The race between private and public industry to sequence and
map the human genome marks a monumental accomplishment in history and an interesting
tale, described by James Shreeve in The
Genome War. Francis Collins was one of the faces of the government’s genome
project (officially the head of the National Genome Research Institute) while
Craig Venter’s Celera was a private firm. Their techniques to achieve the end
goal, time frame, and sources of funding differed, making the story a stark
contrast between private and public industry. However, both had the same goal: to
unravel one of “the greatest mysteries in all biology.”
With a goal as big as mapping the human genome, one can
categorize the project as “Big Science”, a term coined by Alvin M. Weinberg in
1961. Big science is done on a grand scale; it usually involves many
researchers working on a project and large sums of money spent, due to massive
research thrust. A classic example of big science is the Manhattan Project. In comparison, “little science” (or small
science) is obviously on the smaller scale, usually comprising of only a couple
researchers or smaller objectives. This is the typical research done at
universities. Example of little science are Francis Crick and James D. Watson’s
discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953 or Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity.
The Genome War
gave insight into the complexities of Big Science, and the components that make
up the struggles of tackling such a large project. One aspect that struck me
was how expensive the whole Human Genome Project was, as it cost about 3
Billion dollars in total. In my mind, a modern day comparison of government
funded research is the BRAIN Initiative – a 100-million-dollar program with the
objective of developing new technologies to “uncover the complex links between
brain function and behavior.” Both the BRAIN Initiative and the Human Genome
Project are big science projects with a lot of tax payer money behind it. What
happens when the project doesn’t go as planned? If it turns out to be a dud and
the news is released to angry tax payers? N.A.S.A.’s Hubble Space Telescope is
a great example.
The cost effectiveness of small science versus big science
is an often debated topic, but none the less, both small science and big
science are equally needed in research. Small science helps pave the path for
big science, resulting in some of the most ground breaking discoveries or uncovering
of some of the biggest mysteries in science. The Genome War gives descriptive insight on the endeavors of such a large project such as cost, number of researchers, time spent to completion, development of technologies, and the resulting effect on medicine/science.
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 enjoyed this post and its details. I didn't really think about the Genome Project as Big Science, but it definitely is. I think the fact that they were able to coordinate this project on such a macro-scale is incredible. People across the United States, and even across the world, were able to come together to complete this goal. The money is always a topic of conversation, especially when it involves citizens' taxes, but in this case I think the money was supporting a necessary research effort. I think this book does a great job on describing what goes into a Big Science research project, leaving nothing to be misunderstood.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with your point about the importance of both big science and small science in research. It really does no good to try to only back one or the other, since both have been crucial to the amount of scientific research to date. It is very important that we as a country, and as global scientists, are able to see that only backing a Craig Venter or only backing a Francis Collins is actually detrimental to our progress.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post, particularly because if had never heard the terms "small" and "big science" used before. I agree that both types of science are of huge importance and that both must be supported and backed. I too was amazed to see that this project cost about 3 billion dollars. Those numbers are incomprehensible to me as a broke college kid. Truthfully, those numbers only belong in the press for me. Great job Michelle.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you mention the ocean of difference between small and big science here, and cost and scaling are major parts of that. I would argue that the Human Genome Project started out as a Big Science effort trying to run itself like a Small Science effort. The labs were so disconnected and each had its own claim to a certain part of the genome which is a wholly different approach from the one in the case of the Manhattan Project with a large degree of not only direction from the top, but extremely coordinated work between the diverse labs and a high degree of centralization for testing. With Big Science, we often find only one full size test rather than many smaller ones. Another case might be particle accelerators which are just too expensive for each lab to have their own the way each lab had its own sequencing effort.
ReplyDeleteI thought your point about the need for both big and small science was interesting. You mentioned Watson and Crick's work to discover the double helix shape of DNA as a small science project. Yet without that small project the HGP as a big science effort would not have been possible.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I really like the comparison between big science and small science, and how big science is seen as ¨safer,¨ because those who run big science projects have the taxpayers to answer to if the project fails. Before this post, i did not think of the two as working in conjunction, however, it does seem that small science helps pave the way for big science.
ReplyDelete