Ellington@Frodo.MGH.Harvard.EDU (Deaddog) (02/11/91)
In article <9102111606.AA25622@genbank.bio.net> gribskov@FCRFV1.NCIFCRF.GOV ("Gribskov, Michael") writes: > I suppose the that the cataloging of galaxies is a similar boondoggle, > in spite of the fact that this effort is currently leading to some of > the most important and interesting progress in astrophysics. I guess > the real problem with these kinds of projects is that the day-to-day > work is tedious, and results only come in the long term. Strange how > much of science falls in that category isn't it? Ah, Michael, you really should ask for my opinion rather than just making one up for me. Catalogue them galaxies! Discover the secrets of cosmology; see how stars form; determine the mass of the Universe and how it is distributed; find amazing physical phenomena never before observed by human eyes. Yes, all these and more can be yours if you just continue to fund astrophysics. A noble and worthy cause. Make me a list of similar worth that has to do with the Genome Boondoggle. > These comments make it clear that what Dr. Ellington considers to be > real science are only problems that are "what I think are interesting". > Anything else is clearly a boondoggle. Again he peers into my tiny mind. Ah, to have telepathic powers like Dr. Gribskov. I could even get a job at a parapsychology institute. > Modern science is too complicated for every person to be out there on > their own. We need to have people interested in methods development, > and in assembling large amounts of data into useful forms. Some people > have suggested that in the near future there will be a critical need for > people who do no "hands on" research, but mainly concentrate on > synthesizing results from specialized researches who are t[o]o narrowly > focused to see the forest for the trees. In the current organization, > any of these important activities are only fundable only if they are > tacked on to a "research" proposal tackling "real questions". But let's > be realistic -- are grant proposals generally a statement of a real > problem -- or are they a post hoc justification for doing what we think > is interesting. (Or, in the best cases, both--Dd) Yes, yes, and again, yes. Data base management and construction is essential for cutting across the disparate grains of the biomedical community. And genome sequencing is not even generally nonsense: for systems where the wealth there is a huge wealth of genetic data (Coli, Drosophila, Yeast), one can make reasonable arguments for having the sequence of large slices of the genome. > I have my own misgivings > about the genome project, and especially about the rate that funding is > being ramped up, overall I think it will be an extremely useful project. > One of the main positive features of the genome project is that for > once it is explicit that the people developing methods, and those > putting the data in useful forms are valuable members of the project. As well they should be. But the solution to a lack of emphasis on data base construction and sequencing technology would seem to be to emphasize the positive scientific benefits of funding such projects. Instead, a huge smoke screen, the vainglorious Genome Boondoggle, has been constructed. Let us compare it with other 'initiatives:' The Manhattan Project: make something that goes boom. O.K. SDI: make something to prevent things from going boom. O.K. The War on Cancer: cure a disease. O.K. The Human Genome Initiative: ?????????????????????? What will the sequence of the human genome tell us? The other initiatives had defined and worthy goals at the outset. What are the defined and worthy goals of sequencing the human genome that could not be done any other way? Why is this the vehicle that has been chosen for funding basic technology development? And, recall, my original response was not: "By God those industry running pig dogs should be put to the sword." or "Let's really dump on the technical support folks." but was: "Dammit, David, what if I don't want to sequence a genome? What if, in fact, I think that sequencing the human genome is a big waste of time and not 'real science?' I am OFfFfenDeD that you would suggest I should just bag my ideals and go off to happily catalogue genes at random. And I am outraged that *alternative service* in science may come to mean just that." So: your amazing telepathic abilities failed to discern that I agree with all your opinions save one: I don't think it will be an extremely useful project. Non-woof (Say, do you have antennas, like on "My Favorite Martian," or what?)
gribskov@FCRFV1.NCIFCRF.GOV ("Gribskov, Michael") (02/12/91)
In response to the recent vitriolic and contradictory comments by Ellington@frodo.mgh.harvard.edu (Deaddog) >Yes, this is the crux of the matter. Is "real science" more important >than bookkeeping efforts such as the Genome Boondoggle? > >"Real science" generally addresses questions (the old "test the >hypothesis" saw). It seems to me that Dr. Ellington expresses a rather non-mainstream view of what real science is. A look at some of the more mainstream philosophy on this point, such as Kuhn or Popper, might be illuminating. My feeling is that "Real science" involves quite a lot of bookkeeping, checking on the accuracy of models, and that they perform according to predictions. If you take a more Baconian view, sequencing the human genome is the ultimate in real science and we should hold off on making inferences until we have completed a substantial part of the sequence. I suppose the that the cataloging of galaxies is a similar boondoggle, in spite of the fact that this effort is currently leading to some of the most important and interesting progress in astrophysics. I guess the real problem with these kinds of projects is that the day-to-day work is tedious, and results only come in the long term. Strange how much of science falls in that category isn't it? >I want to do "real science" on questions that I think are interesting. >Most researchers put up with anonymity and low pay and the constant >hassles of teaching and grant writing so that they can Do What They >Want To Do. And to suggest otherwise is ridiculous and, in fact, >insulting. These comments make it clear that what Dr. Ellington considers to be real science are only problems that are "what I think are interesting". Anything else is clearly a boondoggle. I suggest that in fact researchers are not that poorly paid. Most faculty appointments carry a salary that is substantially above the median salary for the US. Even post-doctoral salaries put scientists in the middle class. In fact, it is primarily in comparison to salaries in industry that scientists are poorly paid. This seems somewhat unfair since "real science" is apparently not done in industry. It is true that many scientists put in long hours, but this is mainly for fame (albeit a limited kind). How many people who stay on in science if papers could only be published anonymously? Modern science is too complicated for every person to be out there on their own. We need to have people interested in methods development, and in assembling large amounts of data into useful forms. Some people have suggested that in the near future there will be a critical need for people who do no "hands on" research, but mainly concentrate on synthesizing results from specialized researches who are two narrowly focused to see the forest for the trees. In the current organization, any of these important activities are only fundable only if they are tacked on to a "research" proposal tackling "real questions". But let's be realistic -- are grant proposals generally a statement of a real problem -- or are they a post hoc justification for doing what we think is interesting. Let me just mention that I spend most of my time doing what Dr. Ellington might (or might not) consider to be real science (x-ray crystallography). I have no association with any genome center, nor do I get funding from any genome initiative related agency. I do find that there is a lot of useful information to be extracted from the currently available sequence information. And although I have my own misgivings about the genome project, and especially about the rate that funding is being ramped up, overall I think it will be an extremely useful project. One of the main positive features of the genome project is that for once it is explicit that the people developing methods, and those putting the data in useful forms are valuable members of the project. About time! Michael Gribskov gribskov@ncifcrf.gov
kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (02/12/91)
A couple of quick points and then its back to the grind ... (actually I am taking a vacation day today ... what am I doing logged in here from home 8-)! Keith, I would be elated to hear that the attitudes I described towards industry were being turned around. The experience I described dates back from 1986 and earlier, so it would be great if the tide has started turning in the last five years. Regarding the "Genome Boondoggle", although I have seen arguments on both sides, it is still not clear to me that the funding for the Genome Project is coming at the expense of R01 grants, and the people I know at the NIH vigorously deny this. I think it is more likely that Congress sees potential commercial payoffs and "enhanced U.S. competitiveness" in the Genome Project and is thus looking to add funds that would not have been available to pure research anyway. However, I would not be surprised that if overall federal money is tight, some impact might be felt on R01's ... I haven't carefully researched all sides of this issue. I would suggest the possibly controversial position that people like Dr. Ellington might actually want to encourage this project! I never suggested that he personally get involved with cataloguing genes, but I think passions have flared up a bit (Peace 8-), and he might have taken it this way. Instead, budding academicians might find that the Genome Project creates sufficient industrial opportunities to siphon off a lot of their competition!! Thus the end result, surprisingly, might be less competition for pure research funds and more private sector jobs. This might make everyone better off! Hmm .... can such optimistic scenarios really occur, Pollyanna?? We have become so accustomed to always envisioning the worst possible outcomes that sometimes we forget how to hope. Dave Kristofferson