I am not a person guided by financial motivation, nor am I the type of person who thinks in terms of the “entrepreneurial” spirit of capitalism, but when reading about genomics and the race towards technical advancements with genetic modification I can’t keep from thinking about money. The financial imperative keeps catching my eye in the readings. Before knowing what “genomics” meant I though the term was a play on the word “economics.” Although this turned out to be a false assumption, the financial world cannot be left out of the conversation over genetic understanding and advancement.
In the case of genomics, money plays an important role in the progress of data collection and research. According to our in class model of the inter-connectedness of the scientific field and the rest of the world, finances play a part in the “making alliances” section of our science wheel. The strong connection between money and science is most certainly never spoken about in traditional science classes. The large public organizations and private investors that support science are often overlooked, but they are a major player in “messy science.”
First, in Fortun’s “Promising Genomics” the financial incentive begins on page two with the press release from Roche promising $200 million pumped into the project of collecting, analyzing and “de-coding” the DNA of the Icelandic people. I’m pretty sure this initial investment of money was expected to be paid off later when the DNA could be patented and sold to pharmaceutical companies who in turn would use the information to make billions of dollars from drugs to cure the previously incurable.
The financial theme also shows up from Sulstan’s biography in Zwart’s article. Given that Sulstan focuses on the moral aspect of science, he argues that the datasets resulting from the genomic research need to be available to the science community and the public and not kept for private profit. The main idea I see illustrated here is that science has two sides: the public and the private, the former being the more ethical aspect. When science goes private it only benefits those who have money and thus access.
The financial side of biotechnology also has social justice implications. The future of biotech will rest in the hands of those who have the money to use the new advances in science in their own lives. For example, the idea that people could use this new science to determine genetic characteristics in their offspring implies a broadening divide between the “have” and “have nots.” I believe it is necessary for science to be public and accessible for all- this is the freedom of technology that Sulstan argues for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a great initial leap into serious reflection on what we've examined thus far. You already are nicely knitting together a number of the somewhat separate considerations we've put on the (common) table. And what's intriguing to me is the (common) thread of money, finance, economics and how you see it at play and as the featured departure point for Fortun's book. You are right to see that high stakes financial arrangements are one of the core items we have to attend to. Good stuff.
ReplyDelete