Venter's DNA Major Source of Celera's Database

dh003i writes "According to this article, Dr. Craig Venter's DNA is the major source of Celera's database of the human genome. Interesting stuff." Includes interviews with lots of aggravated geneticists.

Comments

Creepy Scientist

[eples]

Kinda reminds me of that fertility doctor in Florida that artificially inseminated all of his patients with *his own* sperm....

very disappointing

[myc]

As a Celera stockholder (and a professional molecular biologist) I must say I am extremely disappotinted that the CTO would allow his own ego to get in the way of creating an unbiased, useful genome map, even taking into account the fact that it's probably irrelavent in the long run (i.e., his genome is probably fairly representative of the human populace in general). What does this say WRT any future projects that Celera might undertake? It seems to me that under Venter's direction such future projects may not utilize what science and ethics dictate.

On another related semi-off topic note, I am sick of listening to people complain about NYT articles and registration. One of the most influential newspapers in the world is giving you free daily access to their articles and all they require is some bogus registration info. Sheesh, stop whining already.

Re:very disappointing

[DNAGuy]

I can sort of see where you're coming from. From a scientific point of view, it probably makes very little difference. In fact, as mentioned in the article, being able to map the genotype to the phenotype of a known, living specimen may be mildly helpful.

Nonetheless, I can understand the loss of trust some shareholders and collaborators might be feeling. Dr. Venter acted dishonestly and in direct violation of the instructions given him. This does not speak well of his character.

On the other hand, it seems he spearheaded one of the most significant scientific expeditions of our time, and on a very impressive schedule. Maybe a little eccentricity is manageable given the results. Each shareholder and colleague will have to determine for themselves their tolerance for this sort of thing.

As an aside, a few years back I was lucky enough to work with some excellent geneticists, neuroscientists, and neurologists in the field of Parkinson's disease. In order to reach the highest levels of their profession, these folks have had to jump through many hoops related to funding, collaboration, and peer review. Justly or unjustly, they tend to be very proud of their accomplishments with egos to match. I think it's something you have to learn to deal with if you want to play the game at this level.

Advisory boards

[dachshund]

I really don't care whose DNA Celera uses in their projects. What's a little nervous-making is the fact that this company so easily and blithely ignored the recommendations of their donor advisory board. Sort of makes you think that, just perhaps, private companies "ethics boards" and other mechanisms that are supposed to reassure the public, might not be much good.

If this revelation leads us a step closer to Federal regulation of just about everything to do with Genetic technology, you can thank this guy.