GenBank Errors

David Kristofferson kristoff at
Tue Oct 22 15:03:30 EST 1991

> For some reason some people advocate the storage of the original literature
> reports.  I have no objection to this in itself, however if there is not a
> merged 'view' of the data which is rigerously supported, then the database
> fails from a biological point of view.  (100 years from now people will not
> care who sequenced what in 1991.  By then I suppose we will sequence the entire
> genome in a few seconds.)  To avoid duplication of effort we must merge or
> appear to merge the data.  The effort to do this is the same either way.  The
> software to handle 'views' is more difficult, so I fear that merges will not
> take place for this reason.


	You raise several important points which both you and I know
relate directly to plans made by NCBI for an unmerged backbone
database upon which will reside several different "views," e.g.,
hopefully including the merged view which you advocate.  Why does
GenBank come in for such close public scrutiny but others are not even
mentioned by name?????????????????????

	I hope you all note that the NCBI staff has been very quiet
through all of this exchange and, with the past exceptions of Dennis
Benson announcing the NCBI CDROM and the extremely helpful BLAST team
(Altschul and Gish), have not raised their heads up out of their
foxholes on any bionet newsgroup discussions.  I appreciate the fact
that they might not want to be diverted from their important work, but
one would think that at least some of the staff there might have a few
thoughts on issues like these to share with the rest of the community.


				Dave Kristofferson
				GenBank Manager

				kristoff at

More information about the Bioforum mailing list