Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Understanding Dayhoff's databasing and collection efforts requires
understanding of the computational-theoretical practices in which they
were embedded. Although Dayhoff's database was not distributed elec-
tronically (it was available on magnetic tape from 1972, but only a
handful of tapes were sold
25
), it was stored in computer-readable form,
and all the data processing was performed digitally. The
Atlas
was
something fundamentally new because it was not just a collection, but
provided a system and a means for ordering, classifying, and investigat-
ing the living world without doing bench-top experiments. Producing
PAMs, defi ning superfamilies, and generating phylogenetic trees from
the sequences were integral parts of the process of producing the
Atlas
.
These activities, which were woven into the production and structure of
the
Atlas
itself, made it more than a means of collecting and redistribut-
ing data; rather, it was a way of organizing, systematizing, and creating
biological knowledge.
Bruno J. Strasser argues that Dayhoff's collection efforts (much like
botanical gardens of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) relied on
creating a “network of exchange” or a “Maussian system of gift and
counter-gift,” but that this system confl icted with “ideas about credit,
authorship, and the property of knowledge in the experimental sci-
ences.”
26
In particular, Dayhoff's collection and use of other researchers'
experimental work (some of it unpublished) confl icted with the domi-
nant norms in biochemistry and molecular biology, in which one's own
work was one's own property (particularly if it was unpublished). This
confl ict manifested itself in several ways. First, it meant that research-
ers were, by and large, uncooperative—experimenters were reluctant
to share their unpublished sequences with the NBRF. Second, Dayhoff
had trouble receiving scientifi c credit for her work. John T. Edsall com-
mented on Dayhoff's prospects for election to the American Society of
Biological Chemists:
Personally I believe you are the kind of person who should be-
come a member of the American Society of Biological Chem-
ists . . . but knowing the general policies that guide the work
of the Membership Committee I must add that I can not feel
at all sure about your prospects for election. Election is almost
invariably based on the research contributions of the candidate
in the fi eld of biochemistry, and the nomination papers must
include . . . recent work published by the candidate, to demon-
strate that he or she has done research which is clearly his own.
