Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!jes From: jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.genbank Subject: Re: Quality of submitted data Message-ID: Date: 15 Aug 90 15:26:21 GMT References: <9008141623.AA00744@histone.lanl.gov.LANL.GOV> Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu Organization: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Lines: 30 In-reply-to: kristoff@genbank.BIO.NET's message of 15 Aug 90 08:48:03 GMT > ...to gain such recognition? The fear of public exposure might even have > the opposite effect from what you suggest. That is one force against premature submissions. Another that I've been reminded of is that the advent of PCR has made the appearance of a sequence in the database nearly equivalent to giving out the clone. Certainly those in competitive situations will be reluctant to do that. > enter the data into a computer. Without such analysis it is hard to > say that the data has been thoroughly reviewed even though the paper > was accepted for publication. ... Note that the kind of error I'm concerned with would never be caught by analysis of the sequence data - it's experimental error. If I say I read an 'A' at that position, it is entirely dependent on my interpretation of the raw data. If the raw data are poor at that position and I only have one reading of one strand, you'll never know short of an independent repetition of the experiment. I hope the honor system, and the previously mentioned counter-forces continue to uphold the integrity of the databases.