I was reading an article in Bio-IT World about some burning questions in systems biology. Since it is a subject of significant personal and professional interest, I was quite interested in finding out if there was anything new in the article. While nothing novel really jumped out, it was interesting to see the perceptions around the subject. Did I sense a hint of frustration, some confusion? Why does one get a sense of déjà vu around the kinds of questions and concerns raised?
In my experience the biggest problem facing systems biology is one a lot of new technologies face. Too much hype and far too little patience. It is a problem that has plagued genomics, pharmacogenomics, and pretty much every new technology that has come about in the past couple of decades. In the end a large number of them find some use in the drug development process. In most cases they fall into a space somewhere between the “this will change the world” camp and the “this is a load of junk” camp. Science is not something that matures overnight, especially today, where the methods have become more complex, require skill sets that many of us don’t have, and sometimes even a paradigm change in how we approach a problem.
Take systems biology as an example. I think the true proponents of the field will admit that we are a long way from getting the quality of measurements and using the mathematical methods required to truly study biology at a systems level. That does not mean that some level of systems biology is not usable today. Biosimulation techniques are being used in industry today. Have they been successful? I don’t know for certain, but at least they are finding their way into the the drug development toolkit. Then there are a number of methods, e.g. gene expression profiling, that are being combined with pathway offerings to try and approach problems from a “systems” perspective. Integrating results from different techniques is also often used as an example of systems biology. What do all of these methods have in common? They take a 3000 foot view of biological systems, trying to go beyond the reductionist approaches of traditional biology and to try and look at problems from a more global.networked/integrated (take your pick) perspective. None of the approaches are what I would call real systems biology, but they are quite useful. However, they are not perfect by any standards, nor are they a panacea. These methods are a different way of approaching biological problems, offering insights that our old methods did not provide us. It is also quite obvious that none of the omics/systems biology techniques being used in the drug development process have really been
perfected yet. Traditional methods have been in use for years, honed over many many experiments, tens of thousands of failed drugs, and some successful ones. We understand traditional techniques, and there are few surprises. Given that even microarrays have been in use in industry for just a few years, I believe that they should be given time to mature properly before we decide that they will save the pharma industry or only compound existing woes. If our goal is to improve human health and understand our own biology, then that patience is merited and presumably worth it. By trying to find quick fixes, all we end up doing is planting seeds of doubt into those who are in between the hype machine and the naysayers.
Technorati Tags: Systems Biology, Omics, Drug Development
Reality lies somewhere between hype and the naysayers
I was reading an article in Bio-IT World about some burning questions in systems biology. Since it is a subject of significant personal and professional interest, I was quite interested in finding out if there was anything new in the article. While nothing novel really jumped out, it was interesting to see the perceptions around the subject. Did I sense a hint of frustration, some confusion? Why does one get a sense of déjà vu around the kinds of questions and concerns raised?
In my experience the biggest problem facing systems biology is one a lot of new technologies face. Too much hype and far too little patience. It is a problem that has plagued genomics, pharmacogenomics, and pretty much every new technology that has come about in the past couple of decades. In the end a large number of them find some use in the drug development process. In most cases they fall into a space somewhere between the “this will change the world” camp and the “this is a load of junk” camp. Science is not something that matures overnight, especially today, where the methods have become more complex, require skill sets that many of us don’t have, and sometimes even a paradigm change in how we approach a problem.
Take systems biology as an example. I think the true proponents of the field will admit that we are a long way from getting the quality of measurements and using the mathematical methods required to truly study biology at a systems level. That does not mean that some level of systems biology is not usable today. Biosimulation techniques are being used in industry today. Have they been successful? I don’t know for certain, but at least they are finding their way into the the drug development toolkit. Then there are a number of methods, e.g. gene expression profiling, that are being combined with pathway offerings to try and approach problems from a “systems” perspective. Integrating results from different techniques is also often used as an example of systems biology. What do all of these methods have in common? They take a 3000 foot view of biological systems, trying to go beyond the reductionist approaches of traditional biology and to try and look at problems from a more global.networked/integrated (take your pick) perspective. None of the approaches are what I would call real systems biology, but they are quite useful. However, they are not perfect by any standards, nor are they a panacea. These methods are a different way of approaching biological problems, offering insights that our old methods did not provide us. It is also quite obvious that none of the omics/systems biology techniques being used in the drug development process have really been
perfected yet. Traditional methods have been in use for years, honed over many many experiments, tens of thousands of failed drugs, and some successful ones. We understand traditional techniques, and there are few surprises. Given that even microarrays have been in use in industry for just a few years, I believe that they should be given time to mature properly before we decide that they will save the pharma industry or only compound existing woes. If our goal is to improve human health and understand our own biology, then that patience is merited and presumably worth it. By trying to find quick fixes, all we end up doing is planting seeds of doubt into those who are in between the hype machine and the naysayers.
Technorati Tags: Systems Biology, Omics, Drug Development