Karlin Lillingtonspeaks to three experts in the field of genetics about Craig Venter - scientist, entrepreneur, doctor and researcher with big ambition
Craig Venter's name may not be well known to the public but mention it to a scientist, doctor or medical researcher and it becomes a lightening rod for strong emotions - he is often damned and praised in a single sentence.
Venter is the flamboyant doctor and researcher who controversially lit a fire under the global project to sequence the human genome when he started a private initiative in competition with a huge publicly funded project.
Even many of his strongest detractors acknowledge this major project with its massive health and research implications could have dragged on years longer if not for Venter's intervention. His ability to think differently introduced pioneering, fast and accurate techniques for sequencing that transformed the project.
But he sparked controversy by not just introducing those techniques in the face of much initial derision but also by planning to patent the gene sequences. This more than anything else galvanised the public project, with its goal of keeping the genome fully public.
In the end, the two projects drew neck and neck, and final results were published almost at the same time in 2000. President Clinton then intervened, and announced the genome would not be patented.
The recent publication of Venter's autobiography, A Life Decoded, has reopened the discussion about genetics, research, medicine, patents, and whether some major projects with a human health impact should be publicly funded, not privately.
Below, three Irish specialists weigh up Venter's role and contribution to our knowledge of ourselves:
•Dr Aoife Lysaght, lecturer in genetics and molecular evolution, Trinity College Dublin:
I think you could sum him up by saying he's a scientific entrepreneur. He was always extraordinarily ambitious. Ambition spurred on his achievements.
Competition certainly sped up the public genome effort, though I was involved in the public project so I do see it from the other side. It's true that the private genome sequencing effort wouldn't have worked without data produced by the public effort.
There was a feeling at the time that it wasn't quite appropriate - that the human genomes shouldn't be private and commercial, because it had such potential to be of benefit to the world.
The fact that the public effort caught up with the private one and they came out in the same week meant that the genome couldn't be patented.
Venter does have this ability to go for big projects, and I do think that's important. His institute, TIGR (The Institute for Genetic Research), is also very well respected and has contributed a lot to the scientific community.
The genome is important because the very essence of a lot of medicine these days is genetic. Even a small amount of knowledge about a gene can have huge effects on the drug design process. Knowing how things work properly is important to knowing how things go wrong. Also, having a whole genetic sequence from many species allows us to understand how they evolved.
•Dr Asim Sheikh, law lecturer and barrister specialising in patents, genetics and medicine, University College Dublin:
Sequencing the human genome was an historic, groundbreaking project and with big research you need big personalities. There were also big ramifications for humankind now and in the future.
The sequencing was to be a 10-15 year public project and as data became available, it would be made public. Then Craig Venter came along and introduced the possibility of a private initiative that would be patented. His view was that without private investment, you are never going to get investment into new therapies and treatments.
There is a Constitutional background in the US that you can patent living things. But for many talking about patenting life is talking about ownership of life and that reminds us of slavery and makes us very uncomfortable.
Venter was one of those who argued that bits and pieces of the genome are not life itself; that life is certainly much greater than the genome. In some respects, that argument has some merit, and the next part of the mystery is to understand this book of life.
The patent system is there to protect an intellectual process that results in an idea. It has to be "novel" - that's a key aspect - and there are questions as to whether DNA can be considered "novel".
Also the idea has to be worthy of industrial use, and as they sequenced genes, they couldn't immediately identify processes it could be used for. So it is questionable if they could have patented the genome.
Most medicines we take come from billions in private investment. We are quick to damn the profit makers and slower to recognise what they have done. If you were to suggest an alternative public option, that would mean the public putting a similar amount in as pharma companies. I don't think you can divorce private from public.
Venter will certainly be remembered for provoking controversy, but he also brought the private/public controversy to the fore. It made us think about what the genome meant as our human heritage.
•Dr Siobhan O'Sullivan, director, Irish Council of Bioethics:
He is such a divisive character. He came across as being quite cavalier. He perfected the technique for sequencing. But the thing he'll be remembered for is the whole debacle over the public/private projects.
But he motivated the whole project. The public project was already running behind when Venter popped up and said, "We're going to do it faster" and changed the motivation for public researchers to do it far quicker and more efficiently.
And while the patent issue was huge, long before Venter came on the scene the idea of patenting bits and pieces of genes was being mentioned. When he arrived it almost became a soap opera drama between large personalities involved with the projects and the subject came to the fore.
It was really the first time people thought about how we fund science, how we view life forms, and also ourselves. He's still doing controversial things - he's working on creating the first synthetic life forms. We're talking about things that could be very beneficial and, of course, could make him billions, but also very unknown and potentially dangerous. We don't know what would happen if we released such a new life form into the environment.
Venter has forced the consideration of such things and made the public more aware of such debates. Bioethical and legal discussions tend to trail the science. We need to be slightly more forward thinking.
J Craig Venter: A Life Decoded. Penguin/Allan Lane. Price: €38.