BioSocieties

pp 1–20 | Cite as

‘Big data’ or ‘big knowledge’? Brazilian genomics and the process of academic marketization

Original Article

Abstract

‘Biocapital’, ‘biovalue’ and ‘bioeconomics’ are examples of terms formulated to interpret the commercial exploration of genomics science. Although highlighting important aspects, these terms tend to suggest the triumph of the market logic, which would have tamed all other logics. In this paper, it is argued that national and global markets obviously draw on economic rationales but can also be shaped by other rationales such as the academic logic. I analyse the genomics complex (formed by the combination between genomics inquiry, DNA sequencing and bioinformatics) in Brazil. A process of academic marketization is identified, four manifestations of which are analysed. First, academic interests have played a major role in the definition of themes to be investigated in Brazil at the expense of companies’ interests. Second, academics have prioritized human health studies at the expense of agrarian studies. Third, academic demands have expanded the importation of DNA sequencing devices to Brazil. Fourth, these demands have conducted Brazil towards an increasing and subaltern involvement in the global market of sequencing services. Markets are surely shaped by actors wishing to maximize profits. At times, however, they can also be modified by actors decisively moved by academic goals such as scientific prestige or access to research tools. A crucial challenge is that access to hight-throughput technologies (big data) does not necessarily lead to the formulation of theories of considerable scientific and political import (big knowledge).

Keywords

big data genomics bioinformatics Brazil genetic companies globalization 

References

  1. Araújo, N.D. d., Farias, R. P. d. et al. (2008) A era da bioinformática: seu potencial e suas implicações para as ciências da saúde. Estudos em Biologia 30(70/71/72): 143–148.Google Scholar
  2. Arbix, G. and Consoni, F. (2011) Inovar para transformar a universidade brasileira. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 26(77): 205–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bains, W. (1996) Company strategies for using bioinformatics. Trends in Biotechnology 14(8): 312–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayat, A. (2002) Science, medicine, and the future: bioinformatics. BMJ 324: 1018–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bicudo, E. (2009) Produção de medicamentos e território brasileiro: por uma concepção horizontal do desenvolvimento. In: A. Viana, N. Ibañes and P. Elias (eds.) Território, saúde e desenvolvimento. São Paulo, Hucitec: 151–190.Google Scholar
  6. Bicudo, E. (2014) Pharmaceutical research, democracy and conspiracy: international clinical trials in local medical institutions. London: Gower/Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Bicudo, E. (2016) Genomics politics through space and time: the case of bioinformatics in Brazil. Public Health Genomics 19(2): 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castro, F.D. (2009) Uma década de bioinformática. Agência Fapesp. Available at: http://agencia.fapesp.br/uma_decada_de_bioinformatica/10344/.
  9. Chang, J. and Zhu, X. (2010) Bioinformatics databases: intellectual property protection strategy. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 15: 447–454.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, C., Huang, H., et al. (2011) Protein bioinformatics databases and resources. Methods in Molecular Biology 694: 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chow, M. and Fernandez, D. (2003) Intellectual property strategy in bioinformatics. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 8: 130–137.Google Scholar
  12. ComCiência (2003) Concentração da bioinformática decorre do Genoma. ComCiência. Available at: http://www.comciencia.br/reportagens/bioinformatica/bio07.
  13. Conselho de Informações sobre Biotecnologia (2004) Bioinformática sai das academias científicas e vai para os laboratórios. Biotech 7: 1–4.Google Scholar
  14. Cordeiro, H. (1980) A indústria da saúde no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Graal.Google Scholar
  15. Dal Poz, M.E.S. (2000) Da dupla hélice à tripla hélice: o projeto genoma xylella. Master’s Degree dissertation. University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, SP.Google Scholar
  16. Dal Poz, M.E.S. (2006) Redes de inovação em biotecnologia: genômica e direitos de propriedade intelectual. PhD thesis. University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, SP.Google Scholar
  17. Dávila, A.M.R., Steindel, M., et al. (2004) Tropical diseases, pathogens, and vectors biodiversity in developing countries: need for development of genomics and bioinformatics approaches. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1026: 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dias, E.L. (2006) Redes de pesquisa em genômica no Brasil: políticas públicas e estratégias privadas frente a programas de sequenciamento genético. Master’s Degree dissertation, University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, SP.Google Scholar
  19. Edmonds, A. (2009) Learning to love yourself: esthetics, health, and therapeutics in Brazilian plastic surgery. Ethnos 74(4): 465–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edmonds, A. (2011) “Almost invisible scars”: medical tourism to Brazil. Signs 36(2): 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faulkner, A. (2009) Medical technology into healthcare and society: a sociology of devices, innovation and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faulkner, A. (forthcoming) Bioinformatics imaginaries in the engine-room of genomic health policy: integration and heterogeneity in India and the UK. Science & Technology Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Fiocruz (2011) Edital Capes Pró-Equipamentos aprova projetos da Fiocruz. Arquivo de Notícias Fiocruz. Online note. Available at: http://www.fiocruz.br/ioc/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=1271&sid=32&tpl=printerview.
  24. Folha de São Paulo (2002) Cientistas da Unicamp montam empresa nacional de bioinformática. Folha de São Paulo. Available at: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u6454.shtml.
  25. Foucault, M. (1985) The history of sexuality, v. 1. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  26. Freire, D. (2014) Cientistas reconstroem base molecular da doença que ataca plantações de cacau. Agência Fapesp. Available at: http://agencia.fapesp.br/cientistas_reconstroem_base_molecular_de_doenca_que_ataca_plantacoes_de_cacau/20185/
  27. Gadelha, C.A.G. (1990) Determinantes econômicos e tecnológicos da produção de fármacos no Brasil: o caso dos antibióticos. Brasilia: Centro de Estudos em Política Científica e Tecnológica.Google Scholar
  28. Garcia, S. (2014) Sobre os obstáculos sociais ao desenvolvimento histórico da razão. Scientiae Studia 12(4): 751–766.Google Scholar
  29. Giovanni, G. (1980) A questão dos remédios no Brasil: produção e consumo. Sao Paulo: Polis.Google Scholar
  30. Gopalan, R. (2009) Bioinformatics: scope of intellectual property protection. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 14: 46–51.Google Scholar
  31. Habermas, J. (1996) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hagen, J.B. (2000) The origins of bioinformatics. Nature Reviews Genetics 1: 231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harvey, M. and McMeekin, A. (2005) Brazilian genomics and bioinformatics: instituting new innovation pathways in a global context. Economy & Society 34(4): 634–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harvey, M. and McMeekin, A. (2007) Public or private economies of knowledge: turbulence in the biological sciences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harvey, M. and McMeekin, A. (2010) Public or private economies of knowledge: the economics of diffusion and appropriation of bioinformatics tools. International Journal of the Commons 4(1): 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Helmreich, S. (2008) Species of biocapital. Science as Culture 17(4): 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hood, L. (1990) No: and anyway, the HGP isn’t ‘big science’. The Scientist. Available at: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/11452/title/No–And-Anyway–The-HGP-Isn-t–Big-Science-/
  38. Howard, K. (2000) The bioinformatics gold rush. Scientific American 287(5461): 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hughes, S. (2011) Genentech: the beginnings of biotech. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. IPEA (2012) A década inclusiva (20012011): desigualdade, pobreza e políticas de renda. Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA).Google Scholar
  41. Lee, H.C., Lai, K., et al. (2011) Bioinformatics tools and databases for analysis of next-generation sequence data. Briefings in Functional Genomics 11(1): 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mackenzie, A. (2003) Bringing sequences to life: how bioinformatics corporealizes sequence data. New Genetics and Society 22(3): 315-332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marques, A.C.H. and Cepêda, V.A. (2012) Um perfil sobre a expansão do ensino superior recente no Brasil: aspectos democráticos e inclusivos. Perspectivas 42(jul/dez): 161–192.Google Scholar
  44. McMeekin, A., Harvey, M., et al. (2004) Emergent bioinformatics and newly distributed innovation processes. In: M. McKelvey, A. Rickne and J. Laage-Hellman (eds) The economic dynamics of modern biotechnology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  45. Merton, R.K. (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paula, M.C.d.S. (1991) Oportunidades e entraves ao desenvolvimento tecnológico no Brasil: as experiências da indústria aeronáutica e farmacêutica. PhD thesis, University of Sao Paulo (USP), Sao Paulo, SP.Google Scholar
  47. Pereira, M.A.C. (2002) Perfil da indústria farmacêutica do Rio Grande do Sul. Master’s Degree dissertation, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS.Google Scholar
  48. Petryna, A. (2009) When experiments travel: clinical trials and the global search for human subjects. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Polanyi, K. (1944) The great transformation. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.Google Scholar
  50. Prado Júnior, C. (1998) História econômica do Brasil. Sao Paulo: Brasiliense.Google Scholar
  51. Rabinow, P. (1992) Artificiality and enlightenment: from sociobiology to biosociality. In: J. Crary and S. Kwinter (eds) Incorporations. New York, Zone: 234–252.Google Scholar
  52. Rajan, K.S. (2003) Genomics capital: public cultures and market logics of corporate biotechnology. Science as Culture 12(1): 87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rajan, K.S. (2006) Biocapital: the constitution of postgenomic life. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rose, N. (2007) The politics of life itself: biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Salter, B., Zhou, Y., et al. (2016) Bioinformatics and the politics of innovation in the life sciences: science and the state in the United Kingdom, China, and India. Science, Technology & Human Values 41(5): 793–826.Google Scholar
  56. Santos, M. (2000) La nature de l’espace: technique et temps, raison et émotion. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  57. Schumpeter, J. (1954) Capitalisme, socialisme et démocratie. Paris, Payot.Google Scholar
  58. Shapin, S. (2008) The scientific life: a moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Simpson, A.J.G. and Perez, J.F. (1998) ONSA, the São Paulo virtual genomics institute. Nature Biotechnology 16: 795–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stein, L.D. (2010) The case for cloud computing in genome informatics. Genome Biology 11(207): 1–7.Google Scholar
  61. Suárez-Díaz, E. (2010) Making room for new faces: evolution, genomics and the growth of bioinformatics. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 32(1): 65–89.Google Scholar
  62. Sung, W.-C. (2010) Chinese DNA: genomics and bionations. In: A. Ong and N. N. Chen (eds) Asian biotech: ethics and communities of fate. Durham, Duke University Press: 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thacker, E. (2005) The global genome: biotechnology, politics, and culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Waldby, C. (2002) Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health 6(3): 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zawati, M.n.H., Borry, P., et al. (2011) Closure of population biobanks and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. Human Genetics 130: 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political EconomyKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of Sao PauloSao PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Brazilian Centre of Analysis and Planning (Cebrap)Sao PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations