Read/Write World Genomics?
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
I have a post up at the new GSA blog, Read/write access to your genomes? Using the past to jump to the future. One thing I would say: I didn’t get into human germline modification because I don’t think it’s going to be a major issue in the near term. And, I think it’s more of a bioethical aspect of the technology of genetic engineering than a scientific one. I’m pretty sure we’ll have the technology, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. Also, special thanks to Yaniv Erhlic for writing A vision for ubiquitous sequencing. It really has gotten me thinking….
Follow @razibkhan
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Enjoyed your guest post. But again left me confused with your “post-genomics” terminology (which you’ve consistently for many years on your blog).
I would stylize some key data points framing genomic data availability as:
* earlier than 1970s – genetics theoretical framework without actual molecular data
* 1972 Lewontin – Apportionment of human diversity paper – by protein blood types (could date this to 1966 Drosophila paper)
* 1994 Cavalli-Sforza – his famous book, again using protein blood types
* 2000 – human genome sequencing ($1B cost) – as good as any point for demarcating using true genome data instead of protein stand-ins
* 2015 – $1000 genome
Now, I get your point in your article that once genomic data becomes cheap and commonplace enough, it disappears. We don’t talk about living in the electricity era, though that was a common term roughly a century ago. But we also don’t ever talk about being in the “post-electricity” era either.
If I were to break this up, maybe something like (I would defer to you on actual dates, though think eras are likely ok):
A) <1970 – pre-molecular genetics, pre-genomics era
B) 1970-2000 – protein molecular genetics era, transition to genomics era
C) 2000-future – genomics era. Not "post-genomics era"! With the understanding that "genomics era" terminology will gradually fall out of use as genomic data becomes so cheap as to be ubiquitous (like electricity era is no longer useful).
This is obviously not a point with much substance, just a terminology issue.But your usage always leaves me thinking I'm missing something. Maybe something interesting! So an "eras of genomics" post might be a good, if you find that topic worth your time. Anyway, never could quite figure out why you use "post".
Hmmmm…. just re-read what I wrote, maybe you're saying we have an era D) "post-genomics" that starts in say, 2015, where we have genomics so cheap it's invisible. In that case, I guess I would argue (by analogy with electricity era) that we are not there yet. GWAS with a million genomes is going to shake things up quite a bit: human groups and ancestry, intelligence, personality. That all has to happen and be socially absorbed before we are "post-genomics." Maybe another decade would be my guess. Saying that's now is like saying we are post-electricity era once 10% of the houses had electricity. But would least explain your usage if that's what you mean.
I would stylize some key data points framing genomic data availability as:
* earlier than 1970s - genetics theoretical framework without actual molecular data
* 1972 Lewontin - Apportionment of human diversity paper - by protein blood types (could date this to 1966 Drosophila paper)
* 1994 Cavalli-Sforza - his famous book, again using protein blood types
* 2000 - human genome sequencing ($1B cost) - as good as any point for demarcating using true genome data instead of protein stand-ins
* 2015 - $1000 genome
Now, I get your point in your article that once genomic data becomes cheap and commonplace enough, it disappears. We don't talk about living in the electricity era, though that was a common term roughly a century ago. But we also don't ever talk about being in the "post-electricity" era either.
If I were to break this up, maybe something like (I would defer to you on actual dates, though think eras are likely ok):
A) <1970 - pre-molecular genetics, pre-genomics era
B) 1970-2000 - protein molecular genetics era, transition to genomics era
C) 2000-future - genomics era. Not "post-genomics era"! With the understanding that "genomics era" terminology will gradually fall out of use as genomic data becomes so cheap as to be ubiquitous (like electricity era is no longer useful).
This is obviously not a point with much substance, just a terminology issue.But your usage always leaves me thinking I'm missing something. Maybe something interesting! So an "eras of genomics" post might be a good, if you find that topic worth your time. Anyway, never could quite figure out why you use "post".
Hmmmm.... just re-read what I wrote, maybe you're saying we have an era D) "post-genomics" that starts in say, 2015, where we have genomics so cheap it's invisible. In that case, I guess I would argue (by analogy with electricity era) that we are not there yet. GWAS with a million genomes is going to shake things up quite a bit: human groups and ancestry, intelligence, personality. That all has to happen and be socially absorbed before we are "post-genomics." Maybe another decade would be my guess. Saying that's now is like saying we are post-electricity era once 10% of the houses had electricity. But would least explain your usage if that's what you mean.Replies: @Razib Khan
i’m just following a convention. ppl started talking about ‘post-genomic’ in early 2000s, as in after genomics became a thing. it always struck me as confusing, but i followed the convention. also, genomics is not just WGS really. SNP-chip era is genomics too. we’re at the tail end of the SNP-chip era.