Talk:Human Genome Project
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on April 14, 2006 and April 14, 2016.|
PLEASE LEAVE COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. THANKS.
The dates are mostly wrong, right?
- could you be more specific? Courtland 00:34, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- how can it have started in 1990, expected to have taken 15 years, finished in 2000 and be only two years early?
The '15 years' had been predicted in 1987, and so was perfectly accurate.
2003 was the publication of the "golden" publication, which was clean of many of the errors present in the draft sequence (their standard was 1 error/ 10,000 bases). Thus, when the project was slated to be done in 2005, the final publishment of the sequence was in 2003, hence the two years ahead of their goal. Here, I found support, http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.shtml. If you look under 1987, a 15-year program is suggested, but undr 1990, it states that the 15-year project formally begins.
Way too thin
I agree with the author of "Fortune Teller"; the statement about the HGP "eventually leading to cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other diseases" is pure fluff. There is a significant and meaningful debate...has been for 15 years now...whether the HGP really needed to be done (as a single mega-project, that is). One might as well say (and with equal force) that the invention of the test-tube will eventually lead to a cure for cancer.
Surely a lot has controversy has occured because of the HGP, there should a specific mention to the problems and protest that it has caused. Ghingo
april 2007: yes there has been a lot of contraversy about this, thanks for bringing that up Ghingo. One set of scholars that springs to mind is Leota Long Dog, who is the author of the 1999 article "whose genes are they" in the Journal of health and social policy, 10.4: 51-66. Among other problematic ethical issues she brings up, she mainly lauds the program as an extension of years of colonization. except now, in our micro-management society, we stay at the level of genes to make racism more palatable. --Lina
January 2016: The article by Leota Lone Dog criticizes the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP), which is not the same thing as the Human Genome Project. The HGDP specifically sampled individuals from historically isolated ethnic groups. --Olle
Rolling circle amplification
Re-entered section on RCAT that was erroniously deleted. RCAT was indeed the method used to amplify DNA for sequencing by the Joint Genome Instutute (please see http://www.jgi.doe.gov/education/how/index.html).
On the contrary
Rolling circle was not an essential innovation for the creation of a human genome sequence. I would recommend reading the source literature. The " Hierarchical shotgun sequencing" and "Technology for large-scale sequencing" section of the paper describing the public project's <a href=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html>draft</a> explicitly cites the critical techniques employed by ALL the large, public genome centers. Rolling circle amplification is not among them.
Further descriptions of the technologies required for a high-throughput genome center can be found <a href=http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/10/8/1081>here</a> and <a href=http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/10/9/1288>here</a>. Again, rolling circle is not among the essential technologies.
I would recommend removing it.
Number of Nucleotides?
OK, I know that there are only 4 possible nucleotides [5 if you count Uracil], but say I give some J. Random Scientist this sequence of nucleotides:
CTAG CTGC CTAA CTCA CGCC CGCA AGAA CACA CCCG.
J. R. Scientist would say that there are 36 nucleotides in this sequence. [Of course, so would almost everyone else...but I digress.] Anywho, my question is this: How many nucleotides are in the entire sequence of the Human Genome?
Every source points to ~3 billion that I ahve ever seen, unless your trying to be a smart-aleck and say it is only four.
this part is in the worg place, it disrupted my reading down the page. and is mostly irrelivant to the section.
James D. Watson was Head of the National Center for Human Genome Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States starting from 1988. Largely due to his disagreement with his boss, Bernadine Healy, over the issue of patenting genes, he was forced to resign in 1992. He was replaced by Francis Collins in April 1993, and the name of the Center was changed to the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in 1997.
More Information Needed
The "Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues section is very vague on what the actual issues are, and only actually lists one concern regarding insurance companies.
In the same, "Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues" category, the ELSI forming of the program is discussed, and it is stated that "Five percent of the annual budget was allocated to address the ELSI arising from the project" but doesn't discuss how much money the budget is, or where that money is coming from.
A link to the databases referenced in the "Applications and Proposed Benefits" section should be added to the end of the sentence "The sequence of the DNA is stored in databases available to anyone on the Internet." so that it may be easily accessed. Erinmettler (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Like stated above the "ethical, legal, and social issues" section seemed almost distracting due to the fact it didn't seem to have any information of what the issues were.
There were are few parts in text where I think a citation was warranted but was not used. for example the last 2 sentences in the "public vs private approach" section used statistics and data but were not cited.
Lastly I think there needs to be information on Pieter J. De Jong either within this article or separately as it was unclear to me was he a gene donor or a man who create libraries for use of within the project.