> It wasn't until Celera started embarrassing the NIH effort that shotgun sequencing was taken up in earnest. Sure. But I disagree with the overall premise an

> It wasn't until Celera started embarrassing the NIH effort that shotgun sequencing was taken up in earnest. Sure. But I disagree with the overall premise and think you're over-simplifying in the extreme. What really made the Human Genome Project possible was the Moore-like curve in sequencing throughput that occurred throughout the lifetime of the Human Genome Project. There were many contributing factors that kept the curve going (including the other Moore curve!) Also, Sangar never got a Nobel in Medicine (just in Chemistry). So even if shotgun sequencing is the idea that deserves the Nobel for Human Genome Project -- which again, isn't exactly an incontestable assertion -- then it's Sangar, not Venter, who was robbed. Awarding Venter with a scientific award for his political work pushing Sangar's science would be an odd choice, not to mention at odds with your apparent overall feelings about the role of politics in Nobel awards. Which... maybe they both deserve a Nobel for their contributions to the Genome Project. Probably so, in my opinion. It's almost like the supply of Nobels is artificially constrained and not everyone who deserves one can get one... > Later, his idea of then taking shotgun sequencing and applying it to whatever DNA you could find floating in the Sargasso Sea or any random teaspoon of dirt literally opened a whole new world of evolutionary biology. Lots of people use shotgun sequencing for all sorts of high-profile and important stuff that is literally opening a whole new world of all sorts of important fields. And there's a lot of stuff going on outside of genetic sequencing that also deserves Nobels. > Finally, his more recent work on creating a fully synthetic organism is continuing to push forward the bleeding edge of biotechnology by laying a foundation all of humanity is sure to build on for decades to come. So maybe a Nobel will be awarded in the decades to come. Nobels are given for impact, not promise, and impact takes decades to accrue even for the most impactful work. I would never say someone like Venter "doesn't deserve a Nobel". But getting all bent out of shape that he doesn't have one is kinda weird, especially since he's not exactly starved of other sources of recognition -- both inside and outside Academia -- for his contributions. Lots of people who played outsized roles in the Human Genome Project exist in relative obscurity relative to Venter. Which isn't to say he doesn't deserve his recognition, but I just don't understand the particular drum you're beating here.