CZJ at CU.NIH.GOV
CZJ at CU.NIH.GOV
Fri Oct 18 14:34:55 EST 1991
> In article <9110162100.AA01436 at histone.lanl.gov> pgil at HISTONE.LANL.GOV (Paul
> Gilna) writes:
> > Dear Tom,
> > I have read your note with interest.
> > We commend, and will of course honour your exhortation to your
> > colleagues on the net to report errors to us; as always, we are happy
> > to admit we are not perfect and welcome such reports at:
> > update at genome.lanl.gov.
> > My regards,
> > --paul
> How many other people have found errors in GenBank?
> I have.
> I do not believe this matter should be considered closed. Statements
> like "we are happy to admit we are not perfect" doesn't say much about
> policy development for preventing further mistakes. The type of
> mistakes I found, and notified GenBank about, are throughout the
> database. But I was told that they were not planning on implimenting
> any software to detect these errors. Code to find these errors would
> be about 200 lines.
> I realize this could be considered a libelous statement if it wasn't
> true. I stand by my conviction that these easily detected errors are
> in the GenBank database.
> To continue this thread of conversation, perhaps the question to start
> with is:
> "Considering the consequences of going without it,
> is error correction REALLY so prohibitively expensive?"
> owen white (owhite at nmsu.edu)
> there is no god, there is only noise
> there is no noise, there is only god
> the difference between art and science is that in art, if something
> works, it doesn't have to make sense.
In responding to Tom's message about errors I used the term libelous.
Perhaps this was overstated. In using this term I was not referring
to Tom's pointing out errors in a public forum. Indeed a database
is put out for all to see and if there are weaknesses or errors
public statement is fair game.
Rather it was the language and the factually incorrect conclusion
that was made.
More information about the Bioforum