Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Venter's DNA Major Source of Celera's Database

Posted by michael on from the soylent-green-is-people dept.

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.

2 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Re:very disappointing by DNAGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    BRENT ROCKWOOD, EST'd 1975

  2. Advisory boards by dachshund · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.