Stifling technological innovation?
Reuters Health
September 23, 2002
Millionaires Lining Up to Buy Personal Gene Maps
By Richard Woodman
A service to map a person's entire genetic code is being offered by
America's genome entrepreneur Craig Venter, according to the Sunday Times.
The newspaper said that for 400,000 (US$621,500), a person would get details
of their entire genetic code within 1 week.
Venter is said to have already signed up several millionaires, though he has
declined to name them.
According to the report, 25 million ($38.9 million) will be spent on the new
facility, which will offer the service starting later this year.
But other researchers, already upset by Venter's commercial approach to the
Human Genome Project, are skeptical.
Dr. Tim Hubbard, head of human genome analysis at the Sanger Institute in
Cambridge, one of the laboratories involved in the Human Genome Project,
said knowing someone's genome was not the same as understanding it.
"We know very little about the link between differences in genes and ill
health. Until we do, mapping individual genomes will be like the Russians
sending tourists into space. It is fun for those who can afford it, but it
is just a good gimmick."
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Living/reuters20020923_392.html
Comment: A frequent criticism of universal health care programs is that
they stifle technological innovations. Research and development costs, under
a publicly funded system, would be recovered, along with a fair profit, only
if the technological advances and new pharmaceutical products provided value
for the health care dollar.
But many innovations today such as spiral CT scans used as "virtual physical
examinations" or the development of high-priced copy-cat drugs are not
providing value considering their costs. In fact, the impact of these new
innovations may be detrimental and even more costly, producing a negative
value. Craig Venter's abuse of the Human Genome Project, partly funded
directly and indirectly with public dollars, is a terrible waste of
resources that could be put to much better use.
More investment in research on the human genome is needed. But the mission
of that research must be for the public good rather than primarily as a
means to divert large amounts of health care dollars to passive investors.
At our current health care spending of over $1.5 trillion, more than enough
funds would be available to support a robust research program. But let's do
it through the National Institutes of Health. And then let's demand that our
public investment is used for the public good. Private firms can prosper by
producing technological and pharmaceutical products, but they should prosper
only when they provide adequate health care value.