US/UK statement on genome data prompts debate on 'free access'
DECLAN BUTLER
The genomics company Celera is about to release the terms of access to its human genome data. Many will be reassured. But concerns remain.
Celera Genomics has promised to make the terms of access to its human genome sequence database publicly available within the next few days. The statement ends a week of fierce public and political debate over who should benefit from the use of genetic information.
A Celera spokesman says it will not place any constraints on the way the data is used by academic researchers, apart from not allowing it to be redistributed. Also it will not be demanding any 'reach through' rights ? a response to accusations that it aimed to exert excessive control over the work of other researchers based on its data.
Roller coaster: Celera's shares have fallen sharply since last week's statement by Clinton and Blair.
This move comes hard on the heels of a joint statement by US President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, applauding "the decision by scientists working on the Human Genome Project to release raw fundamental information about the human DNA sequence and its variants rapidly into the public domain" and recommending other scientists around the world to adopt the same policy.
Their implicit target was Craig Venter's Celera Genomics. Paul Gilman, Celera's director of policy planning, says that typical licence agreements will be made available later this week. The release is likely to end months of speculation over terms of access.
"There are, unquestionably, a variety of significant issues in our contract negotiations," says a senior official at one large US university that has been negotiating a licence with Celera. "However, these issues are being discussed in detail with Celera, and they are clearly striving to identify terms that will allow academic investigators to have access to their sequence information, while also protecting their own interests. I think our differences could soon be ironed out."
Venter: ending speculation.
Gilman says anyone will be able to access Celera's suite of data, software tools, annotation, and supercomputing power through annual subscriptions ranging from $5000 to $20,000, depending on whether they are in not-for-profit or commercial organizations.
Non-subscribers will be able to access the basic consensus sequence at Celera's website or on a DVD disc "without restriction", he says. "They can publish data and file for intellectual property protection on their discoveries. We will not seek any 'reach through' shared royalties or fees on any discoveries they make." He adds that both subscribers and non-subscribers will be allowed to use the data to develop chips and claim intellectual property on it ? "except for our competitors using it in competition with us".
At the same time, Gilman admits that Celera will only be able to achieve a full sequence of the human genome by this summer if it takes much of its data from the public human genome project, and that anyone could wait just a few months and have free use of an equivalent amount of data assembled single-handedly by the public project. People will go to Celera not for raw data but for sophisticated computing tools, he argues.
The moves have been welcomed as important concessions by concerned scientists. But several still contest the fact that scientists will not be able to redistribute the data. This is important for annotation, says one, when researchers annotate a sequence that is then made available to others.
Gilman says Celera "would not want the public project to take our data and place it in GenBank for other commercial competitors to reuse it". But one leading genome scientist says, "People should be free to circulate complete copies of the database, with additions of their own, if they want to; that makes for healthy bioinformatics. If they are not allowed to do this, the data is not being released according to GenBank standards."
Gilman dismisses this. He claims that the public project rejected an offer by Celera to put the data in GenBank, provided that those accessing it accepted that any use of the data would be freely accessible and not used to compete with Celera. "They said the terms of their international agreements are such that they can put no such limitation on the data."
The public project has been studying a similar 'click-wrap' contract, but this time intended to ensure that all those taking data ? including Celera ? agree to keep it open to all other potential users.
One burning question is whether leading scientific journals will agree to publish Celera's human genome, or whether they will prefer to publish that of the public project. Flood Bloom, for example, editor in chief of Science , is expected to publish a statement on this in tomorrow's issue of his journal.
At present, Science's policy is that "archival data sets (such as sequence and structural data) must be deposited with the appropriate data bank and the identifier code should be sent to Science for inclusion in the published manuscript," adding that the coordinates of this deposition "must be released at the time of publication".
Nature's policy is to require sequence data to be deposited in GenBank or a database of equivalent unrestricted accessibility, with an accession reference included in the publication. "Clearly we need to keep abreast of the changing landscape of databases, and the increasing involvement of private interests," says Philip Campbell, the editor of Nature. "It would be absurd to be fundamentally opposed to private database ownership, but the confidence of researchers and the public's stake in the content of the human genome are both of paramount concern." (See page 317.)
But some researchers are concerned that Science's policy does not explicitly require open access to data. Bloom told Nature that the magazine "will continue to advocate free access to nucleotide sequence data. Public databases are facing a challenge from the clash between the needs of two cultures ? academia and industry. We at Science urge open, constructive dialogue between all parties so that unrestricted access to information can be assured, while still allowing enough protections that the biotechnology industry can flourish."
nature.com
Celera all the way baby. Venter is the Michael Dell of the medical profession. Except that he has a much weaker opponent in the government that Dell had with Compaq. |
