Forum Moderators: open
...two new technologies: TransBacter, a method for transferring genes to plants, and GUSPlus, a method of visualizing where the genes are and what they do. Behind the research, which was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, is a team of scientists who want to provide the technologies as a "kernel," modeled on the Linux movement, as the beginning of perhaps the first practical offering in open-source biology.
All life is more or less dependent on other life forms to exist. Break a link and there may be unexpected or unforeseen consequences.
Humans as a rule aren't wise enough, can't exercise enough self control, can't separate the profit motive from anything else.
Not all mutations and diversity are good for mankind and can easily get out of control.
An example of a mutation grown worse in the current status quo:
[forbes.com...]
I'm thinking that Open Source models could provide the distributed attention and responsibility that provides us all a better safeguard than closely held, proprietary models.
It's not a sin to be sick. It just means we have to take care of ourselves and our neighbours, not rely on some faceless, soulless company to offer their twist on a "cure".
Unlike Monsanto's products, I don't want to become a genetically-engineered organism whose patent is owned and tightly controlled, just so I can avoid catching a cold or whatever disease.
Hey, we all have to die eventually. There's nothing that will ever prevent that, and in some ways it's a blessing.....living until one's mind and senses fail, being unable to move or control one's body...death comes as a natural release from such old age suffering.
Freedom is a precious thing, not to be made into a commodity. To preserve my freedom from debt and harassment I'd rather die from something natural than end up owned by some corporation (because of their genetic patents) and end up a perpetual debt-slave to them.
First I thought, how cool. Open source science. Then I thought about the profiteers and patent holders behind so much bio-science. Then I read the article.
Scientists can deposit and obtain scientific information on the site. ... and enthusiasts are heartened by the first technologies finally becoming available.
While scientists could obtain or share information, in many cases - I believe - why would they? It seems that many scientists are operating in a competitive culture, where the winner gets due recognition and maybe some cash. Case in point is a fellow I know in medical science. He has developed a lot of the electronics involved with artifical hearts. Do you think he would share that research? I can tell you now, the answer is NO. Nevermind that his research could possibly be enhanced by many other people working in the same direction. It's his (actually the medical facilities) and if you want it, you will pay great sums of money. BTW, that line of research is still going strong.
Enthusiasts, while enthusiastic, cannot make the changes necessary to open the culture, IMO.
The biotech industry is officially not opposed to open-source biology projects, ....conversations with agri-biotech executives, and he believes there is a way they can actually make money
Officially not opposed - Yeah, you guys go right ahead and do that; we'll keep doing what we've always done.
Still, it's a heartening development, and one that certainly would benefit mankind in the long run. With any luck my cynicism will be disproved.
So to that end there often is no competitive streak per se in scientists, since competition for money by it's very nature taints and poisons all scientific integrity and independence, favouring the one who paid more money for results (whatever they might be) instead of remaining true to discovering truthful sound facts. The scientific method is based on producing solid proof, based on separating fact from fiction, good theories from phony ones.
It's natural for TRUE scientists to openly share their discoveries. Many are idealists and realize that shared information often benefits all, and those same benefits often come back to you as well. In TRUE science, good work based on sticking faithfully to facts through diligent research is it's own reward. Specious hand waving and substituting flighty theory and ideas for measurable provable facts has never had any place in science....only in business though (creative accounting practices for example - not very scientific).
Competition - <snip> - works for animals in the wild.....and for humans who want to emulate wild animals. Doesn't work so much for the intelligent ones who see through the shell game though. Money is an awful motivator for the intelligent ones.
What is truly frightening is that business practices, so open to corruption, seem to dictate what companies <snip> will try to do and claim in the name of science - their corporate brand of science. Business and science can't always be compatible if business disrespects scientific research, facts and tries to make a gold-painted turd into a gold nugget.
[edited by: lawman at 7:08 am (utc) on Feb. 14, 2005]
[edit reason] TOS 12 [/edit]
A recent announcement was made regarding a new strain of the AIDS virus. You would think (I would think) that something like this would rally the troops and seek a common solution, and that the subject of this thread - Open Source comes to biology - would be very applicable to finding that solution. Just think, hundreds of researchers sharing their information. Not so, at least in this example, and the reason I think we're a long way from utilizing the best that technology has to offer.
At one level, the reaction illustrates the intense competition among scientists and their institutions to communicate new findings and get credit, crucial in obtaining money to expand their research. Many experts have been involved in the field for years, and in some cases their professional disagreements have developed into the animosities and outright personal hatreds that are common in academia.
full article [nytimes.com]
