Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Confusion and Criticism over ENCODE's Claims

As_I_Please (471684) writes | more than 2 years ago

Science 1

As_I_Please (471684) writes "In response to the previous report of the ENCODE project discovering "biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome," many scientists have questioned what was meant by "function." Ars Technica Science Editor John Timmer wrote an article calling ENCODE's definition of functionality "broad to the point of being meaningless. At worst, it was actively misleading." Nature magazine also has a followup discussing the ambiguity surrounding the 80% figure and claims about junk DNA."
Link to Original Source

cancel ×

1 comment

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I hope this will get posted (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#41310387)

The ENCODE claim and its critics are too important not to be posted on Slashdot.

Like the link to Nature - [] - someone says that the 80% "junk" consists of repetition of more repetitions, including, and get this - "remnants of past viruses" !!

Yep, somehow our ancestors have managed to include past viruses into the genes that we are using today

Wow !

I learn new stuffs everyday

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?