Promises

We have to gamble on promises.  That is a good summation of this first section.  It is interesting how Michael Fortun describes promises as never now; as always either already or about to.  Well, I guess it’s a quote… but it meshes well with the overall scheme of unclear directions and destinations represented by the chiasma.  Of course that’s why Fortun used it… or that is what I am going to assume.  It seems as though what he is implying is that the future is a set of promises we have made to ourselves and to each other.  How those promises will unfold is where the gambling comes in.  We build everything up on foundations of promising.  It is more than a little disconcerting to think about the implications of that idea.  But it is also wonderful; promising opens up possibilities and helps us to attain goals and accomplish maybe not what we set out to do—what we promised—but something more than what otherwise would have been.

I love the conclusion of this middle chapter.  Fortun’s description of exceeding and becoming more—more than what we can actually conceive or plan for or be prepared for.  “We happen our way into a future without our full understanding or control, and that is something for which we should rejoice and be glad.”  This is not to imply that we have no control at all, rather that we can examine these fissures: not just the ones Fortun writes about and examines in his book but all the chs that follow from them and more.  He calls for an interdisciplinary approach that I found convincing.  We should each utilize the tools at our disposal to experiment and to think on the possibilities and promises that surround us.

Contrast

I thought Shinya Yamanaka’s piece was a good example of the importance of the group dynamic in Japanese culture.  Yamanaka was always very careful to acknowledge how his success was derived from a team effort.  It was not about what he could accomplish on his own but rather what he and his team could accomplish together.  This is also indicated in how he mentions the team members he brought with him to his current position at Kyoto University.  The Japanese place greater emphasis on teams as opposed to individuals; success as a unit is always considered greater than individual achievement.  Yamanaka’s affirmation of this fact: always trumpeting the team effort and never specifically his own is very refreshing especially in light of how Kari Stefansson acts and is portrayed in Michael Fortun’s book.  I have no doubt of the accuracy of that portrayal since it is acomplished largely through Stefansson's own words and actions, and also in the various journalists’ articles on him.  Robert Kunzig, with his battle imagery, is especially guilty of aggrandizement.

As I said in my previous post,  Stefansson is constantly in the process of selling himself as if he is the primary reason his company runs and is or will be successful.   The scene in chapter six where, at the town hall meeting, a member of the crowd stands and asks for a vote of confidence in Kari just builds on this already prominent edifice.  I found the part where Fortun explains the town is part of the district that was represented by Kari’s father in Parliament very telling; how much of their actions that night is built simply on their fondness for Stefansson and his family connections?  Do they support his actions or do they just support him?  It is a little disturbing when so much attention is focused on the individual and not enough light is shone on his actions. 

Kari Stefansson

In chapter five of Promising Genomics Mike Fortun describes his  meeting with Kari Stefansson in terms of how much Stefansson is inextricably linked with deCode Genetics.  Fortun does not need to reconstruct the main event of this meeting because Stefansson gives them a presentation on his company that doesn’t deviate from its published intent in any way.  Representing that with the excerpt from the non-confidential corporate summary drives the point home.  It is difficult to separate the two entities: the fortunes of each are tied up in the other. 

I thought there were some interesting parallels that came out in this chapter with the earlier piece we read on the autobiographies written by three of the key leaders behind the Human Genome Project.  Fortun discusses one of them at length.  Craig Venter is similar to Kari Stefansson in many ways; they are cut from the same cloth.  Both are their companies.  They represent the driving force behind the ideas they are selling and it is hard to see how their enterprise could succeed without pushing and pulling everything forward.  Or at least that is how they seem to represent themselves and often how they seem to be represented.

Near the end of the chapter Fortun mentions how the clinical trial portion of the corporate summary was not getting as much notice as the rest of deCode’s goals; Stefansson replies that he did not write that part and so it is not as clear as the rest.  That struck me as symbolic of the whole relationship between Stefansson and deCode Genetics: he provides the clarity and he provides the direction.  Anything not of him or from him is lesser.  I can see how he became such a polarizing figure in the debate over the Health Sector Database and who should have access to it and for how long or even if it should exist in the form proposed.  Kari Stefansson does not seem like the type to appreciate arguments against his propositions.