But amid this humbling wonder, there is also controversy and bickering. Detailed research is finally being published this week by the two competing groups that have succeeded in completing a rough genetic map of humanity, and it has done nothing to cool the controversies about this project.

It appears that the more complete map comes from private company Celera Genomics Corp., although this is being disputed by its competitor. Celera has found buyers for its data at a rumoured price of $250,000 per research institution, and as much as $10-million for commercial drug companies. And Celera is planning to patent between 100 and 300 isolated genes it has identified, picking the ones it decides are most likely to be used by pharmaceutical companies developing drugs.

The competing international project, led by a consortium of 20 university and other public researchers, completed its mapping at the same time as Celera, but is providing its data for free, and is not seeking patents for its work.

There has been enormous concern about commercializing such fundamentally important information, and about the appropriateness of Celera's tying up core data in private hands. But there may be more good than harm.

There is a long tradition of commercial research in biotechnology. And there have been obvious benefits from competition for producing a better product far more quickly.

When Celera announced in 1998 that it was joining the DNA mapping race, the public project was trudging along with a proposed completion date of 2005, maybe. With competition, however, came better work at higher speed. Both projects were accelerated, completing an enormous task in less than two years. Competition brought both attention and funds to the race, giving a boost to the public researchers at just the right time.

Celera has found a market for a highly similar product only because its database apparently has fewer gaps. It has provided those who can afford it with a more complete piece of research -- surely a benefit for those waiting for medical breakthroughs. Drug companies wanting a jump on research will pay the cost rather than wait for improvements to the public database.

Nonetheless, it is inevitable that the public information will improve and Celera's lead will erode. Celera's detailed information will not be proprietary forever, and the course of public or university science will not be slowed for long.

Nor is its patenting going to halt broad scientific research. Patenting of specific genes has not previously hindered public research. Scientists are still able to conduct basic research on these patented genes, until they want to commercialize a product. In 1993, a patent was granted on the gene associated with breast cancer, but, since then, hundreds of basic research papers have still been published about the gene. As well, many other patent applications have been filed for inventions involving the gene, including a genetic test for carriers.

Celera's work built enormously upon the public project data, which is hardly surprising. Commercial companies were bound to use it; indeed, it's encouraging that they have. This project proves that a dual public and private project can be an enormous success for the advancement of science.