Planetaire network contacted Dr. Maynard Olson, Director of the Genomic Institute at the University of Washington, Seattle via e-mail. We asked him to give us an update on the issues he rose in his spoken testimony during a House Committee on Science hearing in June of 1998.

>In your spoken testimony before the House Committee on
>Science on June 18th, 1998, you asked of the Perkin-
>Elmer initiative (Celera Genomics Group): "Show me the
>data," Have you seen the data, and if so how has it
>been useful to you and other researchers within the
>academic community?

As of 1/00, Celera has released no data. It is still practicing "science-by-press-release" and has not lived up to the promise in the 6/98 congressional hearings that data would be released after approximately a 3-month delay.

>You expressed your skepticism that Celera's "shotgun
>sequencing" approach would lead to a product of
>sufficient quality to meet the needs of the scientific
>community. What has the quality of Celera's data been?
>Has their efficiency compromised the data? Are there
>serious gaps in their data?  Have their "islands" of data
> been misassembled?

Obviously I cannot evaluate these points since I have no access to Celera's data.  The larger point is that it is unlikely that outside experts will ever have adequate access to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Celera's methods.  In particular, Celera acknowledges using public-domain data in its generation of composite sequences while, of course, the converse is not true.  For starters, outside experts would need to be able to attempt analyses on Celera data sets that were uncontaminated by imported public-domain data.  Furthermore, they would need full access to the raw data, not just to Celera-released composite sequences.  I doubt that such tests will ever be possible.

>To what extent have the Human Genome Project and
>private entities been collaborating?  How has this
> been useful to the Human Genome Project?

There is nothing that I would currently regard as a "collaboration."  The term "collaboration" implies mutual exchanges of information at a level that does not exist even in the case of the Drosophila project, which is often cited as a collaboration.  As recently as 1/00, NIH-funded participants in the Drosophila "collaboration" acknowledge that they have no real idea what Celera is doing.

>Has the Human Genome Project changed its methodologies
>since June of 1998?

Methodological innovation in large-scale genome analysis is presently at a low ebb.  All parties use essentially the same technology purchased from the same vendors.  It has been obvious for some time that the optimum strategy for complex genomes will involve some blend of clone-by-clone approaches and whole-genome-shotgun sampling.  The idea that the latter was a panacea of some sort was always silly.  The public-sector program is gradually exploring the optimum balance between these strategies, but I do not expect any decisive conclusions on these methodological issues any time soon.

>Has the balance shifted between biotechnology industry, the
>pharmaceutical industry, and publicly funded academic research? 
>In your written statement you defined the roles of these three
>sectors, have these roles changed over the course of the past
>year and a half?

My point in the testimony is that there are distinctive roles for these sectors and it will require constant vigilance to insure that public policy reinforces constructive interactions between them.  In explicitly defining the roles, I was attempting to make a small contribution to what I hope will be an ongoing discussion.  There is cause for concern.  For example, it is of some interest to "follow the money" in attempting to understand the Celera phenomenon.  To illustrate, Amgen is a major financial supporter of Celera.  Amgen's most profitable product, which accounts for billions of dollars a year in revenue, is erythropoetin.  Much of the market for this drug is created by federal payments to kidney-dialysis patients.  Hence, the taxpayers are actually the source of the money that Celera represents as coming entirely from "private" sources.  Perhaps the taxpayers would be better off paying Amgen less than they do now for erythropoetin and using the savings to support public-sector science rather turning the money--and control over the science that it funds – to Amgen.  Perhaps Amgen's leadership should think a little more carefully about whether or not its support for Celera is in the public interest.

>To what extent has the NHGRI expanded beyond the
>core of its mission (sequencing the human genome)?  Has
>it pursued any of the avenues you mention in your written
>statement (development of new technology, improving
>computational methods, and characterization of natural
>variation in Human DNA)?

The NHGRI does have programs in these areas, but the large majority of its budget goes to large-scale production sequencing.  I continue to think it essential for the NHGRI to take the lead in funding projects that explore new opportunities opened up by genome analysis.  We do not really know what to do with all these data.  It is time for a period of letting many flowers bloom.  The uncertainty of the biomedical research community about how to exploit the human-genome sequence relates to the vastness of the opportunities, not a lack of ideas.

>You mention increasing signs of trouble in intellectual
>property law at the points where the three sectors
>diverge in their interests… In what way has the
>access of non-profit institutions to critical research tools
>been protected?  Also, will the patenting of genes and
>subsequent licensing of these patents to pharmaceutical
>and biotechnology firms >compromise the ability of non-
>profit institutions to conduct research?

I have serious concerns in this area.  The most spectacular example is agricultural research.  There is minimal public data about major crop plants such as corn and rice, while there are huge proprietary databases. This situation is not in the public interest.  It is not even in the interest of the companies that created this situation.  For example, their current problems with public acceptance of "genetically modified organisms" are self-inflicted.  The public will stay on board with introduction of safe, effective innovations into agriculture in proportion to the extent to which these innovations receive open scientific scrutiny. A little public participation in "safety testing" at a late stage of product development is no substitute for major public-sector participation at all stages of scientific and technological development. Intellectual property law should protect R&D investments that are closely linked to development of specific products.  It should not wall off large areas of science from open investigation.  I am actually more concerned about secrecy and control over resources (e.g., money, experienced scientists, research facilities) than I am about patents.  Patents have a short lifetime, while distortions of the basic scientific process will have very long-term effects.

>If another hearing were to be held on the same
>subject (how the private sector effects the public
>sector in genomics) today, what issues would you
>like to see raised?

We raised the right issues in 6/98.  It would be a good time to revisit them since it is already clear that Celera has no intention of following the path it outlined at that time.  If there were new hearings, Celera would have a new story, but it would be no more likely to describe future events than their last one was.  The real point here is whether key decisions about information of central interest to society should be made through public processes or by private interests.

>As a scientific prognosticator, what would you predict
>to be the effects of genomic research on the general
>public over the course of the next twenty years?

The big issues will not involve pharmaceuticals or genetically modified organisms, but the way in which precise information about human genetics alters the way people think of themselves.  Already there is a remarkable rise of genetic reductionism that is having subtle effects on popular culture.  This phenomenon is not even driven by scientific discovery; it is just driven by scientific commotion.  Over the next decades, much of the science will firm up.  I hope it does so in a climate of strong public scrutiny rather than behind a veil of corporate secrecy.

>Are there any legitimate risks that will arise from
>this information?

There are a lot of risks and the only protection from them is openness.