bookmark:
connotea
::
del.icio.us
::digg
::furl
::reddit
::yahoo::
New Scientist Shotgun wedding
"Karlin claims there could be worse errors in both the public and private versions of the human genome. "Everyone was rushing," he says."
"Meanwhile, Karlin warns researchers to take care if they're studying any "new" genes revealed by Celera. "My advice is to do whatever part you're working on again," he says. His analysis reveals the perils of relying too much on computers, Karlin says. "People are trying to get away without doing experiments.""
MSNBC Questions on map of fruit fly genome
"Gerald Rubin, the University of California at Berkeley geneticist who worked with Celera on the fruit-fly sequence, said the discrepancies are well known, and getting half of the proteins right is comparable to a baseball player hitting .500.
“I take that as a compliment. If you had said beforehand that this was the number, I would have said Celera should get a gold star,” Rubin said. He also said that nine out of 10 discrepancies found by Karlin stem from errors in the Swiss database, not in Celera’s work."
Wired News A Fly in the Genome Soup?
"Celera president J. Craig Venter has dismissed the criticism of his company's work.
"There's two ways to get ahead in science: One is to do something significant, and the other way is to criticize someone who has done something significant. We've chosen the former, some of our critics have chosen the latter," he said last week.
Larry Thompson, a spokesman for the National Human Genome Research Institute, which helped fund Celera's fruit fly work, said Karlin's findings were not surprising.
"They did a pretty good job if half of it is right the first time around," Thompson said."
GenomeWeb Original Drosophila Authors Question Nature’s Decision to Publish Paper on Flawed Annotation
"Karlin said he set out to indicate the dangers of rushing publication of sequenced genomes. “Since they knew about the errors, they should have spent maybe another six months resolving these differences, but they wanted to get the genome published,” he said.
Karlin added that he has spoken to a number of Drosophila researchers, “and they’re sort of split. Half of them think it’s a very good thing to have the genome as early as they have it and they’ll worry about how to use it, and the other half are saying it’s a very good thing to have these cautionary articles to make them aware they have to be more careful.”"
“Bioinformatics will be at the core of biology in the 21st century. In fields ranging from structural biology to genomics to biomedical imaging, ready access to data and analytical tools are fundamentally changing the way investigators in the life sciences conduct research and approach problems. Complex, computationally intensive biological problems are now being addressed and promise to significantly advance our understanding of biology and medicine. No biological discipline will be unaffected by these technological breakthroughs.”
BIOINFORMATICS IN THE 21st CENTURY
biospace
/
genomeweb
/
bio-it world
/
scitechdaily
/
biomedcentral
/
the panda's thumb
/
bioinformatics.org
/
nodalpoint
/
flags and lollipops
/
on genetics
/
a bioinformatics blog
/
andrew dalke
/
the struggling grad student
/
in the pipeline
/
gene expression
/
free association
/
pharyngula
/
the personal genome
/
genetics and public health blog
/
the medical informatics weblog
/
linuxmednews
/
nanodot
/
complexity digest
/
eyeforpharma
/
nsu
/
nyt science
/
bbc scitech
/
newshub
/
biology news net
/
informatics review
/
stanford
/
bmj info in practice
/
bmj info in practice
/
look snazzy and support the site at the same time by buying some snowdeal schwag !
valid xhtml 1.0?
This site designed by
Eric C. Snowdeal III
.
© 2000-2005