The Paradox of the Phage Group: Essay Review

Creager, Angela N. H.

doi:10.1007/s10739-010-9226-8

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second event involving Watson, data sharing, and the worm took place at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) on Long Island. CSHL had been home to Max Delbrück's phage group after the Second World War (Summers 1993;Creager 2009Creager , 2010, and in the late 1980s played an integral role in the origins of the HGP. The laboratory had just hosted the 1986 Molecular Biology of Homo sapiens symposium, at which Walter Gilbert of Harvard famously slapped a $3 billion anticipated price tag on the human genome sequence, an audacious goal at a cost that afflicted nearly all in attendance with sticker shock (Cook-Deegan 1994, pp.…”

Section: Mapping the Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Bermuda Triangle: The Pragmatics, Policies, and Principles for Data Sharing in the History of the Human Genome Project

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Mapping the Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Bermuda Triangle: The Pragmatics, Policies, and Principles for Data Sharing in the History of the Human Genome Project

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, there are examples of fields that were split to several subfields before becoming a unified whole such as the case of terrorism studies that were dispersed before this research area became a cohesive one (Gordon 2004). Another evolutionary change may occur when a field that existed for many years was absorbed by a larger research field because of lack of researchers' commitment to the field (Creager 2010;Mullins 1972). Overall, disciplines exhibit dynamics from fragmentation to unification as time and necessities dictate (Balietti et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of data science and big data research: A bibliometric analysis

Raban

Gordon

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study the evolution of Big Data (BD) and Data Science (DS) literatures and the relationship between the two are analyzed by bibliometric indicators that help establish the course taken by publications on these research areas before and after forming concepts. We observe a surge in BD publications along a gradual increase in DS publications. Interestingly, a new publications course emerges combining the BD and DS concepts. We evaluate the three literature streams using various bibliometric indicators including research areas and their origin, central journals, the countries producing and funding research and startup organizations, citation dynamics, dispersion and author commitment. We find that BD and DS have differing academic origin and different leading publications. Of the two terms, BD is more salient, possibly catalyzed by the strong acceptance of the pre-coordinated term by the research community, intensive citation activity, and also, we observe, by generous funding from Chinese sources. Overall, DS literature serves as a theory-base for BD publications.

show abstract

“…Among molecular biologists, Max Delbru¨ck was famously celebrated in this fashion (Cairns et al, 1966(Cairns et al, /2007. As historians and biologists have noted, this festschrift was not neutral, instead it legitimated the place and priority of the ''informational school'' in molecular biology (Abir-Am, 1987, 1999Creager, 2010). For Abir-Am, these public commemoration are driven by three kinds of social pretexts: a disciplinary pretext aimed at articulating the public imagery of that discipline, an institutional pretext aimed at establishing organizational support within a field, and a genealogical pretext aimed creating a link to a prominent ancestor in order to legitimate claims of that ancestor's descendents to influence and authority (Abir-Am, 1999, p. 326).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reinventing Richard Goldschmidt: Reputation, Memory, and Biography

Dietrich

2011

J Hist Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Richard Goldschmidt was one of the most controversial biologists of the mid-twentieth century. Rather than fade from view, Goldschmidt's work and reputation has persisted in the biological community long after he has. Goldschmidt's longevity is due in large part to how he was represented by Stephen J. Gould. When viewed from the perspective of the biographer, Gould's revival of Goldschmidt as an evolutionary heretic in the 1970s and 1980s represents a selective reinvention of Goldschmidt that provides a contrast to other kinds of biographical commemorations by scientists.

show abstract

The Paradox of the Phage Group: Essay Review

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

The Bermuda Triangle: The Pragmatics, Policies, and Principles for Data Sharing in the History of the Human Genome Project

The Bermuda Triangle: The Pragmatics, Policies, and Principles for Data Sharing in the History of the Human Genome Project

The evolution of data science and big data research: A bibliometric analysis

Reinventing Richard Goldschmidt: Reputation, Memory, and Biography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About