[HassanBenSobar]

OK, full disclosure: I have been doing work in this field, so I may be biased. Now, please indulge my brief rant.

Of course, genetic science has not resulted in the sort of miracles that the author whines 'we' predicted but haven't come true. (Never mind that the 'we' who get press are usually the most bold and least conservative in their statements. Never mind that sensationalism sells. Then the author also whines that we were wrong in our understanding of various aspects of genetics years ago. Is this supposed to be a problem? Newton was wrong about some things, too. Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics. So: are we supposed to cancel all further research, because the old theories were wrong?

Finally, there's this ridiculous statement that govt. agencies don't fund rival theories. I don't know as much about the way the health organizations fund research, but that sure as hell isn't true of DARPA and ARDA, to name just two govt R&D funding organizations in the sciences. They go out of their way to fund risky, competing, novel approaches.

I suppose I could also rant and rave about the various discoveries in genetics since the human genome project, the emergence of fields like pharmacogenetics, or the success of various pharmaceutical products and companies that rely heavily on genetic research, but I guess that would be a waste, since it's not sufficiently 'miraculous'.

I have plenty of other irritations with this piece of rubbish reporting, but I'll let it go at that.

[John H K]

Science threads on FR are really getting to be a problem...I share your irritation.

For one thing, there seems to be an immense amount of "Luddism." Another thing is that the only science stuff that ever gets posted here are popular media science articles, which other than maybe 10% that are from real good popular science writers, routinely botch the story completely and make the scientists the story is about look like idiots...but people blame the scientists, not the writers, for anything wrong with the story. And then of course you have the "instant experts" who have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

And that's even before you get to the problems with creationists, etc.

[pending]

I know squat about this subject, would appreciate some input...

Is he correct about an ignored 98.5%?

Does this mean that 98.5% of the genome is not mapped?

where do you read him suggesting
"So: are we supposed to cancel all further research, because the old theories were wrong?"

later

[Choose Ye This Day]

But I want a pony!

[TheHound]

Good rant. I do not think the article was about the genome project per se. I think it was using it as an example of the politicization of science research. Once the politics of a science is set - to espouse or support a leftist dogma - there is no going back.

There are many examples; from global warming to homosexuality. The best example I can think of is that of The Limits of Growth by The Club of Rome written back in the early '70's and admitted by the authors to be a fabrication of science - "to make people think".

Do a search on google and see how many courses are still being offered at major universities as if it were fact. Count the number of sites you find before you find one that actually debunks its propositions with real facts.