Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Human Genome Count Betting Period Extended

Posted by timothy on from the but-who's-counting dept.

appleLaserWriter writes "Genomic Scientists still don't know how many genes are in the Human Genome. While they continue to sequence and analyze DNA data Dr. Ewan Birney has opened has opened a betting pool where scientists can submit their best guess. The pool has been extended for a further five years, so the information technology opportunities for genomics can only continue to grow."

10 comments

  1. My bet... by danratherfan · · Score: 0, Insightful

    is this is a waste of time, jeez.

  2. A hundred jillion bazillion or... by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1

    I'll just wait five years. They are bound to have a better idea then.

    Where's the rush to guess now?

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
  3. Well... by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

    This gives the phrase Gene Pool a whole new meaning!

    *rimshot* Thank you, I'm here all week!

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    1. Re:Well... by mbstone · · Score: 1

      How about A Day at the Races?

  4. dupe? by groundpig · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dr. Ewan Birney has opened has opened a betting pool

    I sense a glitch in the matrix...

    1. Re:dupe? by Wibla · · Score: 1

      yea, they must have cut into the hardline at some point :/

  5. And how many are thinking.... by halightw · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wager 500 quatloos on the newcomer!
    (A Quatloo is the currency of the planet Triskelian in case you haven't been there)

  6. Anyone read the article? by Otter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I was at the meeting in question and read the writeup here and wondered if a) I had completely hallucinated the event, b) the Times hadn't fired all its incompetent writers or c) the Slashdot submitter and editors hadn't bothered to read the story.

    As expected, it's c. At the deadline, it's still unclear how many genes there are, but since there are far fewer, apparently, than anyone had guessed, the low bettors from each year were awarded the pot. The main winner (who noted in the NYT article that he had come up with his guess while drunk) headed back to the bar to blow his winnings on booze and was last seen stumbling off with some equally drunk woman. So don't say this was a pointless exercise.

    Personally, it's not obvious to me that there won't be another 20k small RNAs discovered, but then I had a number in the 47,000 range...

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  7. Google link to nytimes story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative



    Here's the google link to the nytimes betting pool story. Damn the ny times for that reg crap anyway.

    -robSlimo

  8. interesting but largely pointless... by thomasmd · · Score: 1
    While it will certainly be interesting to learn how many genes there truly are in the human genome, that number will not be very important - what will truly matter is how many proteins are actually expressed (a number that will be much higher than the number of genes, as many genes have multiple mRNA splice variants). It's this "protein" evolution that really makes us what we are (some plants have millions of genes, so higher numbers don't mean crap).

    Of course, what this post tells us yet again is that scientists will never pass up a chance to give their opinions, even if it's just a guess at the number of human genes!