| Panel Discussion |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
Nishimura:
Brown-san, please comment.
Brown:
I just want to follow up on that by saying that there isn't any natural antagonism between the approach that I've taken and the approach that Steve has taken. He makes a product that people find very useful and has been very useful in promoting scientific progress and it would be impossible for him to distribute it without getting paid for it because he has to manufacture it and take care of the all the control issues and so forth. In my environment - in the academic research environment - the only product we make is information. It doesn't cost usanything to distribute it - it's as easy for us to distribute it to a billion people as to distribute it to a hundred people. There is no incremental cost - it's a completely different kind of business model, so to speak. But we couldn't do what Steve's company is doing, which is to make a physical product that people can buy and use. So we are doing something else and I think the approaches are completely complementary and I think that's why they are coexisting very well. And the other thing I would say is that it's certainly true that a lot of companies - I think it has always been a tradition that - companies, where it's possible to publish and share information, will do so. A lot of scientific research papers traditionally have been published by companies, just giving away the knowledge and I think that's a great tradition. So I think there is less of a sort of a natural opposition there than might appear.
Nishimura:
This is developing into an interesting intellectual discussion. Are there any comments from floor? Matsubara-san, please make comment on this problem of "Openness" from your past experience.
Matsubara:
I am very much interested in the fact that two people used quite different approaches to make great scientific and technical contribution in a similar application field. In talking about their respective priorities and directions, Brown-san talked about production of information, and Fodor-san talked about creating a new application field by development of technology. I think that in order to be able to work on whatever you believe in, and to be financially independent and to do what you like, a development method that does not depend on public money has stronger power in the sense of realizing perspective quickly. At the same time there are also various limitations with this method. As previously discussed, I am also interested in the active database creation around Stanford University to gather the power of the community and to put priority on academic work. Starting from, at first glance, the same DNA array development, the two activities have already proceeded in considerably different directions. I think we can see two typical patterns of development in this field, in terms of their motive force and background. I think both are interesting experiments.
Nishimura:
I agree with you. That hit's upon one of today's big issues. Other panelists may have some commentsc Fugono-san, please.
Fugono:
It is natural there are many approaches to one problem. Vitality will be lost in a society without diversity. It is not a question of which is good or which is bad. I think it is healthy that we have both, as we have more paths... more routes. We should make society that has diversity by promoting the good points of each. All societies without competition will become corrupt. I think this situation is quite healthy in this sense.
Nishimura:
Thank you Fugono-san.
Floor:
It's a question for Mr Fodor. I would like you to comment - I was aware actually of the initiative from Affymetrix about the public access to genomic information - I would like you to comment about this initiative regarding the major sector, I would say, of the biotechnology field, with living and working on proprietary information on gene discovery. And mainly I would like to cite the example of a small company in Salt Lake City, Utah, called Myriad Genetics. I would like to have your comments on that please.
Fodor:
What I would rather do is not comment specifically about Myriad because I think you should ask them about their strategy. But I think from an overall point of view, we are entering a time, particularly with the human genome and within the biotechnology industry in the United States and the relationship with other parts of the world such as Europe when we should consider these issues.. I think that there is a distinction to be made between intellectual property of naturally occurring DNA sequences, which one simply uncovers, versus understanding a particular molecular pathway for example and discovering a compound that can actually disrupt that. The added intellectual property comes along from developing a drug for a particular molecular pathway. In the United States, we currently have some situations where companies have been allowed to patent gene information, that is, naturally occurring genetic information. On the other hand, the European Patent Office, for example, does not believe that patenting of naturally occurring sequences should be allowed. Now you start to put these two different entities, for example the United States and the European Community, on very different terms. In the United States you are not free to do research on any of the molecular components that make up humans, whereas if you go over to Europe you can. I think that there is an economic disadvantage that you start to build between these different strategies around the globe, and that is a very important point. If we start to get imbalances across the world in terms of "I can do this research in this part of the world but I can't do it another part of the world," this will have profound economic consequences. In addition, the competition effects that occur, for example like in a global test for mutations in the breast cancer genes: in order to bring the best test to the public you want to have a competitive situation set up so that different companies, or different techniques can compete. If you have a ban, where a company or a set of individuals cannot actually work on the technology required to create a better test, you set up an imbalance that is not justified. It also sets up a situation where in many cases the research will simply not be done. I don't think that's the intent. I think that there is a real place for intellectual property when you create value around different tests, but for naturally occurring sequences that have just been handed down to us from the last 5 billion years of evolution - I think we all have a right to that, and that is the point.
Nishimurra:
It is usual for a panel discussion that active discussion occurs near to closing. However there is very important event to follow, the Award Ceremony, so I want to invite just one more short question from the floor.
Floor:
Regarding Brown-san's comments on the opening up of information on the human genome, I strongly hope that this data is made accessible and a good path is taken. I am not a specialist of world environment or humanity and so I have no idea what will happen in the future. It is said that the world environment is being destroyed, but that may not happen. It is said that many bad things will happen if human genes are manipulated, but Japanese do not like Genetically Modified products. I think diversity is a vital condition, so in order to drive research activity and to maintain diversity all research should be opened.
Nishimura:
I'll take that to be a comment so no answer is needed. Is that OK?
The time is almost up. After this panel, the stage has to be changed for the next event - the Award Ceremony - so I would like to close the Panel Discussion. I am not sure how well the discussions meshed together, however I myself have been able to listen to many interesting comments. Thank you very much.
Editor's note
A Panel Discussion with the three application field Awardees is something I wanted to do following the 2001 Takeda Award Forum. It has been realized this year, thanks to Nishimura-san acting as chairperson.
I think the usual panel discussion format has some common theme between panelists, and discussion is constructed around that common theme. In this panel discussion, Nishimura-san explained concept of The Takeda Foundation in first part, and it was used as a common theme. In one sense it was pushy of us to ask the awardees to debate around our theme.
As a result I think I have been able to listen to many thoughts of the Awardees as they debated the concept of the Foundation. This discussion may be not enough, but I very much appreciated have so many good points to help us develop the concept of the Foundation.
I am afraid this panel itself is not planned for people in the audience. If you are able to think of it more as a means of communication between different communities, then I am more than happy. Thank you very much. (M. Akagi)
|
|
|
