| Implications: |
- Advances in the modeling and visualisation of molecular biology
- Reorganization of university research under the categories of computational biology and bioinformatics
- Increased university and industry collaborative research centers
- Improved dosing and efficacy of drugs for individuals; improved diagnostics and screening, leading to fewer adverse drug reactions
- Reduced research and development costs and shortened development schedules for new drugs
- Emergence of a new approach to drug discovery, where 'designer drugs' are deduced from the genetic code itself
- Emergence of new ethical (privacy, property rights) concerns about databases of individual genetic records
|
| Early Indicators: |
- Passage by Iceland in 1998 of the Health Sector Database Act, giving the DeCode exclusive rights to databases of genetic and medical information for the country’s 270,00 citizens. However, this data has been little-used because it failed the basic ethical criterion of informed consent by Icelanders.
- Consideration by other countries, including the UK, of 'biobanks' or population databases
- Issuance in 1999 by the Biomedical Information Science and Technology Initiative (BITSI) of the US National Institutes of Health of a report stating that the NIH should create between 5 and 20 National Programs of Excellence in Biomedical Computing and should develop a national computer infrastructure
- Opening of research facilities related to the State of California's new initiative, the California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research, beginning in 2005
- Choice by the Public Library of Science, a new open-access publisher of scientific and medical research, of Computational Biology to be its third journal and publication of the first issue in June 2005
|
| What to Watch: |
- New publicly and privately funded centres for biomedical computing open.
- Life science research in universities reorganizes under the banner computational biology and bioinformatics.
- Debates are waged over the merits of computer models verus clinical trials in providing evidence of toxicity or pharmacological efficacy.
- A computer of model of a cell, perhaps a liver cell, is developed.
|
| Parallels/Precedents: |
- The emergence of molecular biology as a separate field of biology
- The close association of physics and mathematics, especially in developing theoretical models
- The use of computer science to model and visualise the interaction of molecules
|
| Enablers/drivers: |
- Training of a new generation of scientists in computer science and biology
- Continued investment by governments seeking to remain competitive in scientific research, especially biomedicine
- New collaborations between the pharmaceutical industry and the biotechnology industry
|
| Leaders: |
Regions:
Institutions:
- Roche Pharmaceuticals (collaboration to produce some of the first applications from these approaches)
- Other major pharmaceutical companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson (investment in new drug development projects)
- Many smaller companies such as Gene Network Sciences, Enelos, and Rosetta Biosoftware (various specialisations in aids for drug development and clinical design)
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory [link]
- Cambridge Computational Biology Institute [link]
- IT companies including IBM [link]
- Aberystwyth University [link]
- University of Leeds [link]
- Rice University, W M Keck Centre [link]
- National Institute for Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Japan [link]
|
| Figures: |
|
| Sources: |
- Bourne, Phillip E., Steven E. Brenner, and Michael Eisen. "Plos Computational Biology: A New Community Journal." PloS Computational Biology 1, no. 1 (2005): 0001.
- Eddy, Sean R. "'Antedisciplinary' Science." PloS Computational Biology 1, no. 1 (2005): 0003-0004.
- Carmichael, Mary. "The Shape of Things to Come." Newsweek Special Edition: The Future of Medicine, Summer 2005, 40-45.
- Golan, David. "Building Better Medicines." Newsweek. Special Edition: The Future of Medicine, Summer 2005, 37-39.
- "Models That Take Drugs." The Economist, June 11 2005, Suppl. 23-24.
- Tyre, Peg. "An Rx for Kids - with warnings." Newsweek. Special Edition: The Future of Medicine, Summer 2005, 74-75.
- Underwood, Anne, and Karen Springen. "Medicine Tailored Just for You." Newsweek. Special Edition: The Future of Medicine, Summer 2005, 76-83
- Branca, Malorye. "The New New Pharmacogenomics." Bio-IT World, 9 Sept 2002. [link].
- "International Society for Computational Biology" International Society for Computational Biology [link]
- "California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research" California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research. www.qb3.org.
- "Human Genome Project" Human Genome Project [link]
- "National Center for Biotechnology Information" National Center for Biotechnology Information [link]
- Kaiser, J. "Biobanks. Population Databases Boom, from Iceland to the U.S." Science 298, no. 5596 (2002): 1158-61.
- Interview with Martha Michel, 8 May 2005.
- Interview with David Konerding, 10 June 2005.
- Nature, Focus on Computational Biology, 14 November 2002 [link]
- David A Bader, Computational Biology and High-Performance Computing, Communications of the ACM, 47, 11, 34-41, 2004 [link]
- Denis Noble, The Rise of Computational Biology, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 3, 6, 459-463, 2002
- A Levchenko, Computational Cell Biology in the Post-Genomic Era, Mol Biol Rep 28, 2, 83-89 [link]
|