The Changing Roles of 'The Sequencers'
17/05/10 12:49 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Mon, 05/17/2010 - 14:32.
The plethora of genome sequencing projects is delivering a tsunami of gene and protein sequences with SNPs and other mutations. While every major sequencing lab should have a bioinformatician on board or at least near by, I am far more concerned about the dearth of scientists that are available to make sense of these vast data sets. It is one thing to have in-house programmers to analyze data, but the skills sets necessary to realize real value require a very deep understanding of molecular biology and biochemistry. As our graduate and post-graduate trainees become more and more narrowly focused on fewer genes, proteins and processes, they will become less able to recognize the rubies amongst the rubble, even when it is right before them. Even 10 years after the sequencing of the human genome, only a relatively small subset of the 23,000-encoded human proteins receive intense scrutiny and most are ignored. Consequently, the roles and functions of the majority of proteins remain obscure despite the power of "Omics" technologies to permit broad screening of genes, proteins and metabolites. We desperately need to train more systems biologists that are not so much programmers as scientists that are willing to learn of the immense vocabulary of molecular words (i.e. proteins) and grammar (i.e. protein inter-relationships) in the rich language of life. It requires the return of "Renaissance scientists" with a lot more breadth and depth of interest, training and knowledge than is typical today. Instead, our trainees take fewer courses, graduate sooner and are far less prepared to capitalize on the new opportunities in systems biology.
Link to the original blog post
The plethora of genome sequencing projects is delivering a tsunami of gene and protein sequences with SNPs and other mutations. While every major sequencing lab should have a bioinformatician on board or at least near by, I am far more concerned about the dearth of scientists that are available to make sense of these vast data sets. It is one thing to have in-house programmers to analyze data, but the skills sets necessary to realize real value require a very deep understanding of molecular biology and biochemistry. As our graduate and post-graduate trainees become more and more narrowly focused on fewer genes, proteins and processes, they will become less able to recognize the rubies amongst the rubble, even when it is right before them. Even 10 years after the sequencing of the human genome, only a relatively small subset of the 23,000-encoded human proteins receive intense scrutiny and most are ignored. Consequently, the roles and functions of the majority of proteins remain obscure despite the power of "Omics" technologies to permit broad screening of genes, proteins and metabolites. We desperately need to train more systems biologists that are not so much programmers as scientists that are willing to learn of the immense vocabulary of molecular words (i.e. proteins) and grammar (i.e. protein inter-relationships) in the rich language of life. It requires the return of "Renaissance scientists" with a lot more breadth and depth of interest, training and knowledge than is typical today. Instead, our trainees take fewer courses, graduate sooner and are far less prepared to capitalize on the new opportunities in systems biology.
Link to the original blog post