GenBank errors, accountability, reconciliation

Dave Kristofferson kristoff at GENBANK.BIO.NET
Mon Oct 21 22:49:19 EST 1991

> > Furthermore, considering the tarnishing nature
> >of his remarks on a widely-read, public electronic service, I suggest that he
> >be banned from further use of this service unless he has something 
> >substantive or even interesting to say.

I would never agree to the above.

> > I think a letter should be sent to the
> >Director of NIH by the GenBank staff describing this recent exchange, showing
> >her a good example of what happens when the peer review process is 
> >circumvented. 
> Considering that Thomas Marr takes such grave exception to the Tom Schneider's
> postings, I find it strange that he should resort to name calling in turn.
> Furthermore, I believe that suggesting that Tom Schneider, or anyone be banned
> from the Usenet is absurd.
> Disgustedly
> George

I had not yet read Tom Marr's posting.  If the above is what Larry
Moran was referring to, then I must agree that Tom Marr overreacted
unfortunately (I have been tempted myself in the last several days).

Well, Larry, you wanted passion, you got it!

Many of us undoubtedly have a legion of horror stories about the
review process.  I've been exposed to the highly public slings and
arrows for the last five years first in BIONET and now in GenBank.  It
gets tiring and extremely irritating after a while, so perhaps it is
good that someone else will be taking over.  Because both of these
resources affected so many labs around the world, the effects not only
impacted me personally, but were amplified many, many times over.
While I had my own pet peeves in the past when my individual grants or
research papers were reviewed, these kind of projects hold one up to
far greater scrutiny, and the emotions and politics can get pretty
intense.  Not only do I feel a debt to the scientific community that
relies on our services, I also, as a manager, have a concern for the
people that have worked on these projects.  Maintaining good morale is
difficult as projects wind down, and public attacks do not help us.
Those who pick up the mantle in the future will hopefully learn from
the mistakes of the past, especially when the mistakes have been
recited ad nauseum.  However, let's keep the discussion on ideas,
please, not on personalities.

I understand and have many times shared Tom Marr's anger, but can't
believe that two wrongs will make a right here.  The future course has
been decided.  I leave the following reminder to critics:

Those who judge harshly set the standards by which they shall be measured.

I would expect that all of you who are so vocally opposed to GenBank
***would have already studied the work of NCBI***.  They are the ones
who are building a new system and who will ultimately try to improve
the database further.  Or is it simply your intention to *re*act to
events, now and in the future??  If so, you really have no grounds to
complain now, do you 8-)!!!???


				Dave Kristofferson
				GenBank Manager

				kristoff at

More information about the Bioforum mailing list