The world of science is no stranger to conflicting thoughts. Every theory that science currently embraces was at one point either challenged or was a challenger. The heliocentric model of the solar system directly challenged the geocentric approach. People once believed the world to be flat, but we now know the world is a sphere. This inherent conflict in science has not gone away. One of the more recent examples is not the conflict of concept, but rather method. This subject is beautifully addressed in James Shreeve’s The Genome War. In the late 90’s and early 2000’s, there existed two Human Genome Projects. The public project, led by Francis Collins, believed that this undertaking was to be accomplished in the most thorough and definitive way possible. Meanwhile, Craig Venter headed a private effort to accomplish the same goal, only done quicker and cheaper. The question had become not who was right, but who did it better.
This debate climaxed when Venter and Collins met in 1998. This meeting was described in The Genome War. Venter surprised Collins by claiming that he would complete the genome faster and cheaper than Collins could. Shreeve quotes Venter as saying, “We are going to make the genome free and available to everyone, same as you. The main difference is, we estimate we’ll be done in 2001, four years ahead of your schedule” (Shreeve 2005). Venter believed he could do it, by taking risks the public program was unwilling to make. Collins believed that the project needed to be taken seriously and slowly, to ensure accuracy. As such, he was appalled at the idea of rushing it. It was as if Venter had proposed to, “carry [his] baby to term in three months instead of nine. The notion was both offensive and preposterous” (Shreeve 2005). In the end, Venter partially failed, as he did not finish the project by 2001. Instead, due to the efforts by both the private and public projects, one report was published in April of 2003. Two years faster than the projected public project, but still slower than Venter had hoped.
This question of speed or precision is not as simple as it may seem. Most people would agree that a quality product is better than something made quickly. Shigeru Miyamoto, a giant in the video game industry, once said, “A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad.” However, in the case of the Human Genome Project, Venter’s efforts to speed up the process caused other scientists to join the cause. This resulted in both goals being achieved; the mission was accomplished accurately and faster than anticipated. However, I am inclined to side with Collins in this debate. When it comes to the pursuit of knowledge, it should not be approached for fame or success, but rather for the betterment of mankind. In the scheme of mankind, it is better to have a thorough understanding than an incomplete one a few years earlier.
Science is constantly evolving. As we discover new things, the debates within the community also evolve. It is important to weigh the values or concerns in all things before choosing a course of action. The push for speed resulted in a better project in this case. Many people died because they did something foolish once and survived. This should be a lesson in caution and care, not in impulsiveness.
References:
Shreeve, James. The Genome War: How Craig Venter Tried to Capture the Code of Life and save the World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. Print.
I loved this post. Your opinions are well described and are relatable to the novel. I think that questioning is a powerful tool to either support or weaken a claim. I don't necessarily think that Venter didn't have the best of mankind in mind when wanting to sequence the genome faster; I believe he was tired of the Human Genome Project taking so long and falling behind on their schedule. I think that he knew himself and his ability to lead others well enough that he knew he would be able to sequence the genome accurately and quickly with the right team. Although Venter may be seen as impulsive and brash, I think he was changing with the times and making things happen.
ReplyDeleteYou raise an excellent counter argument! I admit that my established love of Collins probably swayed my opinion against Venter, but it is also my personality to take my time with things and do them thoroughly. Venter's flaws were many, but none can deny the successes he brought.
DeleteThis is a great post! The methodology was the real subject matter of the book, not the actual project. Both teams had the same goal, but under different timelines. It is kind of amazing that the time the genome was finished was actually a compromise between the two teams, Venter's being late and Collins' being early. As fate would have it, the two people who refused to compromise ended up doing so in the end, even if against their will and knowledge. Their two methods were both crucial to the final product. This is just a single example in the world of science that proves there is more than one way to find an answer.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly ironic that the two steadfast men ended up compromising out of necessity. Everything in policy-making comes down to compromise. Two parties will never agree on everything, so they must come to terms. I wonder how much sooner the genome project would have been finished had the two men been willing to come together sooner. And honestly, I'm glad there is more than one way to get answers. That means there is always more to discover!
DeleteSeth, I really appreciated your analysis of the merits, and relative lack thereof, on speeding up the project at the expense of the final product. At the same time, I don’t see ego as diametrically opposed to the betterment of humanity as a whole. When Shreeve said “Big Science attracts big egos,” that read as more of a natural consequence of the scale of any major undertaking. For example, Craig’s team consisted of many people with strong egos such as Venter himself and Myers had pride as major motivators. So long as we continue to pursue knowledge, the reasons we choose seem more incidental so long as the process is ethical. People will try new approaches and take risks based on differing motivation as we saw with Celera, and ego seems as good as any, especially with how it can work in concert with others. Personally, I’d say you need a bit of ego to really push anything at such a huge scale.
ReplyDeleteEgo certainly has its place. Past experiences in my life have created a very negative image of ego, which is probably why I phrased that sentiment in such harsh. I see now that there is really a balance between one's drive for humanity and ego; both is needed, but one can easily overpower the other. Thank you for your criticism.
DeleteI really enjoyed this post. I agree that your logic was very sound and easily understood. You did a very nice job writing this. You put logic behind both men's thoughts and I really like your analysis. This really is a fight between speed and precision. In this case speed won, however, I feel that speed usually has a consequence on precision and so I cannot fault Collins on his thoughts of doing it using the more tested and "reliable" methods.
ReplyDeleteThank you! It is my fundamental belief that in any argument, it is important to understand both arguments. As a scientist, this gives me more data to work with, but as a debater, knowing the opposing argument allows me more ways to rebut certain attacks or defenses. This battle between speed and precision happens in most cases of science, and in general I side with precision. However, my fellow classmates have made good arguments for speed as well.
DeleteInteresting perspective I had never really considered. I always viewed Venter is a somewhat positive light, so your input makes me begin to question whether his intentions were all that beneficial. You are right in that quality is definitely better than speed, and I think Venter proved himself to be a little too ambitious in his first announcement. However, he managed to reel himself in and focus on the quality as well as the speed, and luckily we ended with a complete, succesful copy of the entire human genome. Had it been someone else the scientific world didn´t take as seriously, then I feel as if these claims would have been disastrous and could have seriously hurt the quality of the final genome sequencing. However, since he was able to utilize and create new innovations that still proved to be of a certain caliber, he melded speed and quality beautifully. It has to be a balancing act, you must have the quality that is necessary, especially in the scientific world, but you must also be time sensitive in order to ensure public funding stays relatively constant and that these discoveries make the desired impact quick enough to help shape modern discoveries. Overall, very interesting piece.
ReplyDelete