Quote

Anybody that thought the genome was going to directly provide drugs was a fool. Biological networks are not simple, and making drugs to affect them won't be simple.

Even if we never cure a single disease, the Human Genome Project and other ventures will have been worth it.

Billions of dollars have been put into genetic research.

No one really has the guts to say it, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we?

Gene therapy technology is much like computing technology. We had to build the super computer which cost $8 million in 1960. Now everyone has technologies that work predictably and at a cost the average person can afford.

I agree, the world would be a better place if doctors were less enthusiastic about adopting very new drugs.

A lot of medicines are not there to cure diseases. That's fine - drugs that keep people alive who wouldn't otherwise be alive are useful. What I object to is the drug companies' advertising, which you see everywhere in the U.S., which claims that they are curing diseases when they're not.

If genetic research doesn't seemed to have lived up to its therapeutic promise, it's because sequencing is just too slow and expensive.

There's massive government initiatives going around the world, and you see that there's a real enthusiasm for genetics.

Right now people are interested in genetic engineering to help the human race. That's a noble cause, and that's where we should be heading. But once we get past that - once we understand what genetic diseases we can deal with - when we start thinking about the future, there's an opportunity to create some new life-forms.