Episode 61: Non FUNGIble tokens: you too can own BRCA1

Genome NFTs, BRCA1 and the BioBucks thought experiment

Lee Katz, Andrew Page and Nabil-Fareed Alikhan explore whether non-fungible tokens and blockchain could have useful roles in genomics. Lee describes creating an NFT of a BRCA1 image, while the hosts propose decentralised accession numbers, genomic licensing and a research currency called BioBucks or GenomeCoin. The discussion mixes jokes with practical questions about ownership, storage costs, scientific corrections and recognition for shared data.

Listen to Episode 61: Non FUNGIble tokens: you too can own BRCA1 on SoundCloud

In this episode

What does an NFT let you own?

The hosts introduce blockchain as a public ledger checked across a network, then contrast interchangeable Bitcoin holdings with a unique non-fungible token. Their central question is what ownership recorded on that ledger means outside it. They distinguish owning a token associated with an image from controlling its intellectual property or preventing someone from copying it.

Examples include a New York Times article turned into an NFT image, Beeple’s digital artwork and a reported $5.4 million sale of Tim Berners-Lee’s original web source code as an NFT. One host questions whether artificial scarcity makes sense for readily copied digital material, and likens buying such a snapshot to buying a print of an artwork.

Genomes as tokens and accession numbers

The first genomics proposal is to register a newly discovered organism’s genome as an NFT, recording who found it first and potentially identifying a type strain. The hosts jokingly suggest replacing reference collections such as NCTC and ATCC. Lee questions both the infrastructure required and who would have authority to designate a type strain: agreement among internet users would not satisfy him.

A narrower proposal is a decentralised accession-number system. A researcher could submit 100,000 bacterial genomes, obtain token-based accessions and cite them in a paper, with a public record of submission. The hosts also consider corrections and retractions. Rather than deleting an entry from the ledger, an amendment could mark it as no longer valid while preserving the original record.

The storage and transaction-cost problem

Replacing NCBI, EBI and DDBJ is treated as a provocative thought experiment, not an established solution. Lee points out that maintaining something as large as NCBI already requires substantial institutional resources. Replicating that volume across a blockchain network raises another infrastructure problem, while transaction charges would shift costs from centrally funded services towards individual submissions.

Later, the hosts separate accession metadata from sequence storage. One suggests keeping genome files elsewhere and putting an accession code and MD5 hash on the ledger, rather than making every participant download all the nucleotide data. Lee raises Ethereum-linked side chains as another possibility, but the discussion does not establish a workable replacement for existing archives.

Lee’s $38 BRCA1 image

Lee’s experiment began with the idea of making an NFT from something he considered unownable. He recalls the US Supreme Court decision involving Myriad Genetics and its patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2, discussed here as breast cancer-related genes. The decision prompted him to make an image of BRCA1 rather than claim ownership of the gene itself.

Following a CoinDesk guide, he used Rarible and a Coinbase wallet. He reports a cost of about $30 plus $8 in Ethereum gas charges, approximately $38 overall. The artwork combined an Apollo gene-browser view of BRCA1 genes and exons, cartoon and ribbon protein depictions using the Protein Data Bank, a DNA double-helix background and quotations from the court decision. Nobody had bought it by the recording date; Lee describes the expense as an acceptable cost for a fun experiment.

The hosts explore whether a token could represent rights to use a useful biological sequence. They joke about a bacterium that makes people thin, while acknowledging that Salmonella can cause illness and weight loss. Other examples include synthetic DNA and a COVID-19 vaccine sequence. Lee suggests a contract allowing only the NFT holder to produce a vaccine or use a particular bacterium; another host stresses that people would have to respect that agreement.

In a discussion of GISAID, one host raises concerns about unequal benefits from international genomic sharing. The proposed alternative is a public token record showing who supplied information and documenting a claim when a commercial company uses it.

BioBucks for computing and research credit

The imagined genomics currency is variously called BioBucks, GenomeCoin or GnomeCoin. One proposed use is paying an organisation to turn sequencing reads into a consensus sequence, with that organisation then spending the tokens on other work. The hosts connect this idea to their discussion of Ethereum processing charges and smart contracts.

They also imagine awarding BioBucks for answering bioinformatics questions, helping students or reviewing papers, making otherwise poorly recognised contributions more visible. Article reading might spend tokens, while community service might earn them. The conversation remains playful, including jokes about inflated impact scores. A final aside about a vaccination paper in MDPI’s Vaccines, whose claims one host dismisses as clearly wrong, raises the risk that reviewers get into trouble when papers making controversial claims get through.

Highlights

00:01:23 — Lee introduces blockchain as a public ledger using Bitcoin as the example.
00:03:09 — Unique tokens, interchangeable currency and uncertainty about real-world ownership.
00:04:16 — A proposal to register newly discovered genomes and type strains as NFTs.
00:05:44 — Using tokens to generate decentralised accession numbers.
00:07:43 — Transaction fees, electricity use and the cost of replacing public archives.
00:10:00 — What an NFT represents, and why a digital copy is not intellectual-property ownership.
00:15:05 — The Myriad Genetics decision inspires Lee’s BRCA1 NFT experiment.
00:17:14 — Building the BRCA1 image with Apollo and Protein Data Bank depictions.
00:23:02 — Naming a genomics currency and imagining BioBucks payments for analysis.
00:23:56 — GISAID, genomic provenance and sharing benefits with data contributors.
00:26:29 — BioBucks as recognition for helping students and answering bioinformatics questions.

In their own words

I would not support a majority of internet users calling something the type strain.

— Lee Katz, 00:04:50

Who is talking

Lee Katz (host)
Andrew Page (host)
Nabil-Fareed Alikhan (host)

Also mentioned: Tim Berners-Lee, Beeple.

Tools and resources mentioned

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Rarible, Coinbase Wallet, Apollo, Protein Data Bank, NCBI, EBI, ENA, DDBJ, NCTC, ATCC, GISAID, MD5.

Questions this episode answers

Did Lee Katz buy or own the BRCA1 gene?

No. Lee describes minting an NFT associated with a picture he made of BRCA1, not acquiring ownership of the gene. The distinction between a token, an image and enforceable rights is a recurring question in the episode.

How did Lee make his BRCA1 NFT, and what did it cost?

He used Rarible and a Coinbase wallet, reporting approximately $38 in Ethereum costs, including $8 in gas charges. His image combined Apollo gene and exon views, Protein Data Bank depictions, a DNA background and quotations from the Myriad Genetics Supreme Court decision.

Could blockchain replace genome accession databases?

The hosts propose token-based accession numbers but identify unresolved costs, storage demands and questions of scientific authority. One suggestion is to retain genome files elsewhere and record only an accession code and MD5 hash on the ledger.

What are BioBucks and GenomeCoin in this episode?

They are proposed names for an imagined genomics currency, not a system the hosts demonstrate. Suggested uses include paying for read-to-consensus analysis and recognising contributions such as student support, bioinformatics advice and peer review.

This page was written from a machine transcript of the episode and checked against it. Listen to the episode for the whole conversation.

Show notes

We look at the crazy world of NFTs (non fungible tokens) and blockchain and explore in a light hearted way how they could be used in genomics and bioinformatics. We propose a way of replacing all the central genome databases and our own cryptocurrency (BioBucks or maybe GenomeCoin). Myriad genetics SCOTUS decision - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf Planet money episode on patenting a gene - https://www.npr.org/transcripts/937167323 Beeple - https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/11/22325054/beeple-christies-nft-sale- cost-everydays-69-million Make NFT - https://www.coindesk.com/how-to- create-buy-sell-nfts