tick; they will have in their hands the very code that creates the physical characteristics, personality, and underlying biology in every single person that will ever exist. However, at the complete opposite end of the spectrum, private capitalistic companies also may decide to invest time and energy to unearth human’s mystery, but may also take complete control over access to such a coveted sequence of letters. If it had fallen into the wrong hands, science could have come to a complete halt—medicine left to its own devices—had the genome been tainted with greedy, egotistical company giants.
                Craig Venter presents an interesting cross-section between both separate worlds. Raised as a scientist, but with the ambition of a CEO, Venter posses the ability to bridge the gap and highlight and meld the better characteristics in both worlds. Like any new and upcoming trend-setter, Venter would have to experience the negative backlash, naysayers, and even unseen obstacles, but given his heart and determination, he could bring to light the backbone of the human race while still running a private company. Undoubtedly, private companies such as Celera have more leeway and budget to work with in comparison with federally funded organizations, so they are able to delve more deeply into this topic and invest more money. These unrestricted abilities thus allow for quicker development of machines and other discoveries than if federally funded organizations had the same goals.
                However, while money sits at the basis of every private company, it becomes hard to invest millions, if not billions, of dollars into research that may terminate with no monetary value if funded by a large company. For instance, when Craig Venter partnered with ABI, his open-access and honest research became hindered for the sake of turning a profit and making sure there was money in place of the “light” at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately, most people are unlike Craig Venter when it boils down to true honesty and desire to improve the scientific world without the traditional research path. Capitalism thrives off greedy, egotistical giants who care nothing more than using the work of others to turn a quick profit. Had Craig Venter switched mindsets and desired nothing more than stocks or patents off the Human Genome in place of his unrestricted access mantra, the world would have to pay the dire consequences. Capitalism could have ruined genetic therapy, gene editing, and the future techniques to come from unearthing the greatest gem of the 20th and 21st centuries.
                If capitalism and science were to ever intersect again, it would take a person like Craig Venter to combine them beautifully with little to no severe consequences. Science runs off of honesty and free-access, however capitalism strives to restrict access and drive competitive prices. The two obviously do not innately mix; they are just like oil and water. Yet capitalism solves the problems science poses such as limited budgets and restricted opportunities set by the federal government, so in a way they compliment each other. If scientific integrity and honesty could exist within the capitalistic sphere, science would benefit immensely from the lifted barriers and bigger budget. 

Shreeve, James. The Genome War: How Craig Venter Tried to Capture the Code of Life and Save the World. Ballantine Books, 2005.

7 comments:

  1. I may not personally agree with capitalistic motivations for scientific research, but they are undeniably overt in today's world. If you're going to have financial interests play such a large role in science, then you might as well have someone who knows how to speak the language of both worlds. I love your description of Venter as someone "raised as a scientist, but with the ambition of a CEO." I think that really hits the nail on the head, so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't agree with you completely. Yes, I see the harm of melting the "bottom line" with the goals scientific research. Yet, I don't think you can refute that if Venter had not come into the race, we might not have even sequenced the human genome at all in 2018. The process was messy and full of errors and failures, but in the end, it came out all right!

      Delete
  2. I think you can't have one without the other, especially in this era. It unfortunately seems like every action has to have a significant monetary payoff, or it's not worth time or effort, even if the payoff may be academic. I also feel like people want big and exciting projects but fail to recognize the importance of smaller research.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Capitalism has fueled the world of scientific research for decades, and if anything can be a motivator, why do people think that money is somehow less honorable than recognition? If someone gave me a billion dollars to spend my life on cancer research, you can bet I would take that offer. Money rules the world, and in places where that has been forcibly changed, science is at a standstill. So I agree with your assessment of Venter as a cross between capitalism and science, and I believe that if it weren't for his motivations, the genome war would have been a much longer journey.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Samantha! I don't think that anyone could have summed up Venter in a more accurate way! You said that Venter was "raised as a scientist, but with the ambition of a CEO" and I love it. I question if the world has always been this way, or if as a child, I was just too naive to see anything out of place. In today's world everything is about the money. I too, have been guilty of basing my decisions solely off the financial aspects. This blog really made me think a lot and I really enjoyed it. Great job!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Awesome piece, Lauren, and thank you for empathizing with Venter. Many of other arguments seem to focus on what he hadn't done right, even though he did strive to do the right thing. I would like to argue one thing though:

    "Capitalism thrives off greedy, egotistical giants who care nothing more than using the work of others to turn a quick profit."

    Capitalism thrives off large numbers of competing firms, racing to innovate to survive. The existence of large giants did nothing but kill small businesses and free market as a whole. But that's another story.

    Thank you! I realized just now that I might sympathize with Venter than anyone else here, for obvious reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the idea of having cross section between capitalism and science is an interesting one. I agree with you when you say Venter epitomized this idea. However, I would also argue that it is not as uncommon as you seem to think. To truly be a great scientist, I think, involves a shrewd business mind and well a researcher's creativity. The top researchers in any field began as nobody's. There had the wherewithal to make their name one well-known. Many top researchers become well-known through their ability to market their discoveries as well as any product. They market to the public and to journals, but most importantly they market to companies that will pay them to continue their research in order to utilize those findings in a business setting. I think the HGP was an anomaly in this way in that the were publishing their data so often. Most research has to be sold before it is released to ensure that it is not leaked but during the HGP they were just giving research away.

    ReplyDelete