Comments on: Controversy Over Celebrity Genomes: Much Ado About Nothing Something

By: Vitall

Vitall — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:25:27 +0000

You know -lets look at those $2 million as an advertising funds. 454 could spent money on airing commercials – or, just spend that on sequencing and get some media attention. What is best for 454 owners? I’m not sure, and you could be right, investing money into good advertisement agency might be a better spending in this case, but such point questionable (unless you make a really good marketing research).

By: Sequencing Evolution in Real-Time « Michael Graham Richard

Sequencing Evolution in Real-Time « Michael Graham Richard — Fri, 25 May 2007 23:32:47 +0000

[...] mentioned in a recent post that the cost of sequencing DNA was falling exponentially. A good real-world example of the state [...]

By: Michael G.R.

Michael G.R. — Thu, 24 May 2007 19:12:46 +0000

You make very good points, thanks.

I think the reference to space tourism threw me off a bit. I think that if Branson or Allen wants to go into space at this stage and pay a lot for it, what’s the problem? Soon enough it will be a lot less expensive and others will be able to go. I thought the same thing about some company sequencing Watson.. So what? Soon enough we’ll be able to sequence almost anybody for almost nothing.

But it is true that there’s a difference between stuff like airbags or space tourism and these health science; the more time we lose (even if not completely lost), the more people suffer waiting for cures and such.

I’ll think a bit more about this and might update the post with a note.

By: Dasher

Dasher — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:44:04 +0000

It’s worth taking a look at the publications http://www.454.com/news-events/publications.asp – and scrolling to the bottom.
Take this one as an example: http://www.454.com/apps/cmt/uploads/pub28_454_nature_article.pdf

“Acknowledgements We acknowledge P. Dacey and the support of the
Operations groups of 454 Life Sciences. This research was supported in part by the US Department of Health and Human Services under NIH grants.”

By: Dasher

Dasher — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:37:42 +0000

A good example with improper selection of scientific data can be found on an article found at the New Scientist website: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19426014.100-babies-overfed-to-meet-flawed-ideal.html

The scope & timeline of the Human Genome Project was designed at the outset to speed up during the project and to reap the rewards as the technology unfolded. It was, and still is, a great undertaking – a project with a grand vision and something that will change the lives of every person on the planet in time.

There are many aspects to the projects that won’t be solved for years to come – and not just on the biotechnology front. The legal issues and ramifications will take years to unravel. This is one aspect that the recent news from the US regarding genetic testing that is welcoming. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in the US was passed by the House of Representative (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00493 .

Your reference to airbags (http://dasher.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/genome-sequencing/) is interesting but doesn’t equate – a majority of research on airbags wasn’t paid for with research funding from public bodies.

I’m with you that these are exciting times – I spent 2 years working on PCR research as part of the Human Genome Project in the 1990′s – there’s a lot changing but there’s more on the way.

By: Genome Sequencing.. « Dasher’s Corner

Genome Sequencing.. « Dasher’s Corner — Thu, 24 May 2007 13:52:01 +0000

[...] Michael Richard has an interesting post on Celebrity Genomes. He’s wrong but it’s an interesting write up. He’s a bright guy and I make a [...]