4 ms·
Combining GWAS data with social science... sounds like a recipe for generating incorrect conclusions from noise to me. >"before the Human Genome Project had fu
by nonbel 8y ago
Combining GWAS data with social science... sounds like a recipe for generating incorrect conclusions from noise to me.
>"before the Human Genome Project had fully sequenced human DNA"
The human genome is still not complete by any normal definition, they just redefined "complete" to mean "we did our best". It is like if someone turns in homework with only half the questions answered and argues they should get 100% since they "completed" it.
- searine 8y ago>The human genome is still not complete by any normal definition Well considering that the human genome is a moving target, it can never be "complete". However, it can be 99.9% complete, which is all but complete for all scientific intents and purposes. The rest is just semantics.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Avshalom 8y agohttps://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/our-human-reference-genome-is-missing-a-lot-of-material/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/our-human-reference-...
- biophysboy 8y agoI mean, for genetics in the early 2000’s, I would say that mapping 99% of the genome is a good definition of complete. Its not as fun for Bill Clinton to say “the genome is mostly complete, barring a small bunch of gaps comprised of repeating elements”. And the gaps are actively being studied with stuff like nanopore sequencing. There’s a lot of hype surrounding next-gen sequencing in general.
- nonbel 8y agoIt is more like 85-90% complete. In fact no one knows for sure how much is missing.
- lacker 8y agoThis is true. But, the biggest problem with the Human Genome Project isn’t that the genome didn’t get totally sequenced. It’s that we still don’t understand what the vast majority of the genome does, even if we know the DNA sequence.