In article <9206261901.AA19444 at rna.cshl.org> roberts at cshl.org (Dr. Richard Roberts at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) writes:
>> NCBI in trouble
>>David Lipman and the NCBI are under attack from Congressman Natcher's
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Appropriations Sub-committee.
Depends on your point-of-view: the questions being raised give *you*
indigestion, therefore NCBI is "under attack."
> It is being argued that they should stop
>producing Entrez, BLAST and other software products for distribution to
>the scientific community, because they compete unfairly with commercial
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>enterprises that do the same thing.
You might say that any large, publically funded body that gives away
software worth 1,000's is not competing at all.....and possibly this
is just the sore point: not competing. It also raises other questions:
such as who is being served by public funds, why, for how long, and
whether into petpetuity and when it will be periodically reviewed.
i> As a result there is a move to delete
>as much as 50% of their funding. This would wreck NCBI and cause the rest
>of us to be deprived of the resources currently being provided by NCBI.
Free resources?
> I
>strongly oppose this move since I believe that companies actually benefit
>from the free software and services provided by NCBI.
I'll treat this remark as believable if (1) you identify yourself as
a used-to-be private SW developer or (2) you can claim to know this as
a fact actually relayed to you privately by the Principals of several
mol.bio SW companies.
> A company would need
>to be very insecure to find the existence of NCBI threatening.
Think of exactly that remark and phrasing being applied to you. I don't
know you or your work...but I'm looking at the tone of your remarks and
asking "Why would someone at such a prestigeous a research outfit as Cold
Spring Harbour be feeling so "threatened" by private software companies.
>>To help avoid the potential destruction of NCBI I would urge all readers of
>this column to write directly to Congressman Natcher in support of NCBI and
>to ask colleagues also to write in support. This is the most effective way
>to avoid a potentially disastrous situation.
>>>Write before July 1st to:
>>Congressman William H. Natcher
>Chairman
>Appropriations Committee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
>Education and Related Agencies
>2358, Rayburn House Office Building
>Washington DC 20515
>>FAX # (202) 225-3509
I'm leaving the contact info intact for those who may have missed it.
It is the duty of our Representatives to listen to their constituants.
Some of those constituants, who may wish to EARN A LIVING writing
mol.bio-oriented software, might be concerned that there is a DE FACTO
cartel amongst the primary institutional players who make their living
from government largess.
Public funded mol bio is a Billion dollar industry...that shall not
remain the sole purview of a few "elite institutional" players.
I'd suggest that anyone unfamiliar with the software/hardware business
ask your local computer guru to pass along his/her copy of InfoWorld or
PC Week. A few weeks reading ought to convince you that "competition"
is a day-to-day reality played out with brass knuckles. Borland International
prides itself on it's "barbarian culture" and Apple has de facto conceded
that being "elitist, purist" is a money looser.
The one thing the hardware/software players are used to...and accept...
is the competitive "shake out" that *always* occurs as any market
heats up with multiple product offerings. At some point, all players,
even NCBI SOFTWARE INC, no matter how protected, must face that challange.
I'd suggest that you begin planning on how you are going to nuture private
startup companies so as to encourge the emmergence of the kind of
PRIVATE software products that your mol bio program can benefit from.
One characteristic of hardware and software industries is that they are
multi-tiered: there are products available accross the price spectrum.
Another characteristic is: when they smell the money, they can't be
stopped.
The definition of monoply is not based on the number of players or
the intent of the players, but the ease of yet another product/service
provider entering the fray. If the reason for not being able to enter the
market is *not* a matter of innovation or attainment-of-technological-
expertise, but simply being undercut on price by "dumping" practices, the
unfair competitor (selling below cost) is to be cut off at the knees!
Have a nice day, Folks! :^)
Steve
