4 ms·

> They also doubt that the project can be completed in anything close to its original deadline and budget. Spoiler: It was completed two years ahead of schedul

by raldi 11y ago

> They also doubt that the project can be completed in anything close to its original deadline and budget. Spoiler: It was completed two years ahead of schedule and 10% under budget.

dalke 11y ago
I suggest you view it in a different light. In the 1980s, as this article points out, the human genome project was funded by the DOE and worked on at the national labs. The NIH came in and earmarked money just for the project. This pushed it from being second class citizen to being on a pedestal. Much of the doubt expressed was based on the experience of the previous 10 years of the project, and the changing budget situation that took money from other fields. As a somewhat distant parallel, the HST, once fixed, produced great astronomy. How much other great science wasn't funded to put up the HST? > Opponents doubt that the human genome project will quickly cure any diseases, either. Spoiler: they were right.
- raldi 11y ago
  > Much of the doubt expressed was based on the experience of the previous 10 years of the project Are you sure? Here's an update from 1998: "The odds of success at this point are not overwhelming. At the end of this month, the project will be halfway through its planned 15-year course, yet only 3 percent of the genome has been completed." http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/10/science/the-struggle-to-decipher-human-genes.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/10/science/the-struggle-to-de...
  - dalke 11y ago
    I'm sure that the doubts in 1990 were strongly affected by the HGP as carried out under the DOE days. I'm sure the doubts in 1998 were based on different factors. Internally, the HGP in 1998 considered themselves on track. Quoting from http://www.genome.gov/10001475 http://www.genome.gov/10001475 : > The Human Genome Project has successfully completed all the major goals in its current 5-year plan, covering the period 1993-1998. A new plan, for 1998-2003, is presented, in which human DNA sequencing will be the major emphasis. An ambitious schedule has been set to complete the full sequence by the end of 2003, two years ahead of previous projections. In the course of completing the sequence, a "working draft" of the human sequence will be produced by the end of 2001.
- cromwellian 11y ago
  How much other science isn't funded because we spend far too much money on other stuff? I'm sick of seeing engineers and sciences fight over a penny and demeaning the importance of each other's projects while we spend trillions on wars and other nonsense. If you want more funding for other science projects fight to increase science budgets overall by taking money from stuff we don't need like yet another aircraft carrier. How many science projects weren't under because of just one of those? Due to the long term nature of science benefits it's impossible to know the real importance of any one project anyway.
  - titzer 11y ago
    Cannot +1 hard enough. The F-35 will eventually cost $1 trillion.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      > The F-35 will eventually cost $1 trillion. Yeah, but for over half a century of procurement and use, and including all operating costs and inflation.
      - akiselev 11y ago
        So, the equivalent of over half a century of the DARPA budget ($3 billion/yr) five times over, or two National Science Foundations ($7 billion/year), or half of another National Institutes of Health ($30 billion/year). The NSF alone is responsible for over 20% of public nonmedical basic research in the United States so for the price of one boondoggle we can increase that total pool of funding by 50%. For over half a century. Or we could nearly double NASA's budget and give it an economy of scale it hasn't had since the Apollo program to carry out even more basic research into astrophysics, climate change and metrology, geophysics, flight, material science, and countless other technologies that actually trickle down into the public market

by raldi 11y ago

> They also doubt that the project can be completed in anything close to its original deadline and budget. Spoiler: It was completed two years ahead of schedule and 10% under budget.

dalke 11y ago

I suggest you view it in a different light. In the 1980s, as this article points out, the human genome project was funded by the DOE and worked on at the national labs. The NIH came in and earmarked money just for the project. This pushed it from being second class citizen to being on a pedestal. Much of the doubt expressed was based on the experience of the previous 10 years of the project, and the changing budget situation that took money from other fields. As a somewhat distant parallel, the HST, once fixed, produced great astronomy. How much other great science wasn't funded to put up the HST? > Opponents doubt that the human genome project will quickly cure any diseases, either. Spoiler: they were right.

raldi 11y ago
> Much of the doubt expressed was based on the experience of the previous 10 years of the project Are you sure? Here's an update from 1998: "The odds of success at this point are not overwhelming. At the end of this month, the project will be halfway through its planned 15-year course, yet only 3 percent of the genome has been completed." http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/10/science/the-struggle-to-decipher-human-genes.html http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/10/science/the-struggle-to-de...
- dalke 11y ago
  I'm sure that the doubts in 1990 were strongly affected by the HGP as carried out under the DOE days. I'm sure the doubts in 1998 were based on different factors. Internally, the HGP in 1998 considered themselves on track. Quoting from http://www.genome.gov/10001475 http://www.genome.gov/10001475 : > The Human Genome Project has successfully completed all the major goals in its current 5-year plan, covering the period 1993-1998. A new plan, for 1998-2003, is presented, in which human DNA sequencing will be the major emphasis. An ambitious schedule has been set to complete the full sequence by the end of 2003, two years ahead of previous projections. In the course of completing the sequence, a "working draft" of the human sequence will be produced by the end of 2001.
cromwellian 11y ago
How much other science isn't funded because we spend far too much money on other stuff? I'm sick of seeing engineers and sciences fight over a penny and demeaning the importance of each other's projects while we spend trillions on wars and other nonsense. If you want more funding for other science projects fight to increase science budgets overall by taking money from stuff we don't need like yet another aircraft carrier. How many science projects weren't under because of just one of those? Due to the long term nature of science benefits it's impossible to know the real importance of any one project anyway.
- titzer 11y ago
  Cannot +1 hard enough. The F-35 will eventually cost $1 trillion.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    > The F-35 will eventually cost $1 trillion. Yeah, but for over half a century of procurement and use, and including all operating costs and inflation.
    - akiselev 11y ago
      So, the equivalent of over half a century of the DARPA budget ($3 billion/yr) five times over, or two National Science Foundations ($7 billion/year), or half of another National Institutes of Health ($30 billion/year). The NSF alone is responsible for over 20% of public nonmedical basic research in the United States so for the price of one boondoggle we can increase that total pool of funding by 50%. For over half a century. Or we could nearly double NASA's budget and give it an economy of scale it hasn't had since the Apollo program to carry out even more basic research into astrophysics, climate change and metrology, geophysics, flight, material science, and countless other technologies that actually trickle down into the public market