One topic that The
Genome War brings to light is the difference between publicly and
privately-funded research labs. There have been many fantastic discoveries in
public research facilities in the United States. In 1977, the Center for
Disease Control isolated Legionella
pneumophila, which causes Legionnaires’ disease, after a deadly outbreak in
Philadelphia (CDC 2016). Many state-funded research labs have led to great
things in history. The most obvious reason for this is the fact that if
Congress approves of the job they are doing, they are guaranteed to get a large
sum of money each year. Their good work is rewarded with millions (sometimes
billions) of taxpayer dollars. Along with that, they also help to stimulate
private businesses. In the late 90s “the public genome project was ABI’s
biggest customer,” (Shreeve 2005). This helps the private sector, and thus
revitalizes the economy.
However,
there are multiple downsides to public research. In The Genome War, it became evident that “public perception had to be
adroitly handled,” because of the use of public funds in their research
(Shreeve 2005). Moreover, the allocation of public funds to various research
facilities throughout the U.S. is a very bureaucratic process. Research grant
proposals, competition between public labs, and lobbying are all required to
get a portion of the money given to the NIH yearly.
On the other hand,
private research labs do not have to deal with this problem unless they attempt
to collaborate with the government. The best thing about privatized labs is the
fact that as long as they make the money, they don’t have the yearly spending
cap that public labs have. While they do have more competition in the free
market, they can spend as much money as they make, and they can do so without
abiding by the rules that public labs have. For instance, the “Bermuda Accord
made it a physical impossibility for the discoverer to file a patent on raw
human DNA,” (Shreeve 2005). Since private businesses did not have to obey this
rule, the door was open for them to make even more money, and therefore use
their own funds to further their research.
But which one of these
models is the best for the people of
the United States? While there are negatives to both, the strengths of the two
of them combined could have established a long-lasting and powerful
relationship. The unlimited money from the free market, mixed with the rules
set aside to protect the public, along with both sectors’ research facilities
and personnel could have inspired something amazing. Unfortunately, because neither
side wanted to share the spotlight in The
Genome War, the world may never know what could have been.
Sources
“CDC
Timeline 1940s-1970s.” David J. Sencer CDC Museum: In Association with the
Smithsonian Institution, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29 June
2016, www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/1940-1970.html.
Shreeve,
James. The genome war: how Craig Venter tried to capture the code of life and
save the world. Ballantine Books, 2005.
Absolutely. The best discoveries often come from the cooperation of private and public interests, be that in the field of research or elsewhere. It's unfortunate that there's so much bureaucracy in this country, especially in the fields of science and research. We could get so much done if we took the politics out of science -- well, that and if the goal of research was discovery, rather than money.
ReplyDeleteThis whole story of the “genome war” is a tale of unnecessary competition. While it can be argued that Venter revolutionized discovery methods and sped up research, I would argue that the two projects did each other and the world a disservice by refusing to callobarate. Ego may drive some of science, but a zeal for discovery and a commitment to the greater good would result in a much more smooth and timely discovery process.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carly and Samantha; the collaboration between private and public spheres usually generate the best discoveries that benefit the most people. It is quite unfortunate that money governs the world like it does, but it's how the world spins. Additionally, you wouldn't think that politics would play into things like the science or business worlds, but it seems to plague it all. It seems who you know, and not exactly what you know, will greatly benefit you in life. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI really like how you broke down and explained the differences, advantages and disadvantages to both private and public research. Everyone on this post is focusing on the collaboration between private and public spheres and the great discoveries that come from those collaborations. I really enjoyed how you broke down what might have come if both teams were willing to share the spotlight and credit. Like you said, unfortunately the world may never know what may have come from the cooperation between both sides because of their refusal. Overall, great post.
ReplyDeleteYour piece is very thoughtful and well written. I agree 100% with you in that there are definitely benefits and negatives to both sectors of research. I wish that the private and public projects could have joined forces and set a precedent going forward, as these two different spheres provide what the other can't. They definitely could have had a synergistic relationship if they would have swallowed their pride. Public research is dependent on grant money, and if they decided to no longer fund the project, or cut back on money, it would have severely limited the discovery of the genome. The private sector seems to have "unlimited" opportunities of advancement, but egos and greediness may permeate the project and destroy any potential benefits.
ReplyDelete