tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post7503215142282182834..comments2023-11-03T08:02:25.369-04:00Comments on AmericanScience: A Team Blog: -Ome Sweet -OmeDavid Roth Singermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12841041983824755867noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-65970275216572502892013-04-04T17:57:06.743-04:002013-04-04T17:57:06.743-04:00It seems chemomics would be the next progression i...It seems chemomics would be the next progression in pharmaceuticals. People are looking for a fusion of medical and natural science and this would help to deliver it.Todd Isnerhttp://www.seidlerchem.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-39548831063427793822013-03-18T14:13:31.280-04:002013-03-18T14:13:31.280-04:00Do you think that there's more to be gained by...Do you think that there's more to be gained by reflecting on the metaphorical logic of the "materials genome project"?<br /><br />Like evolutionary computation, the MGP seems to fall into a category of double-reverse metaphor.<br /><br />In the case of evolutionary computing: DNA is like information --> DNA is information --> hey, since DNA is information, how we can use it to improve our information technology?<br /><br />In the case of the materials genome project: genes correlate with material sections of DNA --> genes are DNA, and we can map both at the same time --> hey, since can we mapped our genome, can we map the relationships among other important materials? (Or something like that.)<br /><br />Or perhaps, as you suggest, the materials genome project is better understood as an effort to bring together independent initiatives like nanotech and the HGP into a kind of interdisciplinary supergroup. Call it the Traveling Wilburys of technology?Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18194354174479536249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-52403265835449083642013-03-18T13:50:13.064-04:002013-03-18T13:50:13.064-04:00Thanks, Nathaniel.
I don't know the essay (I ...Thanks, Nathaniel.<br /><br />I don't know the essay (I should have noticed it cited on the "Omics" wikipedia page!) - I'll certainly check it out. He's square in the middle of a number of the trends I mentioned above: apart from his advocacy of the "microbiome" concept, he was an important figure in the early stages of life sciences computing (DENDRAL), and was part of the tangled and interesting world of federally funded interdisciplinary research at Stanford. Joe November wrote about Lederberg and DENDRAL in his 2012 _Biomedical Computing_, and Carsten Reinhardt also discusses Lederberg in his 2006 book on physical instruments and methods in chemistry.<br /><br />I absolutely agree that there's "social stuff" (money, a symbolic currency of credibility and prestige, etc.) behind trendy scientific labels, and there are no doubt some general processes that we can trace through, to pick a few examples, the "biophysics bubble" (as Rasmussen put it), molecular biology, molecular everything, neuro-everything, and "translational medicine" (which implicates public and private interests in especially interesting ways, I think). Scientists are people, embedded in institutions, pursuing interests (financial and otherwise), and we'd be crazy to forget it. I suspect that once can follow the -omics money back to some familiar characters - academic medical centers, biotech VC, pharmaceutical firms - following the HGP blueprint (the "success" of the HGP, and how different parties have defined it, is another very important question).<br /><br />Still, I'm pretty committed to the belief that there are intellectual conditions and consequences of the particular terms in which they choose to pursue these interests. What makes "-omics" (and not some other term) the current trend? Surely the HGP has a lot to do with it, but there seems to be a lot more conceptual baggage carried over from genomics than there was, for example, with the "Manhattan Project for X, Y, and Z" of the cold war era.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18194354174479536249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-69635954392174354722013-03-18T10:42:54.444-04:002013-03-18T10:42:54.444-04:00People here might be interested in my article from...People here might be interested in my article from the "Gigascience" journal: <a href="http://www.gigasciencejournal.com/content/1/1/6" rel="nofollow"> Badomics words and the power and peril of the ome-meme </a>.<br /><br />I have also collected some <a href="http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/p/my-writings-on-badomics-words.html" rel="nofollow"> additional writings on the topic of Badomics words here </a>.Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-50873928777384552942013-03-18T10:23:24.607-04:002013-03-18T10:23:24.607-04:00I noted this briefly in my blog post but the Obama...I noted this briefly in my blog post but the Obama administration launched a "materials genome project" last year: http://materialsinnovation.tms.org/genome.aspx<br /><br />It draws on concepts from the HGP, of course, as well as the national nanotech initiative -- all done with the intent to speed up and foster more "innovation." A nice confluence of trendy ideas and recent "big tech" initiatives.Patrick McCrayhttp://www.patrickmccray.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-71433772275907094122013-03-18T09:49:41.517-04:002013-03-18T09:49:41.517-04:00Nice analysis. Two comments:
-- Do you know Josh L...Nice analysis. Two comments:<br />-- Do you know Josh Lederberg's essay, "'Ome Sweet 'Omics: A Genealogical Treasury of Words." The Scientist 15, no. 7 (2001)?<br />-- You might historicize this further by looking at the trends in trendy science disciplinary labels, from "biology" to "molecular biology" through to the whateverome. Your essay suggests you think these are more than merely fads. I'd say, somewhat cynically, that if that's true, there is a quest for power (money, influence) behind it. Can you tease out the power relationships in the omics fad?<br />Nathanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09163197663539713925noreply@blogger.com