Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
just speeding up, but rather making speed and effi ciency virtues of bio-
logical work.
Biological data are valuable—they can be shared, traded, exchanged,
and even bought and sold under appropriate circumstances. 1 They are
a form of capital for performing biological work. Before the Human
Genome Project began, Walter Gilbert quipped that genome sequencing
would not be science, but production. But biology has become produc-
tion. A large proportion of contemporary biology (particularly genom-
ics) turns on the production of a product—namely, data. The machines
of this production are computers. The data orientation of contempo-
rary biology should also be understood as an orientation toward pro-
ductivity. Data have generated new modes of value in biological work.
Gilbert no doubt meant to denigrate work on the human genome as
mere production—mindless, uncreative activity that stood in contrast
to the work of proper science. But the pejorative connotation now rings
hollow—successful production requires high technology, intricate man-
agement, diffi cult problem solving. It is the products of these processes
that will comprise the raw material in the manufacturing of new drugs
and new medical treatments. Doing “good” work in bioinformatics is
now doing productive work—that is, work that contributes to the rapid
and effective creation and organization of data.
The link between space and the value of different kinds of biologi-
cal work was already visible in the HGP. A signifi cant part of the de-
bate about the project centered on whether to distribute resources for
sequencing widely or to focus on a few large, centralized genome se-
quencing centers. Many feared that the HGP would compete with, and
ultimately reduce resources for, the type of small-scale biology that had
given rise to the most important discoveries. 2 At the heart of concerns
over the centralized approach was the suspicion that the HGP did not
really amount to science. It was feared that a “technological” focus
would have a pronounced infl uence on the future direction of biological
work, teaching young biologists techniques, but not creativity. 3 These
debates were simultaneously a contest over the organization of biology
in space and the value of certain kinds of biological work. In particular,
what was in question was the value of the “technological” work of us-
ing, producing, storing, managing, and sharing data.
In the i rst part of this chapter, I describe a division in bioinfor-
matics between “producers” and “consumers” of data. Production and
consumption form a cycle, both parts of which are crucial for the gen-
eration of biological knowledge, but data producers are relegated to a
lower status. I show how these divisions of labor are inscribed in the
Search WWH ::




Custom Search