Craig Venter

Paul de Kruif is credited with being one of the first popular science writers for the general public. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 1916 and worked at the Rockefeller Institute under Simon Flexner. After being fired in 1922 for publishing a scathing article on medical research, de Kruif caught the attention of Sinclair Lewis, who

This article analyzes a number of recently published autobiographies by leading participants in the Human Genome Project (HGP), in order to determine to what extent they may further our understanding of the history, scientific significance and societal impact of this major research endeavor. Notably, I will focus on three publications that fall under this heading, namely The common thread by John Sulston (2002Sulston ( /2003)), The language of God (2006) by Francis Collins and A life decoded by Craig Venter ( ). 1 What may we learn from these autobiographical sources about the dynamics of scientific change? What is their added value in understanding science in general and the HGP in particular? These questions will be elaborated in three directions: on the level of knowledge (epistemology), power (politics) and the Self (ethics). On the epistemological level, genomics is often presented as a paradigm shift in the life sciences, a tremendous up-scaling of research, an "informatization" of life. Autobiographies may reveal how this shiftusually discussed in more general terms from a philosophy of science or science studies perspective -manifests itself on an individual scale, on a microepistemological level. On the political level, autobiographies may inform us about the micro-politics of scientific change. Finally, on the level of Self, autobiographies may allow us to analyze how researchers, through practices of Self, are actively engaged in constituting themselves as responsible subjects in the face of unpredictable dynamics and unforeseen dilemmas.

A Grand Hyper-Challenge represents an extraordinary, multi-disciplinary endeavor designed to catalyze transformative advances across  a domain over an extended period. This Grand Hyper-Challenge seeks to establish a foundation for experimental as well as theoretical synthetic scientist assistants, hence referred to as synthetic scientists, accelerating scientific discovery, capable of autonomous research including experimentation and arriving at novel insights. Such AI-based researchers would collaborate with human scientists to transform the pace and scale of research.

The race towards deciphering the human genome began with the Human Genome Project (HGP) which was carried out from 1990-2003. This was an international scientific endeavour undertaken to sequence the entire human genome in essence creating a map of the base pairs of DNA in the human chromosomes. Over decades new technology and joint efforts of scientists have moved the project forward, resulting in the successful deciphering of the human genome, that is, the genetic code of the human. This term paper looks at the progression of the project over decades and how it has impacted our understanding of health and disease.

Traditional conceptions of academic authorship, e.g., the seemingly self-evident assumption that an author is someone who actually writes a text, is challenged by the complexity, scale, and collaborative nature of scientific research. Authors are expected to make a substantial contribution and to assume accountability for all aspects of the work, but in practice, many individuals listed as authors fail to meet all these criteria, notably in biomedical fields. In view of this tension between norm and practice, new conceptions of authorship have emerged, reflecting the growing importance of team science. This paper assesses whether consortium authorship as an emerging practice (also known as ‘group authorship’ or ‘team authorship’) offers a viable approach. Besides practical benefits, there is a normative dimension behind this concept, as it aims to acknowledge the importance of collaboration (seeing it as more than the sum of contributions attributable to individuals), but it also raises numerous ethical questions. To address them, we opt for a case study approach, zooming in on experiences within a research consortium. Besides a literature review, we analyse the results of a deliberative workshop on consortium authorship and analyse how consortium authorship is currently handled in academic journals, notably in the biomedical field. We argue that consortium authorship works best when used in combination with individual authorship, but also notice that it challenges us to rethink the concept of academic authorship as such, for which we use Donna Haraway’s concept of sympoiesis as a starting point.

Key words

Academic authorship, consortium authorship, publication ethics, acknowledgement and reward, accountability, sympoiesis

The Nobel Prize, established in 1895 by Alfred Nobel, stands as one of the most prestigious international honors, recognizing exceptional contributions across six categories: Peace, Literature, Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Economic Sciences. This comprehensive overview explores the significance, recognition, and legacy of the Nobel Prize, highlighting its role in celebrating groundbreaking achievements that shape human progress. Nobel's vision emphasized the advancement of knowledge, peace, and societal betterment, with laureates such as Martin Luther King Jr., Marie Curie, and Bob Dylan exemplifying the transformative impact of these awards. The selection process, rigorous and confidential, ensures that only those who have made profound contributions are chosen. Beyond mere recognition, the Nobel Prize provides financial support and amplifies the laureates’ work on the global stage. Its evolving nature, reflecting modern challenges like climate change and social justice, demonstrates the Prize’s enduring relevance. The Nobel Prize continues to inspire future generations, driving innovation and fostering progress in a rapidly changing world.

The Bermuda Principles for DNA sequence data sharing are an enduring legacy of the Human Genome Project (HGP). They were adopted by the HGP at a strategy meeting in Bermuda in February of 1996 and implemented in formal policies by early 1998, mandating daily release of HGP-funded DNA sequences into the public domain. The idea of daily sharing, we argue, emanated directly from strategies for large, goal-directed molecular biology projects first tested within the ''community'' of C. elegans researchers, and were introduced and defended for the HGP by the nematode biologists John Sulston and Robert Waterston. In the C. elegans community, and subsequently in the HGP, daily sharing served the pragmatic goals of quality control and project coordination. Yet in the HGP human genome, we also argue, the Bermuda Principles addressed concerns about gene patents impeding scientific advancement, and were aspirational and flexible in implementation and justification. They endured as an archetype for how rapid data sharing could be realized and rationalized, and permitted adaptation to the needs of various scientific communities. Yet in addition to the support of Sulston and Waterston, their adoption also depended on the clout of administrators at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the UK nonprofit charity the Wellcome Trust, which together funded 90% of the HGP human sequencing effort. The other nations wishing to remain in the HGP consortium had to accommodate to the Bermuda Principles, requiring exceptions from incompatible existing or pending data access policies for publicly funded research in Germany, Japan, and France. We begin this story in 1963, with the biologist Sydney Brenner's proposal for a nematode research program at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) at the University of Cambridge. We continue through 2003, with the completion of the HGP human reference genome, The authors gratefully dedicate this article to Sir John Sulston (27 March 1942-6 March 2018), who sadly did not live to see this paper in print, but who reviewed it and contributed greatly to it. His vision for open science guided the public Human Genome Project, based on science to benefit society. He is missed.

The era of big science promises rapid growth of scientific innovations and complex problem-solving, bringing forth the practice of doing science in large-scale collaborative effort rather than single author, solitary work. In disciplines such as genomics and high-energy physics, it is not uncommon that hyperauthorship phenomenon with the amount of authors soaring high from hundredth to thousandth. The purpose of this research is to explore the collaboration dynamics and the partial alphabetical author byline in one of the primary research article within the Human Genome Project (HGP). Using coauthorship network analysis, we find that middle authors play crucial roles in facilitating collaboration among previously unconnected authors as well as contributing to genetic sequencing efforts. Future work entails network analysis of all published works by HGP to comprehensively capture collaboration dynamics among multiple research centers.

Roads towards a lingua democratica on genomics: How can metaphors guide us? Metaphors flower in all fields of science, and genetics and genomics are no exception. No sooner had the structure of DNA been established than it was described as the book of life, the holy grail of biology, the program of development, the blueprint of who we are, etcetera. The metaphors overwhelmingly expressed the idea that DNA is basic to an understanding life and that it determines the characteristics of living beings. But such views led to neglect for non-genetic causes in biology. By the time gene-centric metaphors caught attention as metaphors, they were quickly criticized as being too one-sided, deterministic and reductionist. In order to do more justice to interaction, regulation, epi-phenomena and chaos, many new metaphors appeared: the genome is a recipe, a network, a jazz orchestra, the servant of proteins. The assault on DNA's biological hegemony has even gone to metaphorical extremes in which it is a garbage bin, or a dusty attic full of old and forgotten stuff.

I n many people's minds, May 1998 marked the real start of the race to sequence the human genome. In that month, Craig Venter announced that his upstart company, Celera Genomics in Rockville, Maryland, would sequence the genome within two years. The publicly funded Human Genome Project, which had been plodding along until that point, had a competitor-and each side assembled and prepped its team.

This paper addresses the cultural impact of genomics and the Human Genome Project (HGP) on human self-understanding. Notably, it addresses the claim made by Francis Collins (director of the HGP) that the genome is the language of God and the claim made by Max Delbrück (founding father of molecular life sciences research) that Aristotle must be credited with having predicted DNA as the soul that organises bio-matter. From a continental philosophical perspective I will argue that human existence results from a dialectical interaction between two types of texts: the language of molecular biology and the language of civilisation; the language of the genome and the language of our socio-cultural, symbolic ambiance. Whereas the former ultimately builds on the alphabets of genes and nucleotides, the latter is informed by primordial texts such as the Bible and the Quran. In applied bioethics deliberations on genomics, science is easily framed as liberating and progressive, religious world-views as conservative and restrictive (Zwart 1993). This paper focusses on the broader cultural ambiance of the debate to discern how the bi-textuality of human existence is currently undergoing a transition, as not only the physiological, but also the normative dimension is being reframed in biomolecular and terabyte terms. keywords Human genomics, Human Genome Project, concept of the soul, genomics and religion, continental philosophy of science, psychoanalysis of science, dialectics of the molecular life sciences

Post-genomics allegedly allow us to become the "managers" of our own health. And yet, human individuality seems to dissolve into massive data streams. What is the fate of the human subject in the terabyte age? The Human Genome Project already resulted in personalizing and depersonalizing trends, exemplified by two types of genomes: the anonymized Human Reference Genome versus the personal genomes of genomics celebrities. This ambiguity is radicalized by post-genomics. Life becomes "obliterated": dissolved into letters and symbols (e.g. the nucleotide alphabet), but this is complemented by re-personalizing trends. As a case study, I will analyze the Snyderome, involving a prominent geneticist who closely monitored "everything" with the help of precision diagnostics, resulting in a comprehensive ("high coverage") omics portrait, highly personal and highly impersonal at the same time, captured in massive data sets, setting the stage for a digital panopticon: a molecularized "conscience", the superego of the terabyte age.

One look at the cover of A life decoded by J. Craig Venter and you know you are not looking at a run-of-the-mill scientist's biography. Venter's visage, framed not by a white lab coat but by a yellow sailing slicker, stares out at the prospective reader with the sun bursting forth behind his earlobe from a stormy sky. On the back cover are blurbs in praise, not of the book, but of J. Craig Venter. Inside, 400 pages of egocentric prose await.

Practice of Medicine is rapidly changing the health seeking behavior around the world, however, an important aspect of this field hasn't changed in India. For instance, we have not witnessed credible translation of medical training or knowledge into indigenous solutions for surgical modalities or diagnostics. Can we do something about bringing transformation in order to make larger impact on Indian society? Let us discuss the various models of how to fill that big gap: the distance between competence and excellence, and how by doing so, one could attempt to amplify the efforts through multi disciplinary patient centric approach.

Practice of Medicine is rapidly changing the health seeking behavior around the world, however, an important aspect of this field hasn't changed in India. For instance, we have not witnessed credible translation of medical training or knowledge into indigenous solutions for surgical modalities or diagnostics. Can we do something about bringing transformation in order to make larger impact on Indian society? Let us discuss the various models of how to fill that big gap: the distance between competence and excellence, and how by doing so, one could attempt to amplify the efforts through multi disciplinary patient centric approach.

The time lag between the publication of a Nobel discovery and the conferment of the prize has been rapidly increasing for all disciplines, especially for Physics. Does this mean that fundamental science is running out of groundbreaking discoveries?

Roads towards a lingua democratica on genomics: How can metaphors guide us? Metaphors flower in all fields of science, and genetics and genomics are no exception. No sooner had the structure of DNA been established than it was described as the book of life, the holy grail of biology, the program of development, the blueprint of who we are, etcetera. The metaphors overwhelmingly expressed the idea that DNA is basic to an understanding life and that it determines the characteristics of living beings. But such views led to neglect for non-genetic causes in biology. By the time gene-centric metaphors caught attention as metaphors, they were quickly criticized as being too one-sided, deterministic and reductionist. In order to do more justice to interaction, regulation, epi-phenomena and chaos, many new metaphors appeared: the genome is a recipe, a network, a jazz orchestra, the servant of proteins. The assault on DNA's biological hegemony has even gone to metaphorical extremes in which it is a garbage bin, or a dusty attic full of old and forgotten stuff.

For over eighty years the award of a Nobel Prize has been recognized as the supreme accolade in science and medicine. Until recently the nature of the decision-making process by which the final choice was made has been a matter for speculation but recently the Nobel Foundation has opened its archives for the first thirty years of the awards. This has thrown much interesting light on the factors-objective and subjective-influencing the Nobel committees.

The Human Genome Project (HGP), the name given to the scientific program to map and decode all of human genetic material, has been projected to revolutionize the conduct of biological science in the twenty-first century. For several years before its formation in 1990, a federallyfunded, systematic study of the human genome was discussed first in the scientific arena and then in the public arena.

This article examines how minimal genome research mobilizes philosophical concepts such as minimality and essentiality. Following a historical approach the article aims to uncover what function this terminology plays and which problems are raised by them. Specifically, four historical moments are examined, linked to the work of Harold J. Morowitz, Mitsuhiro Itaya, Eugene Koonin and Arcady Mushegian, and J. Craig Venter. What this survey shows is a historical shift away from historical questions about life or descriptive questions about specific organisms towards questions that explore biological possibilities: what are possible forms of minimal genomes, regardless of whether they exist in nature?

Moreover, it highlights a fundamental ambiguity at work in minimal genome research between a universality claim and a standardization claim: does a minimal genome refer to the minimal gene set for any organism whatsoever? Or does it refer rather to a gene set that will provide stable, robust and predictable behaviour, suited for biotechnological applications? Two diagnoses are proposed for this ambiguity: a philosophical diagnosis of how minimal genome research either misunderstands the ontology of biological entities or philosophically misarticulates scientific practice. Secondly, a historical diagnosis that suggests that this ambiguity is part of a broader shift towards technoscience.

Haack first explores the similarities, and the differences, between science and literature; then goes on the draw some conclusions about what kinds of rhetoric of science are potentially illuminating; and concludes by introducing a class discussion of Sinclair Lewis's ARROWSMITH.

This paper addresses the cultural and spiritual impact of genomics and the Human Genome Project. Notably, it addresses the claim made by Max Delbrück that Aristotle must be credited with having predicted DNA as the soul that organises bio-matter and the claim made by Francis Collins that the genome is the language of God. Building on the work of continental philosophers such as Hegel, Teilhard and Lacan I argue that human existence results from a dialec-tical interaction between two types of texts: the language of molecular biology and the language of civilisation; the language of the genome and the language of our socio-cultural, symbolical ambiance. Whereas the former ultimately builds on the alphabet of the nucleotides, the latter is informed by primordial texts such as the Bible and the Koran. Bioethical deliberations regarding ge-nomics and religion often focus on very specific issues such as selective abortion , artificial reproduction or paternity testing but in such debates, science is easily framed as liberating and progressive while religious world-views are seen as conservative and restrictive. This paper rather focusses on the broader cultural ambiance of the debate to assess the impact of genomics on human self-understanding. Coming to terms with the spiritual and ethical implications of human genomics requires a mutual learning dialogue between science (genomics research) and religion (notably world religions such as Islam and Christianity), to which this paper aims to contribute from an occidental perspective.

The Bermuda Principles for DNA sequence data sharing are an enduring legacy of the Human Genome Project (HGP). They were adopted by the HGP at a strategy meeting in Bermuda in February of 1996 and implemented in formal policies by early 1998, mandating daily release of HGP-funded DNA sequences into the public domain. The idea of daily sharing, we argue, emanated directly from strategies for large, goal-directed molecular biology projects first tested within the ''community'' of C. elegans researchers, and were introduced and defended for the HGP by the nematode biologists John Sulston and Robert Waterston. In the C. elegans community , and subsequently in the HGP, daily sharing served the pragmatic goals of quality control and project coordination. Yet in the HGP human genome, we also argue, the Bermuda Principles addressed concerns about gene patents impeding scientific advancement, and were aspirational and flexible in implementation and justification. They endured as an archetype for how rapid data sharing could be realized and rationalized, and permitted adaptation to the needs of various scientific communities. Yet in addition to the support of Sulston and Waterston, their adoption also depended on the clout of administrators at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the UK nonprofit charity the Wellcome Trust, which together funded 90% of the HGP human sequencing effort. The other nations wishing to remain in the HGP consortium had to accommodate to the Bermuda Principles, requiring exceptions from incompatible existing or pending data access policies for publicly funded research in Germany, Japan, and France. We begin this story in 1963, with the biologist Sydney Brenner's proposal for a nematode research program at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) at the University of Cambridge. We continue through 2003, with the completion of the HGP human reference genome,

In his Écrits as well as in his Seminars, Jacques Lacan refers to twentieth-century research fields such as ethology and linguistics to elucidate the imaginary and the symbolic as basic dimensions of experience. Against this backdrop, Lacan was especially intrigued by the experimental work of Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), a contemporary of Freud and a key precursor of twentieth-century psychology (notably behaviourism and the concept of social engineering). On various occasions, Lacan commented on Pavlov’s key discovery (the conditioned reflex) which, as Lacan phrases it, can be regarded as the instalment of a signifier and as the creation of a rudimentary symbolic ambiance. At the same time, Lacan emphasises that Pavlov’s dogs remain targets of experimental manipulation. Only researchers (speaking subjects) see their responses (saliva and gastric juice) as answers to a question. Although the laboratory acts as a scaffold for establishing conditioned stimuli and responses, it never really evolves into a linguistic ambiance. My Lacanian assessment of classical conditioning will focus respectively on: (a) the process of knowledge production; (b) the link between classical (Pavlovian) conditioning and social engineering as a utopian ideal; (c) the role of saliva and gastric juice as objects of scientific desire; and finally (d) the issue of animal suffering, notably in the form of experimental neurosis, as an unintended by-product of Pavlov’s research.

This paper addresses the cultural impact of genomics and the Human Genome Project (HGP) on human self-understanding. Notably, it addresses the claim made by Francis Collins (director of the HGP) that the genome is the language of God and the claim made by Max Delbrück (founding father of molecular life science research) that Aristotle must be credited with having predicted DNA as the soul that organises bio-matter. From a continental philosophical perspective I will argue that human existence results from a dialectical interaction between two types of texts: the language of molecular biology and the language of civilisation; the language of the genome and the language of our socio-cultural, symbolic ambiance. Whereas the former ultimately builds on the alphabets of genes and nucleotides, the latter is informed by primordial texts such as the Bible and the Quran. In applied bioethics deliberations on genomics, science is easily framed as liberating and progressive, religious world-views as conservative and restrictive. This paper focusses on the broader cultural ambiance of the debate to discern how the bi-textuality of human existence is currently undergoing a transition, as not only the physiological, but also the normative dimension is being reframed in biomolecular and terabyte terms.

On 27 th November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes, the Nobel Prizes. As described in Nobel's will, one part was dedicated to "…the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine". 1 There have been numerous 'non conclusive' discussions about many points related to this will, like: Why Nobel specifically picked up Physiology? Why Physiology and Medicine were bracketed together? Why no other field in medicine was nominated? What was the domain of Physiology in Nobel's era? … and so on. The fact is this that a Physiologist takes pride in mentioning that there is a specified prize for Physiology. It makes us think that we Physiologists are linked to a great subject that has an enormous contribution in human history. When we look at the list of the Nobel Laureates 2 we find ourselves very much at home. We know most if not all ...

This paper presents an empirical study on the frequency of discoveries and inventions that were awarded with the. More than 70 per cent of all Nobel Prizes were given to discoveries. The majority of inventions were awarded at the beginning of the twentieth century and only three inventions had a direct application for society. The emphasis on discoveries moves the Nobel Prize further away from its original intention to reward the greatest contribution to society in the preceding year. We propose to strengthen the role of inventions for the Nobel Prize, which would encourage inventors to tackle important problems, such as global warming or the gap between the first and the third worlds. 73 TA 6 (1) pp. 73-77

There is an abundance of work-related external awards in the business and corporate sectors. This study examines the impact of awards given to individuals in the business sector. Careers and signalling theory were used to initiate research in this domain with 32 interviews with winners of national work-related awards. The majority of winners were either nominated for the awards by others or encouraged to nominate by their managers, which may reflect an organisational, rather than individual, signal for distinction. Results demonstrated that all winners valued the recognition they received from their award win but in an unexpected finding, no significant career trajectory changes occurred. Award winners used their award as a signal of their excellence to distinguish themselves from others. The award gave them confidence and credibility. There was no relationship between winning an award and career success measures such as promotions or salary increases. Counterintuitive negative impacts identified by award winners are discussed.

Post-genomics allegedly allow us to become the ‘managers’ of our own health. And yet, human individuality seems to dissolve into massive data streams. What is the fate of the human subject in the terabyte age? The Human Genome Project already resulted in personalising and depersonalising trends, exemplified by two types of genomes: the anonymised Human Reference Genome versus the personal genomes of genomics celebrities. This ambiguity is radicalised by post-genomics. Life becomes ‘obliterated’: dissolved into letters and symbols (e.g. the nucleotide alphabet), but this is complemented by re-personalising trends. As a case study, I will analyse the Snyderome, involving a prominent geneticist who closely monitored ‘everything’ with the help of precision diagnostics, resulting in a comprehensive (“high coverage”) omics portrait, highly personal and highly impersonal at the same time, captured in massive data sets, setting the stage for a digital panopticon: a molecularised ‘conscience’, the superego of the terabyte age.

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is regarded by many as one of the major scientific achievements in recent science history, a large-scale endeavour that is changing the way in which biomedical research is done and expected, moreover, to yield considerable benefit for society. Thus, since the completion of the human genome sequencing effort, a debate has emerged over the question whether this effort merits to be awarded a Nobel Prize and if so, who should be the one(s) to receive it, as (according to current procedures) no more than three individuals can be selected. In this article, the HGP is taken as a case study to consider the ethical question to what extent it is still possible, in an era of big science, of large-scale consortia and global team work, to acknowledge and reward individual contributions to important breakthroughs in biomedical fields. Is it still viable to single out individuals for their decisive contributions in order to reward them in a fair and convincing way? Whereas the concept of We all try, but some succeed (Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca).

The time lag between the publication of a Nobel discovery and the conferment of the prize has been rapidly increasing for all disciplines, especially for Physics. Does this mean that fundamental science is running out of groundbreaking discoveries?