Encode rejected (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, February 23, 2013, 12:52 (4268 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A very critical paper has just appeared downplaying the ENCODE claim that 80% of DNA is functional. The meaning of the word functional is debated and twisted in a extraordinary way. My take is that the huge DNA molecule at times has controlling segments which need to be a a certain 3-D realtionship to the gene. The DNA is coiled around histone spools and this arrangement requires modifying elements, various RNAs, to be at a seeming distance when DNA is expressed in a linear fashion, but in fact those elements are close by in the naturally coiled state. -http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full.pdf+html-Hardly "downplaying" ... this is a devastating dissection and rejection of the methods and findings of the researchers. For a layman like myself it's impossible to make a judgement, and one needs at least to see a response from the ENCODE researchers themselves. It's not clear to me from your own comments whether you are accusing the critics of twisting the meaning of "functional" or repeating their own accusation that this is what the ENCODE people have done. It's obviously a crucial point, and since you are our resident science expert, I would love to know whether you think the criticisms do or don't sound justified. Again this is not clear to me from your comments.-You have often slated research bodies for the amount of money they waste on useless projects. If the critics are right, this is even worse than useless ... 288 million dollars have been spent on what amounts to falsifying the accounts!