|
|
The Organization
|
|
New!
New!
|
|
Research
|
Online databases
Online analysis tools
|
|
Forums
|
News & Commentary
Jobs Forum
(Career Center)
Bulletin Board
Bioclusters
Biodevelopers
Molecular visualization
|
|
 |
An Open Letter to Bioinformatics Researchers
Submitted by David Lapointe; posted on Sunday, December 10, 2000 (2 comments)
[ This message was sent to the Bio* lists by Sean Eddy and Ewan Birney. ]
``By now you have probably heard that Celera Genomics has submitted their human genome paper to the journal Science. Science and Celera have agreed to special terms for the release of the human genome sequence data. It will be made available through the Celera website, and will not be submitted to the international DNA database consortium (GenBank, EMBL and DDBJ). Science's statement regarding the agreement is at:
[link]
``All major journals, including Science, have a policy of deposition of sequence data with the `appropriate data bank'. The accepted community standard is submission to GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ. The reason for this deposition is to make the results of the work openly available for future research. This principle was specifically mentioned in the Clinton/Blair statement on human genome sequencing - [link] - who strongly upheld the view that `unencumbered access' to genome data was critical.
``The terms of the Celera/Science agreement will give us access to the genome sequence, but not unencumbered access. Celera is suggesting publishing their data under a MTA (Material Transfer Agreement) which would prevent large scale downloads and incorporation of this data into GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ. In order to download the data, you and your institution will have to sign a contract guaranteeing that you will not `redistribute' the Celera data.
``Science believes that the deal is an adequate compromise because it provides us the right to download the data and publish our results. We believe Science is thinking in terms of single gene biology, not large scale bioinformatics. It is probably not hard for you to imagine scenarios in bioinformatics in which `publication' and `redistribution' are virtually the same thing; we cannot imagine Celera allowing us to incorporate data into Pfam, for example, nor into Ensembl.
``We are asking for your support in writing to Science to politely insist that genome sequence papers should be accompanied by unencumbered deposition to GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ. Please note that we [not speaking for Bioinformatics.org] have no issue with Celera either keeping this data unpublished for commercial reasons, nor with them combining their data with freely available data from the public genome projects. We would defend their right to do either. Our view is simply that the genome community has established a clear principle that published genome data must be deposited in the international databases, that bioinformatics is fueled by this principle, and that Science therefore threatens to set a precedent that undermines our research.
``We encourage you to express your views on this matter to Donald Kennedy (kennedyd@stanford.edu), the Editor-in-Chief of Science, and/or to Barbara Jasny (bjasny@aaas.org), the managing editor in charge of genomics papers at Science.''
Full Text of message can be found here:
[link]
|
|
Expanded View | Monitor Forum
| Save Place | Post | Admin
Start a new thread:
You have to be to post a reply.
|
|
![[?]](/images/ic/info.png)
impact of triggers in genomic databases![[eXludus Technologies]](/images/ack_banners/eXludus-468x60.jpg)
![[Bioinformatics: Methods Express]](/images/ack_banners/methods_express-468x60.jpg)