OMICS 2.0: A Practice Turn for 21 st Century Science and Society

A Tribute to OMICS Luminaries

I welcome you as Editor-in-Chief to the first issue of OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology in 2013. OMICS has been the brainchild of Eugene Kolker, the visionary Founding Editor-in-Chief for over a decade (Kolker, 2012). Our publisher is Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., a highly innovative publisher from New York with astute foresight and integrity. In 1985, Liebert launched the first journal on AIDS, long before it was recognized as a major public health threat. Moreover, the Women's Business Enterprise National Council has certified Liebert as a progressive woman-owned publisher.

A trailblazer of postgenomics knowledge strands, OMICS has stood the test of time. The journal is the only forum covering all transdisciplinary omics fields, such as vaccinomics, pharmacogenomics, nutrigenomics, agrigenomics, and public health genomics, under a single cover. The journal has shaped and accelerated the emergence of these novel knowledge ecologies that cut across diverse disciplines in life sciences and postgenomics medicine (Kolker, 2012; Ozdemir et al., 2011).

Defining OMICS

Having well covered the postgenomics landscape, it is time we at the journal reconsider a perennial question: what is omics, and what falls under omics research and development (R&D)? According to one etymological analysis, the suffix ‘ome’ is derived from the Sanskrit OM (‘completeness and fullness’) (Lederberg and McCray, 2001; see also our analysis on the ‘OMICS history and genealogy’ Ozdemir et al., 2009). This is consistent with the ethos of integrative biology and the systems thinking embedded in data-intensive omics fields noted above, be it vaccinomics, pharmacogenomics, or public health genomics. The high-throughput omics data obtained in parallel from successive hierarchies of cell biology help discern systems diagnostics and therapeutics, taking into account the built-in molecular redundancies preserved in biology during the course of human evolution. While such high dimensional data tend to characterize omics R&D, single analyte or candidate gene studies that filter from upstream omics discovery research are also pertinent; these focused studies help translate omics to clinical medicine and public health action. In short, it is not only the scope of scientific inquiry, but also its embedding in a systems approach that typifies omics R&D. As I explain below, the study of social systems that interact with science and technology also falls within the OMICS purview (Huzair et al., 2011).

OMICS 2013 and the Practice Turn: From Global to ‘GloCal’ Science

I am honored to have been part of the OMICS editorial team and its progressive vision and growth over the years, now publishing 12 issues per year with a truly global readership distributed in 140 countries. I served as Associate Editor of OMICS for the past 5 years, and starting with this issue will serve as the Editor-in-Chief. I am a transdisciplinary integrative scientist engaged in biological, social, and political determinants of health and postgenomics life sciences. My research is focused on omics discovery science, translation, ethics, social science, public health genomics, and policy continuum. I strongly believe that omission of any one of these pillars of postgenomics data-intensive scientific inquiry adds uncertainties to the enormous promise offered by science and biotechnology in the 21^st century (Burke and Trinidad, 2011; Knoppers and Ozdemir, 2013; Pang, 2012; Prainsack, 2012; Wynne, 2011). Consistent with this, Harvey noted that we need to approach biotechnology innovations in a manner ‘that is not just linear but integrated (understanding system level functioning) and dynamic (understanding systems in flux)’ (Harvey et al., 2012). Together we can create a more sustainable and inclusive omics knowledge and innovation ecosystem by paying due attention to the ‘three pillars’ that sustain us all, and increasingly define our actions on a daily basis in 21^st century: biological, social, and political determinants of scientific thought (Dove et al. 2012; Gibbons, 1997; Kickbusch, 2005; Ozdemir and Cho, 2012; Rose, 2006; Wynne, 2009).

Having started my own professional life in a developing and resource-limited country, I conducted academic research in North America for over two decades, including with the late Professor Werner Kalow who pioneered the field of pharmacogenetics in the 1950s. I therefore had the good fortune to experience different epistemologies (i.e., how do we know what we know?) in co-production of scientific knowledge, and am keenly aware of the collective intelligence we have in both developed and developing countries, or the resource-limited settings in developed countries of the global North (Hotez and Gurwitz, 2011; Hotez et al., 2012). I will endeavor to provide an equitable forum for both senior and emerging qualified scholars from any global region and walk of life, who deserve a voice for a reasoned and crucial discussion on omics science and biotechnology, and for their often nonlinear and dynamic intersections with global society.

I highlight below several directions and the attended contexts in which the journal will grow further.

First, it is time for a new turn, OMICS 2.0, a practice lens for translation. Notably, the concept of practice is much broader than the classic idea of ‘bench to bedside’ translation (Dove et al., 2012; Orlikowsky, 2002); it demands a keen knowledge of organizational science and parameters of collective action to move biotechnology to innovation (Orlikowsky, 2009; Ostrom, 1990). The recent United States Institute of Medicine report on translational omics firmly supports this emphasis on practice:

Omics research generates complex high-dimensional data; these data are often generated through measurement of many more variables per sample than the total number of biological samples used to generate the dataset…[H]igh-dimensional data are particularly prone to overfitting; as a result, a computational model emerging from the research and discovery phase may function well on the samples used for the discovery research, but is inaccurate on any other sample. A carefully designed and executed series of studies is necessary to develop a clinically useful omics-based test for patient management and care, with the goal of improving patient outcomes (Micheel et al., 2012).

It is precisely such high dimensionality of omics data that calls for a practice lens so that discovery-oriented omics research is complemented by subsequent studies in independent samples. These are ideally sourced from different geographical locations, patient and healthy populations, and with adequate metadata to characterize the broader omics science practice context. While the past decade showcased cutting edge basic omics discovery science, it is time to move this decade of fundamental omics scholarship towards applications in clinical medicine, public health, not to mention food (nutrigenomics), vaccine (vaccinomics), and agricultural (agrigenomics) sciences.

Further support for a practice lens comes from the works of Khoury et al., (2007). They showed that there is a large translation gap in moving genomics technology and basic science discoveries to successful innovation: only 3% of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding was targeted for downstream translational research, underscoring the small fraction of resources dedicated to translational research compared to basic science (Khoury et al., 2007). The recent NIH initiative to establish the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) to pursue opportunities for disruptive translational innovation (Collins, 2011) is consistent with the need to link fundamental omics-driven basic science to practice. Hence, the journal will continue to peer review classic ‘blue skies’ undirected omics discovery research while increasing the representation of application-oriented translational omics R&D from real-life clinical, public health settings, including both developed and developing countries.

Second, we shall remain vigilant through horizon scanning of global science and new generation biotechnologies and situate them in a social and technical context (Suresh, 2012). Many of the opportunities and challenges in contemporary omics R&D emerge from the intersection and interaction of innovation actors (e.g., scientists, patients, policymakers, citizens, research funders, industry). For example, definitions pertaining to what it means to be a developing or developed country in scientific practice are rapidly evolving. No doubt this will remain an important factor in understanding how omics-driven innovation might materialize in the future. For example, at the global United Nations noncommunicable diseases Summit held in New York City in September 2011, India was among the low- and middle-income countries eligible to receive global aid to help curb the shared risk factors tied to western-centric social and economic development. At the global Financial Summit in Washington that same month, by contrast, India—along with fellow BRIC members Brazil, Russia and China—debated how and whether their fast-growing economies and powerful emerging markets should help Europe contain its debt crisis.

To be sure, there is a need for close examination of the ways in which new omics fields are emerging in scientific practice in hitherto unprecedented locales, both in global and local contexts (which I term here as ‘GloCal Omics’), a key vision for OMICS in 2013 and beyond.

Third, OMICS responds to current demands for a transdisciplinary forum connecting both technology and people to achieve a form of knowledge ecosystem and ‘collective intelligence’ that is far more effective than any individual or singular group of people and computers. OMICS will therefore serve as a veritable convener, connector, and catalyst for collective action, enabling translation of omics to practice. We aim to bring together all innovation actors, facilitating collaboration and knowledge co-production and importantly, global OMICS science diplomacy.

Concluding Remarks

Game changing transformative ideas do not hatch in a vacuum in 21^st century science. They require a favorable innovation climate or milieu, be it information systems, crossfunctional knowledge teams, understanding of organizational science, healthcare management, social, and even meteorological climate (Dove et al. 2012; Faraj et al. 2012). That is, scientific knowledge is a co-product of technology as well as social, political, and organizational systems whose boundaries are highly porous (Dove et al., 2012; Dove and Özdemir, 2012; Guston, 1992; Jasanoff, 2007; Kickbusch, 2005; Orlikowsky, 2002; Rose, 2006; Wynne, 2009). Rather than hermetically sealing omics in a technology silo, it is essential to examine and compare the various knowledge co-production mechanisms in the 21^st century that pivotally shape the innovation trajectory in GloCal Omics. To accomplish this goal, we will have a new, globally distributed, and highly transdisciplinary editorial board commencing in 2013.

The 21^st century is increasingly demanding collective action to steer the OMICS innovation trajectory from discovery to translation to practice (Zimmern and Khoury, 2012). We all sit on the shoulders of giants who make collective omics science possible. Hence, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Founding Editor-in-Chief Eugene Kolker for his trailblazing vision on the omics innovation trajectory, Associate Editors Biaoyang Lin (Zhe Jiang University, Hangzhou, China and University of Washington, Seattle), and Daniel John Rigden (University of Liverpool, United Kingdom) for collegial collaboration, scientific expertise, and their sixth sense on omics scholarship, all essential ingredients for apt editorial leadership. Many thanks are also due to our reviewers, authors, and the editorial board members who make such collective effort a reality, not to forget our colleagues on the publishing side for their enthusiastic support to take OMICS to new heights: Mary Ann Liebert, Vicki Cohn, Sophie Mohin, Patricia Meravy, Susan Jensen, and William Boot.

Looking forward, I welcome your peer-reviewed contributions of original articles and review papers on all aspects of OMICS R&D from discovery to translation to practice, including intersections of OMICS with the bioeconomy, healthcare management, public health, and social and political science.