Talk:Human Genome Project

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 2 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Sequencing of the human genome. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 14, 2006 and April 14, 2016.

Dates?

The dates are mostly wrong, right?

could you be more specific? Courtland 00:34, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

how can it have started in 1990, expected to have taken 15 years, finished in 2000 and be only two years early?

The '15 years' had been predicted in 1987, and so was perfectly accurate.

2003 was the publication of the "golden" publication, which was clean of many of the errors present in the draft sequence (their standard was 1 error/ 10,000 bases). Thus, when the project was slated to be done in 2005, the final publishment of the sequence was in 2003, hence the two years ahead of their goal. Here, I found support, http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/timeline.shtml. If you look under 1987, a 15-year program is suggested, but undr 1990, it states that the 15-year project formally begins.

On the contrary

Rolling circle was not an essential innovation for the creation of a human genome sequence. I would recommend reading the source literature. The " Hierarchical shotgun sequencing" and "Technology for large-scale sequencing" section of the paper describing the public project's <a href=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html>draft</a> explicitly cites the critical techniques employed by ALL the large, public genome centers. Rolling circle amplification is not among them.

Further descriptions of the technologies required for a high-throughput genome center can be found <a href=http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/10/8/1081>here</a> and <a href=http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/10/9/1288>here</a>. Again, rolling circle is not among the essential technologies.

I would recommend removing it.

wrong place

this part is in the worg place, it disrupted my reading down the page. and is mostly irrelivant to the section.

James D. Watson was Head of the National Center for Human Genome Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States starting from 1988. Largely due to his disagreement with his boss, Bernadine Healy, over the issue of patenting genes, he was forced to resign in 1992. He was replaced by Francis Collins in April 1993, and the name of the Center was changed to the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in 1997.

Mapping vs. sequencing

There is a recent revert related to the date and predictions for date for mapping the genome. Much of the article confuses, or at least doesn't make so obvious the difference, between mapping and sequencing. At the beginning, it was expected to map the genome first. That is, generate clones, that is, actual pieces of DNA along with their position in the genome, and then sequence them. Much of the ability to finish the genome depended on advances in computing, and some of those advances allowed for whole genome shotgun sequencing at the gigabase scale. That wasn't considered from the beginning. The result of doing shotgun sequencing meant that mapping first wasn't needed. In the end, that sped things up, though also made the result more confusing. Before we get into dates, though, the article needs to separate mapping and sequencing. Gah4 (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Waqar💬 15:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human Genome Project → Sequencing of the human genome – I have been in contact with a smart person who, during high school, heard that "The human genome project has been completed" and decided that genetics was no longer worth pursuing. This kind of confusion is really bad on the Precision criterion for article titles. Also, the HGP benefited from genetics research not done explicitly under the banner of HGP.

For these two reasons, I believe that a WP:NATURAL title would be more appropriate than the current WP:COMMONNAME title. Ideally we will select a name so natural that it can work as an unpiped link in prose, such as Sequencing of the human genome or alternatively Initial mapping of the human genome. Of these two natural titles, "sequencing" is shorter, more accurate, and already a redirect to this article. Jruderman (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this would be a large massive change of scope, all on the basis of a "smart person". Another article should be made if you believe sufficient Human genome sequencing was done independently of the HGP. WP:NATURAL is for disambiguation, which the original title lacks any, therefore "Human Genome Project" is already WP:NATURAL. Dank Jae 17:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human genome sequencing is shorter and more recognizable than what I suggested, fwiw. (Is it possible to update the original move nom to suggest this title?

I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to have two separate articles on almost the same thing. Jruderman (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is about this specific project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Necrothesp. This is a proper name for a specific scientific research project, and not a general article about human genome sequencing. As DankJae mentioned, if you want a separate article about "Sequencing of the human genome", you can feel free to create one. Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons others have mentioned. Jaredroach (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.