tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post3917742040077226403..comments2024-03-28T00:36:36.460-07:00Comments on The Tree of Life: Human genome project oversold? sure but lets not undersell basic scienceJonathan Eisenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-34471790049235384272010-08-06T10:24:32.334-07:002010-08-06T10:24:32.334-07:00Ugg. I hate all this talk of the HGP being overso...Ugg. I hate all this talk of the HGP being oversold. And Craig's comments...he is basically saying 'yeah I lied to you all' With out the government funding of HGP Craig would never have been able to do his shotgun sequencing. Prices and technology would never had made it possible to sequence a viral genome let alone a human genome. We would be in the dark ages without PCR, microarrays... There are so many biotech and pharma companies that use seq technology now for diagnostics and drug discovery. I'd like to see the economic figures, how much money and jobs do all these new biotech companies contribute? Maybe we haven't cured cancer, but at least now we know it is going to be much harder than we ever thought to cure cancer!shahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07408498638683848893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-75404254200469039392010-08-04T10:31:01.808-07:002010-08-04T10:31:01.808-07:00Thanks for this thoughtful, balanced piece. As an ...Thanks for this thoughtful, balanced piece. As an oncologist, former researcher and cancer patient, I know there's value in the genome project. In my view, some problems recently highlighted in the news stem from profit-driven enterprises that have fed on patients' and doctors' lack of understanding about the limits of genetics, besides some genuine optimism. <br /><br />Hopefully in the next decades the "good stuff" - real science that matters in medicine - will emerge from the genome project. Like the "war on cancer," as you point out, progress takes some trial and error, besides time.Elaine Schattner, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08347795873685692224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-51488023973652528582010-08-04T08:48:12.738-07:002010-08-04T08:48:12.738-07:00This same argument applies to NASA's space shu...This same argument applies to NASA's space shuttle program, in my mind. It's not directed towards developing specific technological spin-offs, and so its funding is cut. While it was active, however, it was a great way to explore questions of basic science, and to encourage interest in basic science about space. Now we won't have that.<br /><br />More generally, basic science pays off because it makes applied science possible. Electronics could not be developed without the basic science branch of physics, nor theoretical mathematics, for example.Mike Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650701412022872445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-20165947371997074362010-08-03T15:12:29.190-07:002010-08-03T15:12:29.190-07:00JE -- Not as far as I can tell. Too bad.JE -- Not as far as I can tell. Too bad.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-19255978200497645842010-08-03T09:59:51.898-07:002010-08-03T09:59:51.898-07:00Diffusing thoughts - alas - you are right at some ...Diffusing thoughts - alas - you are right at some level. I think perhaps sometimes there is a lot of wishful thinking and self deception about the potential benefits. I have been quite critical for example, of people who make some basic science finding and then write a press release to go with it that makes such wishful thinking claims. However, that being said, it is pretty well established that their are strong economic and other benefits that come from investment in basic science. This does not mean all basic science is equivalent, and in fact, most funding agencies try to judge basic science proposals in advance in some way by supposed connections to potential benefits (e.g., there is more basic science work on humans than on any other organism). <br /><br />I note, this is also one of the reasons I have been pushing hard for more openness in basic science research. The more we share findings, materials, results, knowledge, etc., the more likely it is that basic research will be additive and that in the end we will get both more knowledge and more potential benefits. <br /><br />So I agree there is too much of an assumption some of the time of the importance. But on the other hand, the value of basic science research has been shown repeatedly so pursuit of knowledge in general is a good thing.Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-35418381080571443762010-08-03T09:54:07.819-07:002010-08-03T09:54:07.819-07:00JB - do you know if their is a video to go with Cr...JB - do you know if their is a video to go with Craig's interview?Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-30372577804392056972010-08-03T09:21:30.672-07:002010-08-03T09:21:30.672-07:00For some reason basic scientist axiomatically assu...For some reason basic scientist axiomatically assume that basic science is important so maybe it is not overselling but self-deception and wishful-thinking?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12551269207203881043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-84748186818698627172010-08-03T09:12:06.171-07:002010-08-03T09:12:06.171-07:00Craig managed to get in some amusing digs in at Wa...Craig managed to get in some amusing digs in at Watson and Collins in that interview as well. The whole idea of the very elderly Watson worrying about whether he is carrying a disease-associated gene variant is pretty silly if you think about it (even ignoring the fact that such variants are not guarantees of eventual illness)Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.com