I remember beginning one of my papers this year by describing a horse race. This was a metaphor for the struggles and races in the scientific community. The first half of this semester our class portrayed science in such a way. Now, I may be forced to change my opinion. The last part of this semester I have gotten the feeling that science works like a sport other then horse racing - more like football. It seems to be more of a team effort, with everyone working for a common goal. Our study of the Human Genome Project revealed this type of relationship to me. So, which way is better - the struggle of a one-winner race or the cooperation of collaborative forces?

The scientific community's search for an understanding of transmission spongiform enchephalopathy (TSE) is a perfect example of how I thought all science worked earlier this semester. In fact, it is from this example that I formulated most of my opinions of science. The exploration of TSE is just like a horse race. Each individual scientist is on his own team in the long run. The scientists race to have the newest information, the biggest news, or the best discovery, It is an all-out competition, every man for himself The first one to make the discovery and put everything together is the winner. In addition, he or she may win the Nobel Prize, which is the driving force for many scientists.

In this race for understanding, scientists sometimes stoop low to get ahead. Pruisner, who actually ended up winning the race and the Nobel Prize, is an excellent example. He stole ideas and data from his colleagues. Pruisner was very dishonest. However, in this type of scientific race sometimes you have to be. See what it got him the Nobel Prize.

Although I may sound somewhat critical of this "scientific race," I do think it has several strong points. It provides an excellent sense of competition. The scientists must always be going full blast. They cannot relent or relax because they will fall behind. Many discoveries are made this way because everyone fighting so hard to discover them. It is very good for science because there are many advancements.

This type of science is also good because there is personal gain involved. Each of the scientists knows that if they make the big discovery or come up with the good idea, they get the glory. They can win the Nobel Prize, and this is what drives them. There is a significant amount of personal recognition implicated.

A draw back of "scientific racing" is the guarding of secrets. It is hard to get the latest information because that information is so prized. Scientists do not want their valuable resources in the wrong hands, because it may spur someone else into victory. Needless to say, the information is not very accessible. These closely kept secrets are sometimes detrimental to society, which cannot approach them. The public is kept in the dark most of the time simply because there are just that-public. Remember, these scientists are mostly in ft for personal gain and not the good of society, even though it may seem like it. The public is not the number one priority.

I am not totally sure whether I like this system or not. It has some good points and it has some drawbacks. I do know that I like how the Human Genome Project is being handled. The Human Genome Project is a completely different approach to science. It is the football-type example I mentioned earlier. The Human Genome Project is a giant collaboration of scientists from around the world who are working for one common goal, which is basically to map out the human DNA. The project is an effort of international proportions,

I really like the system because it is based on teamwork. Each scientist is working toward a common objective. They are not fighting each other or hiding secrets from each other. Everyone knows the information that is out there, and they are working with that information. The sharing of information that occurs promotes the rapid growth of ideas. The scientists are supporting each other both with ideas and comradely.

One slight draw back I see is that there is not much room for personal gain. If a scientist makes an important discovery, he may be praised within the system, but not much outside in the world. Instead of the scientist getting the credit, it will more than likely go to the institute directing the project. With the lack of personal recognition, it seems that scientists will be somewhat less motivated. However, the pay will overcome this grievance in many cases. Regardless, the lack of personal gain might be beneficial, in a sense. Instead of focusing on what they can do for themselves, scientists are more focused on the good of society. They are working together, not for themselves, but for US.

Because the goal of the Human Genome Project is focused on the good of society, its information is very accessible to the public. Just browsing through their web site, I found all their important advancements and discoveries. In fact, one of their goals is to make tools and resources available to the public. Instead patronizing, the project encourages involvement from society.

Another important aspect of the Human Genome Project is its examination of social, ethical, and legal issues. This is very important, especially as we are able to do more with the human gene and discover more about human genetics. Because the TSE race had very little organization, this luxury was not provided. When the goals of the Human Genome Pro ect are accomplished, the research in these areas will be very beneficial. Such organization shows that they are tlunking ahead into the future.