GenBank Errors

smouldering dog owhite at
Fri Oct 18 11:02:36 EST 1991

In article <9110162100.AA01436 at> 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
>   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

		     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.

More information about the Bioforum mailing list