I think your point is accurate, but jaded. Much as the above posters point out, there was no sudden 'click' where an individual discovered something and made g

I think your point is accurate, but jaded. Much as the above posters point out, there was no sudden 'click' where an individual discovered something and made genomics possible. And to the extent that's what we mean by 'genome sequencing', then you are correct - the shotgun approach coupled with big-data hasn't been very useful yet. However, if the message is more one of genetics at large, and how the ability to read/write DNA has affected our research, our discoveries, our therapeutics, and will affect our lives in the near-future, then your tone seems entirely too myopic. Nearly every drug you see on TV commercials today is a monoclonal antibody - which cannot have been made but for the ability to read and write DNA. Sure, it doesn't require the ability to read an entire animals' DNA at once (do the full genome sequences yet actually read every base in your genome even?). But it is a very real and very finite milestone on that exact same path. You are correct, genomic ≠ genetic, but in so far as they are similar (mostly), our understanding of genetics really has been a powerful driver in the past two to three decades.