When a company goes from nowhere to a market value of $9.3 billion in just over a year, it鈥檚 not too surprising if the CEO ends up making headlines in everything from the Financial Times to Fortune. But it is surprising that the company was started by a Harvard professor who still says he sees himself as a medical scientist making drugs out of proteins. So does Bill Haseltine, founder of Human Genome Sciences, relish the lifestyle, the envy, the rivalries that the human genome has brought him? Is he really a genius and a visionary? And why does he think immortality is the key to human survival? Sylvia Pagan Westphal went to find out.
Some people think you鈥檙e arrogant. Are you?
No. I don鈥檛 know why people would say that. I do make an effort to be clear. And an emphasis on clarity and focus on opinion is very often read as arrogance. I was trained that way by some of the real experts: the great biologists Gilbert, Ptashne, Meselson. Some people consider them arrogant. But what is it they do? They voice their opinions.
Advertisement
What about enemies? What do you think of Celera鈥檚 boss Craig Venter and what he said about you in public?
We had a professional relationship. We started in this together. Together we created a revolution. We founded it. And we both held to the letter of our agreement. From the outset we understood that we had different goals. He was interested in genomics, and I was interested in curing disease. That was a built-in tension, but back then it got resolved by providing additional funds for Venter鈥檚 efforts. He is intelligent, creative and energetic.
But that鈥檚 not the picture of the two of you that we read about. Do you consider yourselves enemies?
No. We don鈥檛 go out for dinner, but I see him occasionally. Over time, he鈥檚 come to share more of my vision. People are free to grow and adapt. I think in the early days he was getting so much heat from so many sources that he was turning some of that on me. I didn鈥檛 enjoy it, but I could understand what was happening.
Should scientists become celebrities?
Some scientists have already achieved that-think of Einstein. I think that鈥檚 very good for the image of science. You need inspirational leaders.
You鈥檙e constantly going to high-profile dinners and charity events, and hobnobbing with politicians, entertainers, and famous entrepreneurs. Do you enjoy it?
Sure, it鈥檚 very interesting. There is something different about people who have achieved something because they are focused and extremely hard-working. One of the things that I think everyone notices, after you鈥檝e achieved a certain amount in your life, is that there is a fusion at the top. It鈥檚 surprising how many people know each other.
But as you鈥檝e become successful, your every move is closely scrutinised. Don鈥檛 you mind?
There鈥檚 a wonderful bit in the novel Middlemarch, where a young nobleman is appalled that wherever he goes people point him out. He just wants to have an ordinary life. His companion asks him what he鈥檚 talking about, because he鈥檚 important to those people, and if he thinks he鈥檚 ever going to be invisible, he鈥檚 crazy. He鈥檚 just got to live with it and get used to it.
Are people jealous of you?
The most surprising thing as you have your measure of success is that the greatest reaction is hostility and jealousy, not approbation. Some do applaud, and that鈥檚 how you tell who your friends are, who the broad-minded people are. I remember going to one of my mentors, and asking, 鈥淲hat is happening?鈥� He said: 鈥淚t just means you鈥檝e been successful, Bill.鈥�
Did you ever dream that this is where you would be today?
I would say that my career has greatly exceeded my imagination.
Are you considered a good role model? Should young scientists try to succeed in science and business?
I define myself as a medical scientist, not as a businessman, and I don鈥檛 see myself as a role model. I don鈥檛 think you should model yourself on anyone. I didn鈥檛 try to be Einstein or Salk, but they inspired me by their example. You should define your life鈥檚 purpose and then follow that wherever it may take you.
Do you want your science to be as culturally pervasive as the art of Botticelli or Picasso?
At HGS, we would certainly like to be considered the Michelangelo or Botticelli of our era for human health. We do think our company has already changed forever the way the pharmaceuticals industry looks at the process of drug discovery. We hope to influence the entire industry through our success.
Why do you hang copies of major artworks on almost every wall in your company?
I have always liked art. I think it enriches you because very often artists crystallise a view of the world that others can鈥檛. There is also a specific use of art within our company. By hanging art everywhere, we try to remind our people that there is a broader context to the work they do than just personal satisfaction. It is very easy when they鈥檙e involved in the experiments to forget that their important mission of health has a human face.
When did you decide on your mission?
I remember as a child of eight or nine watching the distress of my mother when she had life-threatening septicaemia. I wished I could do something besides what the doctors did. I decided then that I would like to have a career in medical science.
Were you a good hands-on scientist?
I never miss the bench. I got away from bench work within my first year and a half of being an assistant professor. I realised that if you assemble the right team, you can do more than any one person can do, and that I鈥檇 rather have a team working with me. Part of it is also that I was clumsy and I kept breaking and destroying things-especially when it came to working with large amounts of radioactivity. I remember chopping up pieces of floor, hacking away chunks of desk after a spill and even then it wasn鈥檛 quite enough. The entire building breathed a sigh of relief when I gave up my experiments. I have to say, though, that there鈥檚 a wonderful peace associated with experimental work. The rest of the world dissolves-it鈥檚 a form of meditation.
How about the current gene-count controversy? You鈥檙e convinced there are at least 100,000 genes in the human genome, and that the Human Genome Project and Venter鈥檚 Celera estimate of 35,000 is just plain wrong . . .
It is a fact. If it is a scientific fact, then it鈥檚 not controversial. I assure you we don鈥檛 make that statement without very solid basis. Let me just point out an irony. One group in Science magazine described 26,000 human genes in total, whereas Nature publication described 30,000. The initial conclusion was that there were about 30,000 human genes altogether, not many more than those of a fruit fly or flatworm. Evidently, the two groups did not compare their results prior to publication. When they were compared, it was discovered that only 10,000 of the genes identified by the two groups were the same, the rest were different.
What do you make of that?
First, the bare minimum of genes tallied by the two groups is about 46,000, plus or minus 10,000 found by both groups, 16,000 unique genes found by the Science authors, and 20,000 unique genes found by the Nature authors. The second conclusion is the methods used by both groups must be very rough to allow for such discrepancies. We note that the approximately 50,000 genes that we have identified that were overlooked by both groups share one common feature-they bear no sequence similarity to genes isolated from humans or other species.
Why not publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal?
We鈥檙e a company. The methods we used were not magical-they were known, published and reproducible today. So I would encourage other groups to go out and do it. We can say that the genes people missed were missed because they aren鈥檛 similar to things that have been seen before in humans or other species. I would encourage others to use the method we did and I鈥檓 confident they would come to the same conclusion.
Why does HGS need such a large collection of novel genes?
Because once you鈥檝e found the gene that can make the protein, that protein might be your drug. What you are working on are the signals that control cell behaviour. There are very few things cells do: they grow or they don鈥檛, they live or they die, they continue to live or they kill themselves, they differentiate or don鈥檛, they stick or they move-and that鈥檚 about it. If you鈥檙e looking to control their behaviour, it鈥檚 relatively simple.
And what then?
We think that if we could quickly assemble most of those controls, we could begin to modify cell behaviour-any cell behaviour. That鈥檚 why it was so important for us to be sure we had completed the job of gene discovery, because we didn鈥檛 want big holes. So if you look at the range of our drugs, we don鈥檛 replace things that are missing, we use things that are already there. But we add them at a time and place to allow the body to do a better job than it normally does so it can repair itself. Ultimately, we hope to regenerate organs and tissues.
Could we become immortal?
Yes. My idea is based on an unproven theory that the major driver of ageing is the ageing of stem cells and the loss of stem cells. If that is the case, you may be able to regress your cells to an earlier state and pump the body full of new stem cells.
Would you like to stay young?
Probably yes. One of the great questions that has never been answered, because it is virtually impossible to answer now, is what is the relationship between youthful spirit and desire for life in a young body? People assume that mind ages with experience. I rather suspect not. If you had a 25-year-old body, you would have the mind of a 25-year-old.
But would a society of 25-year-olds want to be replaced by a new generation?
What鈥檚 happening in very large parts of the world is a calamitous demographic collapse. There is a phenomenon that hasn鈥檛 sunk in yet, that if women have reproductive and economic freedom, they choose not to reproduce. That seems to be culture-independent. In the long run, I don鈥檛 think women will reproduce the species.
What does that tell you?
That if the world becomes as we hope-wealthy-and if women gain equal rights globally, the human race is in danger of extinction, not overpopulation. The general view of humanity is Malthusian, but that view depended on a specific set of conditions which no longer apply. So in fact immortality may be the only way to retain numbers.
Assuming you鈥檙e not immortal by then, how would you like to be remembered 100 years from now? And HGS?
I鈥檇 like to be thought of as someone who made a major difference to how diseases can be cured. As for HGS, Pfizer is about 100 years old, so I鈥檇 like HGS to be the next Pfizer. I鈥檇 like it to be recognised as one of the world鈥檚 leading pharmaceuticals companies that continues to provide solutions to health-not just to developed countries.
So you imagine a world without disease?
I can imagine a world in which we level the genetic playing field so almost everyone can live to between 120 and 125 years, and where most accidental damage can be repaired. But that should be shared by all people, not just a few. That is health Utopia.