Alison AbbottGeneticists are up in arms over the intro-duction of a subscription fee for access to the protein databases owned and maintained by Incyte Genomics, a privatecompany based in Palo Alto, California.

The databases, which contain informa-tion about protein structure and function in important model organisms studied bybiologists, had been free to academics. ButIncyte last month introduced an annualaccess charge of $2,000 per laboratory — amove that has already prompted an effort tosecure more funding for public databases.

Many biologists claim that they would beprepared to pay a small fee to support themaintenance of high-quality databases —even though most of the data were generatedby the researchers themselves in publiclyfunded labs. But some are crying foul over thesize of Incyte’s fee. “The fee is simply too highfor small laboratories,” says Gustav Ammerer,a yeast geneticist at the University of Vienna.

Incyte’s database collection, known as the Proteome BioKnowledge Library, coversmodel organisms such as yeast (Saccha-romyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomycespombe) and the nematode Caenorhabditiselegans, and also features some mammalianand microbial databases.

The library was founded in 1995 by JamesGarrels, whose company, Massachusetts-based Proteome, offered academics freeaccess to the data but charged industrialusers. Garrels sold the company to Incyte atthe end of 2000, when he assured geneticiststhat the databases would remain free on theweb to academics. Incyte was unavailable forcomment on the reasons for the change.

The move has already caused researcherssome difficulties. Peer Bork, a bioinfor-maticist at the European Molecular BiologyLaboratory in Heidelberg, had to withdrawsome information from a recent paper (C.von Mering et al. Nature 417, 399–403; 2002)just before it was published, when Incytechanged the terms under which the data in itcould be shared. The paper compared differ-ent analyses of protein interactions in yeast.

But with the introduction of the accessfee, restrictions have become even tighter.“Now I don’t know how to respond toenquiries about the data we used,” Bork says, adding that he is unsure whether he canshare his data with other researchers.

Bork and other researchers say that Incyteis just filling a void caused by a lack of fund-ing for public-sector databases. Annotation— the process of assigning functional andother information to the genes and proteinsin databases — is a skill that needs to be paidfor, Bork says. “If a company is prepared tofill in the niche, then the argument is onlywith the pricing policy,” he says.

Peter Okkema, a biologist at the Univ-ersity of Illinois at Chicago, agrees that thecontroversy over commercial databases “is amatter of price rather than principle”. Whenhe learned in May that a subscription fee forIncyte’s databases was imminent, he sent a letter signed by 160 scientists to Incyte’sboard of directors requesting reconsidera-

news

NATURE | VOL 418 | 25 JULY 2002 | www.nature.com/nature 357

tion, but received no reply, he says. Thesilence, he adds, reveals a further problemwith Incyte — its alleged lack of communica-tion with the scientific community.

Chris Hogue, who runs BIND, a protein-interaction database based at the SamuelLunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, saysthat active input from researchers often isn’tenough to keep a database going. Researchers“usually prefer someone else” to do the workneeded to keep the database in shape. “Myplea to researchers is to take database curationinto your own hands,” he says. “Everyone hasto pitch in if they are to be freely available.”

In the United States, scientists runningmodel-organism databases in the public sector are lobbying for more support fromthe National Institutes of Health. MichaelCherry of Stanford University, who helps torun the Saccharomyces Genome Databasethere, says that more funds for its expansionwould help to compensate those who cannotafford to access Incyte’s yeast database. ■

Biologists angered by database access fee

David Cyranoski, Tokyo The scandal that has surrounded the discoveryof bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)in Japanese cattle has prompted the country’sgovernment to hand over a rare degree ofresponsibility to scientists. As of next year,ministers will follow the recommendations of a newly created committee of researcherswhen it comes to food-safety issues.

“It’s an unprecedented amount ofauthority for scientists,” says TakashiOnodera, an immunologist at the Universityof Tokyo. “The committee members will belike government officials.”

Japan’s first case of BSE was confirmedlast September. The likely cause wascontaminated meat and bone-meal that wasimported from Britain and used as cattlefeed. But a scandal erupted when thegovernment was criticized for allowing suchfeed to be imported until 1996, despite itbeing banned in Europe in 1990. Four casesof BSE have now been confirmed.

This April, an independent reportcommissioned by the agriculture ministryfound that the government had failed to takethe opinions of food-safety specialists intoaccount, and that the close relationshipbetween politicians, bureaucrats and the beefindustry had prevented it from respondingappropriately to the threat of BSE.

The new committee will consist of five orsix specialists in fields such as microbiologyand food additives. It will submit its reportsto the minister in charge of public safety.

These reports are expected to have significantbinding power. “If I don’t follow thecommittee’s recommendations, I’ll get fired,”says agriculture minister Tsutomu Takebe.

But some researchers are worried thatthe government will fill the committee withscientists who will tell ministers whateverthey want to hear. “Judging from thegovernment’s past record, they will probablyavoid anyone who would raise severecriticism,” says Masanori Fukushima, anepidemiologist at Kyoto University.

Pleas to include a representative of aconsumer group on the committee havealready been rejected. “We want to keep the committee scientific,” an agricultureministry official explains. ■

Japan gives scientists political role

Peer Bork (left) and Michael Cherry would like tosee more money for public protein databases.

Once bitten: agriculture minister TsutomuTakebe will get scientific advice on food issues.

K. S

ASA

HA

RA

/AP

© 2002 Nature Publishing Group