Rivals in Gene Mapping Seek to Tie Race
The two sides in one of the fiercest competitions of modern science--the effort to crack the human genetic code--are quietly trying to negotiate a compromise that could let each declare victory.
Intermediaries, fearful that the race between the publicly led Human Genome Project and upstart biotech firm Celera Genomics could taint science’s public reputation for objectivity, are trying to broker a deal under which the rivals would simultaneously publish separate scientific articles about their findings as early as September.
If successful--and previous such efforts have failed--the arrangement could help defuse what has turned into a raucous struggle for scientific credit and commercial control of a body of knowledge that many believe will fundamentally alter science and medicine in the coming century.
The behind-the-scenes negotiations are at least partially responsible for an unexpected truce between the Human Genome Project and Celera just as each seemed poised to trumpet its own achievement and belittle its opponent’s.
One piece of the drive toward compromise is being orchestrated by the prestigious journal Science and its editors--former Stanford University President and current Editor Donald Kennedy and his immediate predecessor at Science, Scripps Research Institute neuroscientist Dr. Floyd Bloom.
Scientists familiar with the bargaining say the publication issue is just one element in a complex negotiation that is now possible only because the principals in both camps have tired of the public bickering.
And even if the current talks bear fruit, those familiar with the negotiations emphasize the result would probably be a detente, not an actual alliance. Although a compromise would reduce the bitterness, it would probably not settle the complex issues of access to and ownership of scientific knowledge.
And a deal is still far from certain.
According to Bloom, who recently left his Science post, and others familiar with the talks, prospects for compromise turn on some of the same issues that have been the death of previous attempts to marry the two decoding efforts.
Public Access vs. Private Interests
Chief among them: finding a way to satisfy both researchers’ desire for complete access to the new genomic data and Celera’s interest in protecting its findings from use by commercial competitors.
“Succinctly, our aim is to facilitate access [to the data] . . . for the scientific community,” said Bloom, one of the few people involved in the bargaining who was willing to speak publicly.
The latest attempt at compromise comes as Celera and the public genome project prepare to announce that each has largely deciphered the roughly 3 billion bits of information that make up the human genetic code, the biochemical instructions that convey hereditary traits from one generation to another and control the body’s growth and susceptibility to disease.
Commentators are already comparing the code’s cracking to some of the greatest achievements in human history. Researchers say that over the next several decades, knowledge of the code is likely to produce a new generation of drugs and treatments that dramatically improve the human condition.
But the deciphering drive has also become a public forum for hashing out complicated issues about how science should be conducted and who should control the new genetic knowledge, a process that has often involved bitter conflict between the two sides.
Reputation on the Line
Research leaders now fear that failure to quickly resolve the dispute could obscure the historic nature of the code cracking and weaken public support for science.
“Having recognized the importance of the [deciphering effort], the general public expects it will end well . . . ,” Kennedy, the new Science editor, warned in his inaugural editorial last week. “Anything less is likely to be interpreted as a perplexing failure to serve the public interest.”
When asked about the bargaining Friday, Kennedy issued a brief statement saying, “We are very hopeful of a resolution.”
Aides to Human Genome Project leader Dr. Francis Collins and Celera Chief Executive J. Craig Venter would not to comment.
However, people familiar with the talks outlined the major issues under discussion:
* Access: Celera has said it will make a version of the code available to the scientific community once it is deciphered, but only through its own Web site, not through the publicly run GenBank.
Science and other major journals have generally required that data supporting scientific papers about the genome be deposited on a public Web site such as GenBank.
Bloom suggested that Science may be willing to relax this requirement if access were assured, possibly through another site with a link on GenBank.
Celera executives, however, have repeatedly said they don’t want their competitors to download their information. Such problems are generally handled in commercial settings by requiring users to agree to limits on their use. But such agreements have been anathema to medical researchers, who say they must have open access to data to pursue scientific hunches.
* Credit: The Human Genome Project makes its data freely available to the public on a daily basis. But some project officials assert that they have a right to be the first to publish a scientific article about their findings. Celera has countered that it is entitled to use the public data.
Kennedy and Bloom have proposed that Celera could use public project data to support its article, as long as it credits the public effort for whatever it uses.
* Timing: If both projects are to go into print at the same time, one side might have to delay publishing its paper until the other’s is ready. People familiar with the talks say that a delay of a few weeks would pose no problem, but anything longer could prove a deal breaker.
One of the bedrock principles of science is that new findings are published quickly to ensure that researchers are working with the latest information.
The current negotiations have been going on for weeks but intensified two weeks ago when Kennedy and Bloom sent a one-page letter to Collins and Venter, offering to publish scientific papers by the two sides simultaneously and sketching the outlines of a possible compromise.
The two editors suggested that there are precedents for permitting authors to deposit genome data on Web sites other than GenBank. They cited the case of Swiss-Prot, a site that is linked to GenBank but is separate from it and provides access to information about proteins.
The nonprofit site collects fees from commercial users but allows academic scientists free access to its data.
The editors suggested that to be eligible to publish, Celera would probably have to permit noncommercial researchers to download its data rather than just view them. But they acknowledged that the firm has a right to protect its investment in the information in some fashion.
*
Gosselin reported from Washington and Jacobs from Sacramento.
