This study focuses on the 5-year Protein 3000 Project launched in 2002, the largest biological project in Japan. The project aimed to overcome Japan’s alleged failure to contribute fully to the Human Genome Project, by determining 3000 protein structures, 30 percent of the global target. Despite its achievement of this goal, the project was fiercely criticized in various sectors of society and was often branded an awkward failure. This article tries to solve the mystery of why such failure discourse was prevalent. Three explanatory factors are offered: first, because some goals were excluded during project development, there was a dynamic of failed expectations; second, structural genomics, while promoting collaboration with the international community, became an ‘anti-boundary object’, only the absence of which bound heterogeneous domestic actors; third, there developed an urgent sense of international competition in order to obtain patents on such structural information.
Anonymous (2007) Abunaizo, kagaku gijutsu rikkoku [Techno-science nation in crisis]. Nikkei Shinbun, 12February, p. 19.
5.
Anonymous (2009) Kisokara wakaru kagakugijutsu yosan [Basics of the science technology budget]. Yomiuri Shinbun, 10December, p. 13.
6.
ArataY (2008) Jitsuzô to kyozô [Image and truth]. In: TsukiharaTNakamuraH (eds) Tanpaku 3000 purojekuto no unda mono [What Protein 3000 Project has achieved]. Tanpakushitsu, Kakusan, Kôso53(5): 645–647.
7.
ArataY (2010) Nihon no kagaku seisaku wo tou [Questioning Japanese Science Policy]. Tokyo: Yakuji-shinpo sha.
8.
BakkerSvan LenteHMeeusM (2011) Arenas of expectations for hydrogen technologies. Technological Forecasting & Social Change78(1): 152–162.
9.
BatesonG (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology. New York: Ballantine Books.
10.
BerubeDM (2006) Nano-Hype: The Truth behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
11.
BlumeS (2003) Insight and Industry: On the Dynamics of Technological Change in Medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
BonannoJ (1999) Structural genomics. Current Biology9(23): R872.
13.
BorupMBrownNKonradKvan LenteH (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management18(3–4): 285–298.
14.
BrennerSELevittM (2000) Expectations from structural genomics. Protein Science9: 197–200.
15.
BrownN (2003) Hope against hype: Accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies16(2): 3–21.
16.
BrownNRappertBWebsterA (eds) (2000) Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.
17.
CheeLPYClanceyG (2013) The human proteome and the Chinese liver. Science Technology and Society18(3): 307–319.
18.
ChothiaC (1992) Proteins. One thousand families for the molecular biologist. Nature357(6379): 543–544.
19.
ChouardT (2011) Structural biology: Breaking the protein rules. Nature471(7337): 151–153.
20.
CollingridgeD (1992) The Management of Scale: Big Organizations, Big Decisions, Big Mistakes. London: Routledge.
21.
Cook-DeeganR (1994) The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome. New York: Norton & Company.
22.
CyranoskiD (2006) ‘Big science’ protein project under fire. Nature443(7110): 382.
23.
DaviesGFrowELeonelliS (2013) Bigger, faster, better? Rhetorics and practices of large-scale research in contemporary bioscience. BioSocieties8(4): 386–396.
24.
De Solla PriceDJ (1965) Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
25.
DiscoCVan Der MeulenB (eds) (1998) Getting New Technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
26.
DunckerE (2001) Symbolic communication in multidisciplinary cooperations. Science, Technology & Human Values26(3): 349–386.
27.
DunckerEDiscoC (1998) Meaningful boundaries: symbolic representations in heterogeneous research and development projects. In: DiscoCVan Der MeulenB (eds) Getting New Technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 265–297.
28.
FortunM (2008) Promising Genomics: Iceland and deCODE Genetics in a World of Speculation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
29.
FujimuraJ (1999) The Practices of producing meaning in bioinformatics. In: FortunMMendelsonE (eds) The Practice of Human Genetics. Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 49–87.
30.
FukushimaM (2013) Between the laboratory and the policy process: Research, scientific community and administration in Japanese chemical biology. East Asian Science, Technology and Society7(1): 7–33.
31.
GaasterlandT (1998) Structural genomics: bioinformatics in the driver’s seat. Nature Biotechnology16(7): 625–627.
32.
GalisonP (1992) The many faces of big science. In: GalisonPHevlyB (eds) Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 1–17.
33.
García-SanchoM (2012) Biology, Computing and the History of Molecular Sequencing: From Proteins to DNA, 1945–2000. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
GelfertA (2012) Nanotechnology as ideology: Towards a critical theory of converging technologies. Science, Technology, and Society17(1): 143–164.
36.
GershonD (2000) Structural genomics: From cottage industry to industrial revolution. Nature408(6809): 273–274.
37.
GersteinAEArrowsmithC HMontelionesGT (2003) Structural genomics: Current progress. Science299(5613): 1663.
38.
GoldsteinD (1998) An unacknowledged problem for structural genomics. Nature Biotechnology16(8): 696.
39.
GustonDH (2000) Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
HakozakiT (2008) Ekkususen kôzôseibutsugaku no senmonka kara [Comments on Protein 3000 from a X-ray structural biologist]. In: TsukiharaTNakamuraH (eds) Tanpaku 3000 purojekuto no unda mono [What the Protein 3000 Project has achieved]. Tanpakushitsu, Kakusan, Kôso53(3): 652–654.
41.
HayashiY (2006) Nihon no hitogenomu keikaku ni miru nihon no kagakugijutu seisaku ketteikatei ni kansuru baikaikikô to sono kadai. [The mediating function and its problem of Japan’s science policy formation seen in the Human Genome Project in Japan and the US] Kenku, Gijutsu, Keikaku21(2): 202–213.
HilgartnerS (2013) Constituting large-scale biology: Building a regime of governance in the early years of the Human Genome Project. BioSocieties8(4): 397–416.
44.
HolW (2000) Structural genomics for science and society. Nature Structural Biology7(Structural Genomics Supplement): 964–966.
45.
IkuraM (2008) Kagaku to ôgatayosan: Biggu saiensu ga umidashita mono [Science and big stakes: Invisible outcomes of ‘big science’]. In: TsukiharaTNakamuraH (eds) Tanpaku 3000 purojekuto no unda mono [What the Protein 3000 Project has achieved]. Tanpakushitsu, Kakusan, Kôso53(5): 648–651.
46.
International Structural Genomics Organization (ISGO) (2013) Homepage. Available at http://www.isgo.org (accessed 1 April 2013).
47.
IsajiM (2009) Kagaku purojekuto hihan no yôin: Tanpaku 3000 wo reito shite [Reasons for criticisms of a scientific project: Protein 3000 as an example]. Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.
48.
ItoY (2005) Science lessons: Japan must learn from its mistakes in the Human Genome Project. Nature433(7022): 107–108.
49.
KayLE (2000) Who Wrote the Book of Life: A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
50.
KishiN (2004) Genomu Haiboku: Chizai Rikkoku Nihon ga Abunai! [Defeat in the Genome: Japan’s National Policy for Intellectual Property in Danger!]. Tokyo: Daiamondo-sha.
51.
KonradK (2006) The social dynamics of expectations: The interaction of collective and actor-specific expectations on electronic commerce and interactive television. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management18(3/4): 429–444.
52.
LawJ (1986) The heterogeneity of texts. In: CallonMLawJRipA (eds) Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan, pp. 67–83.
53.
LeeF (2015) Purity and interest: On relational work and epistemic value in the biomedical sciences. In: DussaugeIHelgessonCFLeeF (eds) Value Practices in the Life Sciences and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 207–223.
54.
LenoirT (1997) Instituting Science: The Cultural Production of Scientific Disciplines. Stanford, CA: Stanford University press.
55.
LewisJBartlettA (2013) Inscribing a discipline: Tensions in the field of bioinformatics. New Genetics and Society32(3): 243–263.
56.
McGeeMC (1980) The ‘ideograph’: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech66(1): 1–16.
57.
MacKenzieA (2003) Bringing sequences to life: How bioinformatics corporealizes sequence data. New Genetics and Society22(3): 315–332.
58.
MacKenzieAWatertonCEllisRFrowEKMcNallyRBuschL. (2013) Classifying, constructing, and identifying life: Standards as transformations of ‘the biological’. Science, Technology & Human Values38(5): 701–722.
59.
MartinP (2002) Gene therapy: expectations and results. In: Nature Encyclopedia of the Human Genome. London: MacMillan Publishers Ltd., pp. 1–4.
60.
MasudaT (2002) Kachiaru kaiseki deeta wo daseruka? [Can the research produce valuable information?] Nikkei Biojournal11: 10–11.
61.
MEXT (2007) Tanpaku 3000: Jigohyôka hôkokusho [Official Evaluation Report of Protein 3000 Project]. Available at: www.tanpaku.org/old_project/protein02a.php (accessed August 9 2008).
62.
MEXT (2011) Targeted proteins research project. Available at: www.tanpaku.org (accessed 3 June 2011).
63.
MeyersTCTuranoTAGreenhalghDAWallerPRH (2000) Patent protection for protein structures and databases. Nature Structural Biology7(Structural Genomics Supplement): 950–952.
64.
MichaelMWainwrightSWilliamsCFarsidesBCribbA (2007) From core set to assemblage: On the dynamics of exclusion and inclusion in the failure to derive beta cells from embryonic stem cells. Science Studies20(1): 5–25.
65.
MilneR (2012) Pharmaceutical prospects: Biopharming and the geography of technological expectations. Social Studies of Science42(2): 290–306.
66.
MiyataS (1983) Kagakusha tachi no jiyûna rakuen [A Free Paradise for Scientists]. Tokyo: Bungeishunju.
67.
MontelioneGT (2001) Structural genomics: An approach to the protein folding problem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences98(24): 13488–13489.
68.
MorrisPTravisAS (2002) The role of physical instrumentation in structural organic chemistry in the twentieth century. In: MorrisP (ed.) From Classical to Modern Chemistry: The Instrumental Revolution. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 57–84.
69.
MyersN (2008) Molecular embodiments and the body-work of modeling in protein crystallography. Social Studies of Science38(2): 163–199.
70.
NakamuraK (2007) Seimeikagaku kenkyû: Kyohi ni niau mokuteki meikaku ni [Life science research: Make clear the purpose of big budget] Asahi-Shinbun, 17May, p. 15.
71.
OdaM (1998) Maintaining science culture in Japan. Nature391(6666): 431.
72.
OshimaY (2007) Tanpaku 3000 ga nokoshita mono [The Legacy of the Protein 3000 Project]. Gendai kagaku434: 14–21.
73.
OshimaYNishimuraYKuramitsuSYokoyamaSWakatsukiSNakamuraH (2002a) Zadankai: Kôzô puroteomikusu ha naniwo mezasu no ka? [Round table: What does structural proteomics aim at?]. In: OshimaYNishimuraYKuramitsuSYokoyamaSWakatsukiSNakamuraH (eds) Kôzô puroteomikusu [Structural Proteomics]. Tanpakushitsu, Kakusan, Kôso47(8): 865–881.
ParkerJNPendersBVermeulenN (eds) (2010) Collaboration in the New Life Sciences. Farnham: Ashgate.
76.
PellegriniL (2005) No royal road to protein structure determination. Nature436(7048): 174.
77.
PollockNWilliamsR (2010) The business of expectations: How promissory organizations shape technology and innovation. Social Studies of Science40(4): 525–548.
RipA (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture15(4): 349–365.
81.
SchraderA (2010) Responding to Pfiesteria piscicida (the fish killer): Phantomatic ontologies, indeterminacy and responsibility in toxic microbiology. Social Studies of Science40(2): 275–306.
82.
ServiceR (2002) Tapping DNA for structures produces a trickle. Science298(5595): 948–950.
83.
ShimizuN (2000) Nihon no toppuranna Shimizu Nobuhiro ga toku hitogenomu keikaku no kyotojitsu [The Lies and the Reality of Human Genome Project, Illuminated by Nobuyoshi Shimizu, Japan’s Top Runner]. Tokyo: Bujinesu-sha.
84.
Sleeboom-FaulknerMPatraPK (2011) Experimental stem cell therapy: Biohierarchies and bionetworking in Japan and India. Social Studies of Science41(5): 645–666.
85.
SmaglikP (2000) Genomics initiative to decipher 10,000 protein structures. Nature407(6804): 549.
86.
StarSLGriesemerJR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science79: 387–420.
87.
StemerdingDHilgartnerS (1998) Means of coordination in making biological science: On the mapping of plants, animals and genes. In: DiscoCVan Der MeulenB (eds) Getting New Technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 39–69.
88.
StevensH (2013) Life Out of Sequence: A Data-driven History of Bioinformatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
89.
SueaSCChangCFHuangYTChouCYHuangTH (2005) Challenges in NMR-based structural genomics. Physica A350(1): 12–27.
90.
SwinbanksD (1996) Superconductivity spurs Japanese plan for NMR research. Nature381(6578): 105.
91.
TasumiM (2006) Kôzô seibusugaku kotohajime [The early days of structural biology]. Life on Proteins Newsletter15: 51–59.
92.
TerwilligerTC (2000) Structural genomics in North America 2000. Nature Structural Biology7(Structural Genomics Supplement): 935–939.
93.
TraweekS (1988) Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
TsukiharaTNakamuraH (eds) (2008) Tanpaku 3000 purojekuto no unda mono [What Protein 3000 Project has achieved]. Tanpakushitsu, Kakusan, Kôso53(5).
96.
TuttonR (2011) Promising pessimism: Reading the futures to be avoided in biotech. Social Studies of Science41(3): 411–429.
97.
TwymanR (2004) Principles of Proteomics. New York: Taylor & Francis.
98.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1988) Mapping Our Genes-The Genome Projects: How Big, How Fast? (OTA-BA-373). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office).
99.
Van LenteH (1993) Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.
100.
Van LenteHSpittersCPeineA (2013) Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a theory, Technological Forecasting & Social Change80: 1615–1628.
101.
VenterJ C (2007) A Life Decoded: My Genome: My Life. London: Allen Lane.
102.
VenterJCSmithHOLeroyH (1996) A new strategy for genome sequencing. Nature381(6581): 364–366.
103.
VermeulenN (2010) Supersizing Science: On Building Large-Scale Research Projects in Biology. Boca Raton, FL: Universal-Publishers.
WadaA (2008) Seimeitoha? Busshituka! [What is life? The Matter!]. Tokyo: Ômusha.
107.
WadaAYamamotoMSoedaE (1983) Automatic DNA sequencer: Computer programmed microchemical manipulator for the Maxam–Gilbert sequencing method. Review of Scientific Instruments54(11): 1569.
108.
Watanabe Memorial Foundation (ed.) (2009) Kagaku-gijutsuchô seisaku shi: Sono seiritsu to hatten [The history of science policy of Science and Technology Agency: Form its foundation to its Development]. Tokyo: Kagaku-Shinbun Sha.
109.
WilliamsR (2006) Compressed foresight and narrative bias: Pitfalls in assessing high technology futures. Science as Culture15(4): 327–348.
110.
WüthrichK (1986) NMR of Proteins and Nucleic Acids. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
111.
YanagitaMIkuraMMorikawaKNanbaKInagakiFNishimuraY (1999) Zadankai-Kôzô seibutsugaku ha nani wo mezasunoka [Round talk: What does structural biology aim at?]. In: NishimuraYKyogokuYItagakiFMorikawaK (eds) Kôzôseibutsugaku no furontia [The Frontier of Structural Biology] (Tanpakushitsu, Kakusan, Koso, special issue): 614–629.
