SO we have it at last, or most of it anyway. Laid out in Nature and
Science this week are two versions of the human genome, replete with
30,000 or so genes. For now, these charts are symbolic rather than informative.
Here, for all to see, is the basic information needed to create a human. A few
years from now schoolchildren will be as familiar with annotated versions of the
genome as we are with the periodic table of elements.
As if to stress that we are at the start of an era, the genome has given us
plenty of mysteries to solve. Why do we have so few genes? And if we share so
many genes with our evolutionary cousins, what really sets us apart? How did we
get a gene for depression from a bacterium? There are medical opportunities too.
Existing drugs home in on about 480 targets in the body. The genome will bring
tens of thousands more for pharmacologists to study. The prospects of it all are
mind-blowing.
Yet much of the attention on the genome this week has focused on a more
prosaic issue鈥攖he dispute between scientists working within the publicly
funded Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics, the American company that makes
its money selling genetic information to subscribers. The HGP scientists
published their results in Nature rather than alongside Celera鈥檚
findings in Science because the company has restricted what researchers
can do with its information.
Advertisement
Academic scientists can download small parts of Celera鈥檚 genome, but only
under strict conditions: their intentions must not be commercial, and they must
not try to supplement the company鈥檚 information or redistribute it. There are
extra rules for academics who want to see Celera鈥檚 entire genome, and tighter
restrictions still on researchers working in industry.
Despite Celera鈥檚 protestations, this puts academic research at risk. Academic
freedom isn鈥檛 an empty slogan: it鈥檚 essential if we are to improve our
understanding of the world. It鈥檚 through open publication and discussion with
colleagues that researchers develop and hone ideas. Now, some will constantly
have to consider whether sharing information will break the terms of their
agreement with the company. Restricting researchers in this way may be good for
Celera鈥檚 business, but it does nothing to foster open discussion.
Science has been criticised for colluding with Celera. Its defence
is that if it had not agreed to the company鈥檚 terms, Celera鈥檚 version of the
genome would have remained secret to all but its subscribers, and it鈥檚 true that
we can now compare the public and private versions of the genome
(see 鈥淭he revolution has begun鈥�).
But Science has set a horrendous precedent. What will the restrictions be
on access to other important genomes: mouse, chimp, wheat and the rest? How will
a mouse genome researcher know what information can be shared with an expert on
human genomics or a rice researcher, without breaching confidentiality? We could
be heading for a legal minefield.
And then there is the question of applying information from a genome that is
held in private hands. Last month, for example, two companies announced
completion of the rice genome, one of the most important for the developing
world. That information will not be made public. The companies are limiting
access to researchers and want first refusal on patenting any inventions that
come from collaborations. Companies that own such information have a powerful
monopoly that governments鈥攁nd other companies鈥攎ust challenge. Food
and healthcare will become increasingly costly if these genomes stay in the
hands of individual companies.
The human genome has been described as a resource for everyone鈥攋ust
like the periodic table. The same must be true of other genomes that could bring
big benefits, such as those from the primates, rice and other major crops. To
ensure that everyone benefits from them, more collaborative sequencing ventures
must be set up, funded by industry and governments. That goes too for sequencing
human proteins, which Celera is now doing.
There is already a model for such ventures. The SNP Consortium, which is
mapping single DNA base changes within the genome, has both academic and
commercial partners. The same is true of the Mouse Sequencing Consortium, set up
last year. Such projects need to be widened and supported. If you doubt this,
think about what would have happened if the Human Genome Project had been shut
down, as some suggested when Celera began its sequencing effort in 1998. Celera
would now have absolute power over the human genome. Ask yourself whether the
company would now be offering anyone free access to its data.
