I don't like the "gotcha, Dawkins" stance of the article, but apart from that, it looks like they were doing their best to fill in the gaps that Venter left. If

I don't like the "gotcha, Dawkins" stance of the article, but apart from that, it looks like they were doing their best to fill in the gaps that Venter left. If memory serves me right, this discussion panel met shortly after Venter's group announced the creation of a life form with a completely synthetic genome. Venter had adequately proven his credentials by that point, and so the panel deferred to his expertise. Given that the likes of Dawkins could not follow along, Venter certainly did a poor job of communicating the ideas.