Human Genome To Be Released To Public 133
Phizzy writes, "According to this CNN Story, President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair have announced that the information gathered in the Human Genome Project will be released to the public. Maybe we can ease our fears about the Genome being controlled by one party. " Good. This is one of the smartest things I've seen this year.
Prior Art and the Human Genome: (Score:1)
Re:Not what it appears to be! *A PROPOSAL* (Score:1)
In the UK, LibDem MP Richard Allan was given leave to bring the Protection of Human Genetic Sequence bill in to the commons last Tuesday. This would protect against this kind of thing and ensure that only the results of research based on genome data could be patented and never genome data itself.
Where has /. been? (Score:1)
It was decided from the inception of the Human Genome Project that the info would be public domain, but have you ever tried to read a genome? Anybody can get the info, the money will be made by the biotech firms that interpret the code. They don't have to make their interpretations public (does anyone see an intellectual property arguement?)
-theres no such thing as a pink cow
Re:/.'ers need to read up (Score:1)
Seems to me like that's exactly what's happening in the Human Genome Project and others, the people are paying taxes to pay for the project.
Re:a true breakthrough! (Score:1)
Umm, what's so danged rare about that?
opensource the genome??? (Score:1)
Re:Cool (Score:1)
But the human genome is a different animal. It was not engineered with security and robustness in mind. If BAAAAAD gene-hackers found a way to engineer a nasty bug that would break into your DNA and make you pee blue, or *worse*, who's to say that there is a community of white-hat gene-hackers out there who can quickly engineer a fix? Who's to say that this won't ultimately expose a weakness in the human race that some wacko can exploit indiscriminately?
It has a HUGE potential for abuse, and saying "oh good, they're doing the open source thing" isn't going to erase the fact that lots and lots of people could theoretically die. The science-minded out there think this is a great thing, but they forget that they are WAY outnumbered by the political-minded (and non-minded), and that such power can be used for good or for evil - just like any technology back to the stone axe (hm. I wonder why there aren't any neandrethals around anymore?). The fact that YOU know that YOU wont engineer a nasty race-erasing virus doesn't mean nobody else can't or wont.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:Finally... (Score:1)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:Shouldn't they have asked... (Score:1)
<P>Not correct, I am afraid.
<UL>
<LI>Celera <b>are</b> doing mapping after they have sequenced data. In fact, they have one of the world's largest computing facilities, in order to do this.
<LI>They <b>are</b> sequencing 100% of the genome, with about 4x oversampling. The difference is that they are using the "Shotgun" approach to extract fragments. Earlier this year, they announced that they already had sequenced 90% of the human genome. Later the same week, they had also completed mapping of some type of a firefly (one of the simpler genomes).
<LI>They are doing 4x oversampling, but all from the same individual (possibly Craig Venter). This eliminates gene expressions from coming into effect - and any differences will be known to be due to sequencing artifacts. They can then later take any sequences that were in question and redo them, and also get more individuals sequenced at a later time.
</UL>
</P>
<P><I>WIW, the public consortium have done about twice as much sequencing on the human genome as Celera, and are still sequencing (AFAICT) at almost twice the rate.</I>
</P>
<P>It is true that the HGP has (still) more raw data sequenced, mostly because they perform a larger oversampling (they have to, since they involve several individuals).</P>
<P>However, you are wrong about the speed. Celera has 230 ABI3700 sequencers, each working 24 hours, in full, unattended operation. In comparison, most of the HGP participants use the older ABI377 to do their work; where manual intervention is required between each run. That is why Celera has in 1 year collected about 50% as much raw data as the HGP has done over the last 10 years.</p>
Young whipperschappers, get wise on Celera. (Score:1)
Sometimes (more than other times) I am a bit amazed at the level of opinionated bigotry combined with ignorance that the Slashdot readers manage to spew out. Obviously this is a very, very young crowd.
First off, there is no conflict - as far as the availability of genomic data is concerned. The International Human Genome Project is making available to the public all sequences as they discover them. Celera is too, albeit in a lump after they have sequenced the whole thing.
Second off, Celera is <B>not</B> building their business on patents. In fact, Celera is not even lobbying for the possibility of patenting sequences per se. (Unlike, for instance, Incyte - who are more or less building their business on the sale of rights to partiuclar sequences).
On the other hand, if someone in Celera (as result of their genomic knowledge) come up with promotors &al that help manufacture seqences inside the human body - that is an actual product that is already patentable alongside any other drug.
So - guys - forget this "open source" militia stance. Celera is as much "open source" as the government - actually much more (being mostly based on Linux, anyway). That is a non-issue.
As far as Bill goes, he only says what sounds good in populist ears. The fact that he said HGP data will be publicly available, and that he urges the private sector to make their data available as well - all that is already the case. So even though he is a personal friend of Craig Venter, he has obviously not studied this matter too deeply.
There.
-tor
Re:Isn't it already available? (Score:1)
I mailed SETI about but go no reply. They have (or had) no info about such a search in their FAQs. Maybe a few more people should ask the same question.
Regards, Ralph.
Patent Office says they are NOT patenting genes!! (Score:1)
As a practical matter, he said, the U.S. Patent Office has decided that scientists cannot obtain patents for individual genes. However, he said, "If you develop a vaccine or something off of the genetic data - that will continue to have intellectual property rights."
StickBoy
Public effort is years away (Score:1)
But what about biotech patents? (Score:1)
Re:Good old TB (Score:1)
There is one privately funded project that shows promise of being the first to accomplish the thing.
Celera will have data about 4 deep by the end of June. The HGP will have roughly the same by then, but won't be stopping at that point.
Re:Public effort is NOT years away (Score:1)
Celera aim to have 4-deep data by the middle of this year. So does the HGP. The difference is that Celera will stop there, while the public project will continue to deepen and edit the data for up to another three years. There probably won't be any point when celera will have produced better data than the HGP.
And that statement in full . . . (Score:1)
Issued by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton
JOINT STATEMENT TO ENSURE THAT DISCOVERIES FROM THE HUMAN GENOME ARE USED TO ADVANCE HUMAN HEALTH
In the last decade of the twentieth century, scientists from around the world initiated one of the most significant scientific projects of all time: to determine the DNA sequence of the entire human genome, the human genetic blueprint. Progressing ahead of schedule, human genome research is rapidly advancing our understanding of the causes of human disease and will serve as the foundation for development of a new generation of effective treatments, preventions and cures.
To realise the full promise of this research, raw fundamental data on the human genome, including the human DNA sequence and its variations, should be made freely available to scientists everywhere. Unencumbered access to this information will promote discoveries that will reduce the burden of disease, improve health around the world, and enhance the quality of life for all humankind. Intellectual property protection for gene-based inventions will also play an important role in stimulating the development of important new health care products.
We applaud the decision by scientists working on the Human Genome Project to release raw fundamental information about the human DNA sequence and its variants rapidly into the public domain, and we commend other scientists around the world to adopt this policy.
------------------------------------------
Commenting on today's announcement by the United States and UK Government on the sequence data from the Human Genome Project, Dr Mike Dexter, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:
"The Wellcome Trust is committed to ensuring that sequence data from the collaborative Human Genome Project remains in the public domain. We are delighted with today's announcement as it reaffirms a key underlying principle of the Human Genome Project that sequence data, which can be used to develop medically important therapies, is made freely available to all researchers.
"The Human Genome Project provides a unique resource - today's announcement will help ensure that this global resource is fully exploited and that the information can be developed to provide real healthcare advances. We hope that similar agreements are established between other Human Genome Project collaborators to ensure that this important genetic resource is owned by mankind."
So there we have it. They like the idea that all of the sequence be freely available, but there's no mention of action to ensure this. Companies are encouraged to open their databases, but I suspect that their duties to their shareholders will preclude this.
I'd guess, therefore, that the immediate impact will be slight.
On the other hand, it might be more significant as an indicator of the general tone our respective governments' actions and policies might take. As far as that goes, I guess it's good news.
Re:Shouldn't they have asked... (Score:1)
Celera are doing mapping after they have sequenced data. In fact, they have one of the world's largest computing facilities, in order to do this.
Well, to my mind, doing an assembly doesn't constitute mapping. And I know about asasemblies - that's my job.
The difference is that they are using the "Shotgun" approach to extract fragments.
The difference is that they're doing a whole-genome shotgun, rather than shotgunning mapped clones. This has major implications for accuracy - it's inherently more vulnerable to misassembly.
They are doing 4x oversampling, but all from the same individual (possibly Craig Venter).
You're not the only person here to have said this. Given that they originally said that their income was going to come from variation data, I'd be quite surprised. The main virtue of the whole-genome method is that it generates variation data.
It is true that the HGP has (still) more raw data sequenced, mostly because they perform a larger oversampling (they have to, since they involve several individuals).
Well, each clone is from a single individual : the reason we're aiming for more depth is that we want greater accuracy than Celera. Our aim is for each final contig to be well into the megabase range, whereas Celera were going to produce data in sequences a few kilobases long - until they decided to use our data, of course.
However, you are wrong about the speed. Celera has 230 ABI3700 sequencers,
Here at the Sanger, we've got just over 100 of them. We are one-third of the project.
In comparison, most of the HGP participants use the older ABI377 to do their work; where manual intervention is required between each run.
Yes, we've got 150 or so of them as well.
That is why Celera has in 1 year collected about 50% as much raw data as the HGP has done over the last 10 years.
From my understanding of our recent production figures, we're certainly doing about half what Celera are, and as I say we're only a third of the HGP. A lot of the articles I've seen on the web and in the papers are clearly based on figures we gave out over a year ago. Things have moved on since then.
Re:Public effort is NOT years away (Score:1)
I believe celera plans to sequence the genomes of multiple (6 comes to mind but I don't recall where I heard that figure) people eventually, partially in order to grab all the SNPs they can
I don't know how worthwhile they'll find that. I think most of the large pharmaceutical companies are doing SNP-hunting in collaboration with the HGP. This has already started.
The part of celera stopping after 4 fold coverage, that's what celera has committed to publicly releasing, not where they'll actuallly stop.
According to this press release [pecorporation.com], they're moving immediately onto the mouse come the summer.
Re:Shouldn't they have asked... (Score:1)
<P>Celera aren't mapping as such. They're trying to sequence most of the genome, by picking random fragments. They haven't done any extra mapping work, and each fragment could come from anywhere in the genome. They're partly going to relate this to the wider structure by finding pre-existing markers in their data, and partly by using the publicly available data from the human genome project, which has benefitted from a lot of detailed mapping work. Interestingly, I believe that Celera are now only planning to do the genome 4 reads deep, rather than the 8-10 they originally announced. I wonder whether this resulted from a decision to scale down the sequencing work, or whether they had problems sequencing on that scale? I doubt they'll tell us soon, but I'd love to know.
<P> FWIW, the public consortium have done about twice as much sequencing on the human genome as Celera, and are still sequencing (AFAICT) at almost twice the rate.
Re:Private Research (Score:1)
Sure this helps with some of the information
It doesn't affect us in the HGP at all : all our data are released freely to the public within a day or two anyway.
it doesn't really address the underlying problem of private companies patenting gene sequences.
Unless there's more to the statement than CNN are aware of, anyway.
national science fair winner is genome hacker (Score:1)
national science fair was a high school student who
inserted coded messages into an artificial gene.
She won $100,000 for the effort.
like reading a binary core memory file (Score:1)
with little direct information. This is similar
to deducing the behavior of computer program
by reading its binary core memory file.
There are some clues to possible proteins and
functionality, but it is largely mysterious.
In fact the main way to determine function is
use to the gene sequence to manufacture a sample
of pure protein and test it in cells. Thats a lot
easier than isolating the protein from a 100,000
others in the cell to figure it out.
Re:Opensource the code! (Score:1)
Alone??? That's a peculiarly geeky way of viewing human procreation....
Kaa
Re:Private Research (Score:1)
It was a long time ago since the success of a single scientific method will (or will not) make such an impact on everyones future.
Venter who invented shotgun sequencing and Gene Myers who managed to assemble the Drosphile (fruitfly) genome, might succeed to assemble the genome before the public project (NiH/Sanger), however it is very likely that they need to use data (maps) from the public project.
The question is if they will get it before the public project has finished (or if they can manage without it)
Re:Perfect Sense (Score:1)
Re:Cool (Score:1)
Who doesn't want a smart strong son? Or a pretty and smart daughter?
Though of course, better we all know than the select few control things. Does anyone have any interesting links about altering the genes of the already living (in Genetic terms, 17 is old
Re:opensource the genome??? (Score:1)
Well, paint my ass red and call me "Comrade". And bring on da wimmen!
--
A diverse project can be only partially free (Score:1)
Parts of the research were done by:
a) scientific institutions using goverment money
b) scientific institutions using companies money
c) scientific institutions using their own money
d) goverment institutions
e) companies
Most research done in scientific institues will be published eventually since scientists work for publications.
Goverment research will also be published, considering the view expressed in the article.
Private research is more problematic, and unless knowledge is forced out of the companies by legistlation or extreme public pressure - they'd probably try to keep it secret because its the default business point of view. keep it secret unless there's a really good reason not to.
Chen.
Re:Cool (Score:1)
I direct you towards Nancy Kress's Beggars in Spain [barnesandnoble.com], a sci-fi novel in which genetic engineering progresses to the point where it is possible to alter one's children's genes. The main character is genetically engineered so that she does not need sleep; she and many of her fellow Sleepless experience a great deal of backlash.
Obviously, this is not something that can be done in the present day -- it is fiction, after all -- but it presents some fascinating moral and ethical questions, and attempts to answer some of them. I found it fascinating.
Smart - maybe - Safe? (Score:1)
I agree that releasing the data to the public is a good thing, but I do not think it is the safest thing to do. Releasing it to the public will allow any scientist with a little bit of funding to go beserk and start expermenting.
I think that the politico's are not thinking long term on this. Nobody may screw around with genes now, but somewhere down the line - someone will.
Another problem I have with the releasing of the Human Gene Code is that discoveries/drugs/cures developed from it do not have to be made public and or can be copyrighted... In other words - forks can be kept closed source.
If I had to have someone look after the gene code - I would almost prefer a company because I can count on companies to be fairly rational - Governments are not.
Re:Not what it appears to be! *A PROPOSAL* (Score:1)
Here we go.
Later
Erik Z
Great - Now Let's Move Forward with Eugenics (Score:1)
Another neat thing to do would be to create the Sandkings. You know, the small distributed-mind creatures...
Re:Not what it appears to be! *A PROPOSAL* (Score:1)
One of the major issues which has everyone up in arms is the ability for companies in today's environment to patent genes as soon as they isolate them. If they get there before the Genome Project, they can patent the genes and use them to extract royalties, in the event that researchers (who they don't pay for) discover a use for the gene. See this article [canoe.ca] for just one example. Before you think they did hard work to get large profits off of this gene, listen to the spin-doctoring:
This announcement came out about Feb. 16 of this year. What they're not saying is that they've had the gene isolated for years now, that they applied for the patent immediately after isolating it, and that it was only in February that researchers and scientists not employed by them discovered the link to HIV. This discovery, in turn, prompted the press release.There is some IP which is worth protecting: that which is demonstrably detrimental to being released into the public. This IP would include certain information being held by those protecting our country, and other information which would hurt individuals or their rights. As much as some here don't like it, there is information which should be held tightly, including IP held by some commonly bashed [odci.gov] organizations, since the information is being used for your benefit. Information that is tightly held only because it benefits some multi-billion dollar corporation, and could benefit everyone if had royalty-free, on the other hand, shouldn't be patentable in the first place.
I think there should be a moritorium on patents issued for gene isolation. Even if a private firm isolates a gene, they are doing research which will eventually be duplicated by the Genome Project, and that information should be released into the public domain, license-free. If they want to aid the cause, that's fine, go get a government grant. If they want to develop subsidiary products based on a particular gene, that's OK too. Conventional products and procedures which are limited by, among other things, ingredients and physical restrictions, such as complicated and novel processing requirements, are completely covered by today's patent process. IP, on the other hand, should be free for everyone.
For more information about IP in the gene patent area, check out these links:
Property Rights and Ownership [ic.gc.ca]
Genome Research and Traditional Intellectual Property Protection [fplc.edu]
Dave Blau
Re:Or is it? (Score:1)
Genetic warfare and nanotechnology are two fronts where it is entirely possible that some looney will come up with a brilliant way to destroy the world without needing an amount of money that would prohibit this to rich nations.
Books like Herbert's "White Plague" are excellent fictional studies into what can happen when the power to make sweeping biological weapons becomes accessible to an "average" man.
Unfortunately it's a bit of a quandry. We can't restrict the progress of technology without becoming a repressive world, and we have severe potential consequences if we let it go unchecked.
Which party is that? (Score:1)
Is that the Democrats [republicans.org] or New Labour [tory.org]?
GeNOME (Score:1)
Mike Roberto
- roberto@soul.apk.net
-- AOL IM: MicroBerto
Re:It's so comforting... (Score:1)
I think you are talking about biological weapons(diseases & viruses) rather than chemical weapons.
How do you know that these sorts of things have not been developed yet anyway?
Also, the good that will come out of this will most probably far outweigh the bad. I am thinking about the end of disease and extension of lifespan that will most probably arise from this.
The solution to the problem you elucidate is to not advance/learn at all, which in my opinion is not a good solution
Re:It's so comforting... (Score:1)
Nutcases, I agree with you, always have, and always will hold the world hostage to some degree. But at the same time, you cannot tell who will be the next Einstein or where he will come from, and witholding information from those who wish to learn and experiment, may be detrimental to progress.
I am speculating here, but I imagine there is a possibility that gene therapy could be able to treat/eliminate unfounded aggression. People one day may not be compelled to design such attrocious weapons. How I long for that day...
control is always automatic (Score:1)
although we might see an increase in genetically-altered geeks who actually attract girls and still can submit kernel patches...
Cool (Score:1)
Finally... (Score:1)
... something which both countries can be proud of, as seems to be very rare in today's world. The Human Genome Project has been a massive undertaking by scientists and has been supported by both governments, even though its benefits will not be fully apparent for some years to come. Hopefully this model of international collaberation in such huge undertakings will continue as I'm sure there are many projects which could benefit.
It's also nice to see research which will be fully public and used for the benefit of the human race rather than a single company, group or nation. In the years to come we will all feel the results of this and be better for it.
Okay, so I'm being very idealistic for once, but it's nice to see something good happen in the international community.
I'm releasing my own genome... (Score:1)
Genome version 3.0.1 has been released ! (Score:1)
--------------------------------------
Patch 462778 2000341
Full source 19629195 83834880
--------------------------------------
The following files were changed in this release:
CREDITS |32
kernel/female/driving/hability.c | 20
kernel/female/blondes/Makefile | 308
extra arm.c | 49
drivers/vision/myopia.c |30
drivers/vision/hypermetropia.c |43
include/night-googles/Makefiles | 40
What license is that? (Score:1)
Open Source genetic modification.. (Score:1)
"1.05...we had her grown in vitro pretty early...we're planning to go all out for our next kid, though..."
"You mean you're gonna try the 2.2 beta? Isn't that unstable?"
"We're gonna wait till they iron out the multiple-personality bug, and then...well, you saw the feature list, right?"
"Ohhhh, yeah. That thing is amazing!"
Hehe, I can't wait!
Open Source Genome! (Score:1)
Coming soon to "Slashmeat": Human Genome 2.0!
Re:Intelligence (Score:1)
Re:Perfect Sense (Score:1)
We already have really ugly biological weapons, and making better ones is not really dependant on the knowledge of human genes, it depends on knowing the genes of viruses and bacteria, as well as the structure of the human body. And for the latter, you really dont need the Human Genome project, any good microscope will do.
Re:GPL!!! (Score:1)
Re:Opensource the code! (Score:1)
We should mnemonic genome songs to hlp us rememer them by. (And here's the new one that's screaming up the charts "T-A-C-G-T-A-T-T-G"!)
Cool, but at what cost? (Score:1)
Re:Or is it? (Score:1)
Right On! (Score:1)
It's scary... think of the projects that will be abandoned or postponed due to profit considerations resulting from having to use a gene that someone else has patented. We could see the resources of genetic research focused on genes that are selected based on who owns them, rather than purely going after the most promising and beneficial treatments.
Good old TB (Score:1)
Still it has to be good news.
BTW does the Human Genome Project include all efforts to map our genes or is it just one of the attempts.
It's so comforting... (Score:1)
Re:It's so comforting... (Score:1)
I am sure much good will come of this information, and I in no way would suggest we halt scientific progress. The worries I have are that for every disease we toil away at and manage to find a cure for, some well-funded nutcase could create another more deadly disease to take its place.
I believe it is beneficial to share this knowledge with all scientific communities, being it affects every one of us, but there should be some sort of control on the process. In the wrong hands, this information could accelerate the already alarming increase of biological weapons which threaten humanity.
Intelligence (Score:1)
Kudos and a big glass of something hard! (Score:1)
CRA (Score:1)
The scary thing.... (Score:1)
Re:Cool (Score:1)
Actually, those attributes don't mean much in determining the success or happiness of your children. Repeated surveys of the 'beautiful people' have shown that many of them think they are ugly. Talk to an anorexic who has wasted away until they are not much more than skin and bones and you will find that they see themselves as hopelessly fat.
You might argue that these people would not be that way if they could have been engineered with higher intelligence. I've counselled with individuals who were very bright, but at the same time were held back by believing things that everyone around them could see were not true. We have repeatedly made the mistake of thinking that education and/or higher IQ's are the things that will redeem our society. If that were the case, Ted Kazynski (sp?), by all accounts a brilliant mind, would not have turned out to be a sociopath.
carlos
Re:Good old TB (Score:1)
Just one of only two or three. There is one privately funded project that shows promise of being the first to accomplish the thing.
carlos
reverse enginering? (Score:1)
Is god going to sue them for reverse enginering, hmmm could we use this as a prescedent against the mpaa? If Blair and Clinton can get away with it why can't we?
Grzt, Jeroen
Perfect Sense (Score:1)
Wow, some politicians did something smart.
Re:Smart - maybe - Safe? (Score:1)
First, it's my understanding that the method by which genetic weapons work is pretty independent of their host organism. A cold infects a bacteria and a human in the same way: by inserting it's own DNA inside the nucleus of a host cell, transforming the cell into a short-lived virus factory. Having the human genome publicly available doesn't mean that mad scientists now have the tools they need to create Satan bugs, they've had these tools all along.
What the human genome data is useful for is understanding more about how the human body works. Beyond this, there are practical applications as well: not in creating external parasites, but rather in modifying humans, and humans only. For example, gene therapy in embryos could remove many hereditary diseases like diabetes, sickle cell anemia, and even some forms of cancer. In the long term, more advanced uses could include tweaking the immune system as a whole, making it more adaptable and effective against the increasing pantheon of diseases.
Here's the controvertial part: the human genome project, while virtually useless for biological warfare, can be used to speed up evolution enourmously. While many conservatives I know are markedly against this, I support engineering for the sake of general improvement. Down the road, it will be possible to engineer humans to be smarter, stronger, etc. When combined with cybernetics and nanorobotics, this represents a chance for betterment unrivaled through all history.
P.S. Your comment on Patents/Copyrights was interesting. It's my position that it should be illegal to patent or copyright organisms and/or genetic material. This sort of thing is SCIENCE, NOT INDUSTRY. I take the same position on software and conventional engineering. Freedom of information is essential to further technological progress.
Public Knowledge (Score:1)
Cactus Bob
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT d---(!d) s+:++>s+:+ a-- C++++ UH+@>+++$ P+>+++ L++>+++ E---- W++(W+++) !N o? K? w++++$>!w
O M-(M+) V-- PS+++(+(!++)) PE(+) Y+>++ PGP++ t+++ 5 X++@ R !tv>tv- b->++ DI++$ D++
G e* h++(h) r++(r*)>r++ y++*(y+++++**@)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Re:Perfect Sense (Score:1)
After all Knowledge is a double-edged weapon. You can either use it for good or for bad. Well basically it may be even the same (viewed from different positions). We will now have great ooportunities to treat illnesses we couldn't before but i guess it's just a matter of time till the first Genome based weapons will occur. At least nuclear weapons will be out of date since who wants to destroy good equipment and make whole landscapes unlivable when he can get rid of the nasty inhabitants so easy...
Umm... (Score:1)
At issue before was whether or not Craig Venter and Celera Genomics were going to release their version publically and their annotations (which they probably won't), and whether Venter has any intellectual property on which he can obtain patents (which he probably doesn't).
Celera currently has sequence which are not part of the public record sequence yet, but will be shortly. Celera's sequence is badly fragmented and since Celera currently uses shotgun seuencing alone, they're probably having some trouble anchoring the sequence fragments and finishing it, something they won't be able to do before the public effort (but that they could partly do now by using the public information -- greatly decreasing their IP position).
Finally, the Human Genome Project has additional iimportant informations regarding allelic variation and single-nucleotide polymorphisms obtained through sequencing multiple people's DNA as opposed to Celera's ostensibly quicker approach of sequencing the DNA of a single person (Craig Venter himself). I'd really be amazed if Celera will see mcuh profit from its human genome sequencing effort.
Anyway, the point was that the HGP information was always destined to be released into the public domain, there wasn't even a question about it. It's nice for Clinton and Blair to take credit for it, but they didn't do anything. Release of the information still won't cover IP related to genes not identified or detrimental genetic mutations/ variants that cause disease, the majority of which the HGP will not capture. However, the HGP information will make such things far easier to find in the future.
Shouldn't they have asked... (Score:1)
Re:Isn't it already available? (Score:1)
Commercialism (Score:1)
The reason is that such vast projects need to be paid for, and governments will not spend millions of zorkmids of public money on a project which will then be given away free to the entire world. Research in medicine always ends up being funded by private investiture, which will only happen if there's some profit to be made out of it.
Unfortunately, if governments force research information to be made public, it will stop being economic to do research as there would be no potential for profit. So projects like this would no longer be undertaken, simply because there'd be no financial incentive.
The release of the human genome under Open Source is an important step forward, but governments cannot and will not do this on a regular basis. If they did, no research would ever take place.
But will they GPL it? I hope whatever licence they use will exclude paying for permission to duplicate.
Human Genome To Be Released (Score:1)
But what of our numbered souls
Reduced to 4 memes?
Re:GPL!!! (Score:2)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:Isn't it already available? (Score:2)
I wonder if SETI have ever tried passing the human genome data through their spot-an-alien filters. Or pi or e if it comes to that.
Why should messages from alien intelligences always be expected to come from Out There? Why not In There?
Regards, Ralph.
Re:Private Research (Score:2)
Clinton and Blair can make any statments that wish about releasing public research. Writing an executive order changing patent law would undoubtedly become cannon fodder in Congress and the Supreme Court since patent law is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations [bitlaw.com] 37 CFR.
One way public institutions could fight back would be by refusing to collaborate with private companies. Sounds crude but it would force the company to risk spending extra research dollars on somthing that may not be patentable. As it stands I think they are trying to get somthing for nothing by being the first to produce the entire database and calling it a unique piece of art.
Slightly more informative site. (Score:2)
Also, there's a slightly more informative story on the BBC [bbc.co.uk]'s website.
This isn't as clear as it sounds. (Score:2)
According to the CNN story, Bill and Tony are going to applaud the researchers on the Human Genome Project (just so you know where I stand, that includes me) and call upon other researchers to make their results public with the same lack of attached strings. This sounds like a reference to Celera Genomics (and possibly Incyte and a number of other biotech companies). What it doesn't say is that they're going to make it in any way more difficult for said companies to obtain intellectual property rights over sections of the human genome. They may do, but it doesn't say so in the story.
Is it GPLed? (Score:2)
And if it is GPLed, doesn't that mean you can't resell something that packages it? Does this make prostitution universally illegal due to the GPL???
That'll hurt Las Vegas come next comdex.
GPL!!! (Score:2)
Don't even mention Beowulf here...
max
Re:Not what it appears to be! *A PROPOSAL* (Score:2)
Each technological group of patents would have its own maximum expiration time. This expiration time would be based on the dynamicity of the technology- which would be determined by the number of patents issued in the group the previous three years.
Further, I would change the patent process such that each patent is automatically granted, with the caveat that a five grand bond must be placed with the patent. Anyone can challenge the validity of the patent by putting up five grand. This money would in turn go to five reviewers, chosen at random from a pool of experts in the technology. Each expert would rate the patent on a scale of 1-10 on its innovativeness. 1 being blantantly obvious, 5 somewhat innovative and a 10 extraordinarily innovative. The patent life would then be based on the average ratings of the experts. If the average rating is less than 5 then the patent is immediately invalidated, and the patenter loses their bond. If it scores 5 or greater, the challenger forfiets his challenge money. The time length of the patent would then be based on the average score. The default would be the maximum time length for that category. The rest would be the average score as a percent of the maximum score multiplied by the category.
Please tell me what you think,
LetterRip
fstmm@yahoo.com
Re:Not what it appears to be! *A PROPOSAL* (Score:2)
I assumed that for impoverished programmers with valid claims, an organization similar to the EFF would probably help. Or alternatively, I'm certain that there will be organizations willing to pony up the five grand for a percentage of the take.
This system is mostly to streamline the elimination of obvious patents, and to reduce the strifiling of innovation, especially in those areas that are experienceing rapid growth and change. It's also meant to reduce the whole lawsuit strategy of filing bogus patents that the clerks are undertrained/staffed to realize, and than suing anyone who infringes. If someone attempts to sue- pony up five grand, get the claim invalidated, end of lawsuit. If the claim holds up- settle quickly .
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@yahoo.com
GPL the Human Genome Project Data (Score:2)
Celera [celera.com] is a competing private effort. I really do not believe that governments intend to expropriate Celera's database, which has been privately funded. However, Celera has made extensive use of the public data to augment its own. (The nature of their sequencing methods require many overlapping fragments and redundant coverage to ensure accuracy.) One way to pressure Celera to make its data freely available would be to license the public data under something like the GPL - to demand that any database products that use it or derive from it are made freely available.
Regardless, even if Celera does not share, the HGP will catch up within a few years.
Isn't it already available? (Score:2)
For the curious:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/seq/page.cgi
I'm running to school, but I'll check the url when I'm back, 9 hours from now or so...
What it could mean! (Score:2)
There is a little bit more info on yahoo [yahoo.com].
Not a Secret Project anymore! (Score:2)
I'm really glad about this turn of events. Having +1 Talent [aspyr.com] at each base will really cut down on Drone Riots. They don't happen very often in Baltimore, but I've seen a few in D.C.
This is a step in the right direction... (Score:2)
The more we know, the less possible it will be to accidentially destroy ourselves.
Re:Kernel 2.4 released to the public! (Score:2)
January
doesn't say a thing about patenting genome. (Score:2)
The last part I find the most frightening, because it would impose a deadlock on treating genetic diseases caused by the gene. I would rather see the genes to be freely available, but the treatment to be patented. This would still give the possibility for a workaround.
Re:Not what it appears to be! *A PROPOSAL* (Score:2)
Interesting proposal, and quite intricate, but I seriously disagree with your suggestion of charging five thousand dollars for the opportunity to dispute a patent. If an impoverished programmer wants to dispute a patent claim (perhaps because he had the idea first), he should have priority and protection whether he can pony up the five-K or not.
I certainly agree with the crux of your proposal - that patent expiration dates "would be based on the dynamicity of the technology." I'm not sure what "dynamicity" means, but I assume it means something like "the pace of change." If so, your idea and mine are at heart motivated by the same wish: for a patent system that reflects that long-term monopolies of discovery or innovation can stifle (instead of encouraging) progress in fast-moving fields.
A. Keiper
Re:Not what it appears to be! *A PROPOSAL* (Score:2)
Thank you kindly for the links, but I disagree with your conclusion. Lots of companies are pursuing patents on their genomic data, and I feel they deserve compensation for the money, time and labor of their work. That's why I think a short-term patent would be effective; companies wishing to do research with that data could pay for it, or wait the short while (perhaps two years? four?) till they get it for free. Other companies that do decide to use the genomic data for research will pay for it - and if they manage to create a successful drug based on that research, the cost will trickle down to the consumers, so in the end the people who benefit from the drug are the ones who pay for the research behind it.
And I disagree also with your argument (which I have perhaps misinterpreted?) that the only intellectual property that should be safeguarded is that which protects the public good or national security. Why shouldn't innovators and discovers benefit from their hard work? We're really debating what I consider one of the most civil notions of modern society: that those who do research or create new things should be rewarded just as if they performed more tangible tasks like bricklaying or farming. There are significant parallels in the copyright discussion (which Katz's post today raises); in that arena, if your argument were carried to its conclusion (ad absurdum), practically nothing could be copyrighted. After all, music and literature benefits the public, so it "should be free for everyone," right?
Perhaps I am being unfair to you; if so, I apologize. And I thank you again for your thoughtful reply and the links.
Yours,
A. Keiper
/.'ers need to read up (Score:2)
Or is it? (Score:2)
What if some crack-pot psycho nation gets their hands on this and develops genetic warfare. The last thing we need is for someone to unleash something like that on an innocent civilian population. Imagine you're walking through central park with your girlfriend and realize that she, and you, have been genetically assaulted and you are developing gills and are becoming unable to live outside of a pool of sewage. Yes, that's a little out there but I think it would suck.
Read carefully (Score:2)
Opensource the code! (Score:3)
--
Private Research (Score:3)
This doesn't really solve much. A big part of the controversy is the research that is privately funded. Referencing this Wired Article [wired.com] (noted in this earlier /. article [slashdot.org]), "Celera Genomics president and CEO Craig Venter said Tuesday that his company is willing to continue discussing a collaboration with its longstanding competitor, the international Human Genome Project."
Sure this helps with some of the information it doesn't really address the underlying problem of private companies patenting gene sequences.
Databases are already open to all (Score:3)
Not what it appears to be! *A PROPOSAL* (Score:3)
But the larger question is whether the private firms will be forced to relinquish their data. The CNN story says nothing about that.
Someone else mentioned [slashdot.org] Celera, and quoted a story from Wired's website. Celera is, by far, not the only company pursuing patents on genomic data. Other companies (with thousands more patents applied for) include HGS, Incyte and Athersys. (You can read about their efforts on our Biotech page [tecsoc.org].)
My proposal: Create a new class of patent with a shorter lifespan that will allow these companies to rightly profit from their research (which has helped the public project immensely). This is rather like Jeff Bezos's proposal for Amazon patents; a new category with fewer years of monopoly so innovators can still benefit from their work and their investments, while the public will still benefit in the not-too-distant future.
Is that fair? I know many here on /. don't buy the notion of compromise (ever), but lots of you are eminently fair-minded. Is my proposal unreasonable?
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society [tecsoc.org]
Kernel 2.4 released to the public! (Score:4)
Seriously, people. HUGEP isn't run by any goverment, and is a scientific project. Scientific means in that case: made by scientists working at public scientific institutions, like universities and such. Which automatically means that the human genome, once sequenced by HUGEP, will be published in Nature or Science or whatever scientific magazine they choose -- not the sequence per se, but due to publishing policy in these journals it will be accessible via WWW or on demand, as it is the case with all scientific research.
Do you know that if you work at a university, and you find something suspicious (or want to repeat the research, or need it for your research, or are just curious) in a published article, you have a right to demand exact informations from the scientist who published it, including getting the original clones / organisms he used for the research? Of course, if the author works for a public institution. This is the major difference between them and such institutions like CELERA / TIGR.
Let me give you an example. This year an article appeared in Nature on a mutagenesis study of the small bacterium I'm working with. It was performed by associated scientists of one of those big commercial research centers. The article and information published on the web did not give you exact details as to where the reported mutations were placed on the genome, only -- which genes have been knocked out. A professor I know, who also works with these bacteria, wrote to the author to get the details of the study -- and never received any answer. This couldn't happen with an academic institution.
There is a book of a polish writer and Nobel prize winner, Sienkiewicz. It tells the story of the Swedish-Polish war from the XVII century. In one of the scenes, the king of Sweden offers to one of local polish princes that he will give this prince a certain polish teritory, which is occupied by the swedish army, if he agrees to colaborate. The prince answers -- "All right, and I will give you Netherlands".
What I want to say, they are giving away Netherlands: making an offer which is of no value just for the sake of telling it -- because it's not their science and because *of course* it will be released to the public. HELLO! This is not CELERA/ Perkin Elmer, for God's sake!
I will repeat myself, because I consider this matter very important: sequencing projects like HUGEP, payed by academic institutions do publish they data. Take a look at the Mycoplasma pneumoniae [uni-heidelberg.de] homepage -- the group I've been working in sequenced the genome and published it, and you can of course download all the data. Only on-going research projects, which have not yet been published in a scientific journal, are not public - yet.
Speaking of which: publishing the HUGEP data before the project is ready is giving a helpful hand to the privat counterpart of HUGEP - namely, Celera Research. And those are the "patent guys" in this case -- I would really like to see HUGEP ready before Celera is.
Regards,
January
DOE-NIH Guidelines for Sharing Data and Resources (Score:5)
DOE-NIH Guidelines for Sharing Data and Resources
At its December 7, 1992, meeting, the DOE-NIH Joint Subcommittee on the Human Genome approved the following sharing guidelines, developed from the DOE draft of September 1991.
The information and resources generated by the Human Genome Project have become substantial, and the interest in having access to them is widespread. It is therefore desirable to have a statement of philosophy concerning the sharing of these resources that can guide investigators who generate the resources as well as those who wish to use them.
A key issue for the Human Genome Project is how to promote and encourage the rapid sharing of materials and data that are produced, especially information that has not yet been published or may never be published in its entirety. Such sharing is essential for progress toward the goals of the program and to avoid unnecessary duplication. It is also desirable to make the fruits of genome research available to the scientific community as a whole as soon as possible to expedite research in other areas.
Although it is the policy of the Human Genome Project to maximize outreach to the scientific community, it is also necessary to give investigators time to verify the accuracy of their data and to gain some scientific advantage from the effort they have invested. Furthermore, in order to assure that novel ideas and inventions are rapidly developed to the benefit of the public, intellectual property protection may be needed for some of the data and materials.
After extensive discussion with the community of genome researchers, the advisors of the NIH and DOE genome programs have determined that consensus is developing around the concept that a 6-month period from the time the data or materials are generated to the time they are made available publicly is a reasonable maximum in almost all cases. More rapid sharing is encouraged.
Whenever possible, data should be deposited in public databases and materials in public repositories. Where appropriate repositories do not exist or are unable to accept the data or materials, investigators should accommodate requests to the extent possible.
The NIH and DOE genome programs have decided to require all applicants expecting to generate significant amounts of genome data or materials to describe in their application how and when they plan to make such data and materials available to the community. Grant solicitations will specify this requirement. These plans in each application will be reviewed in the course of peer review and by staff to assure they are reasonable and in conformity with program philosophy. If a grant is made, the applicant's sharing plans will become a condition of the award and compliance will be reviewed before continuation funding is provided. Progress reports will be asked to address the issue.