Celera scientists published a commentary two weeks later saying that the simulations performed by Waterston and colleagues were flawed and based on false assumptions.4
Philip Green, Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and professor of genome sciences at the University of Washington, argues that Adams is backpedaling. "The explicit claim is in Celera's [2001] paper that they did an assembly by the whole genome approach. You can't allow false claims to persist in the literature." Green also published a commentary dispelling, among other things, the widely held notion that the competition Celera brought to the human genome project was a good thing, saying instead that it "has the downside of encouraging shortcuts that may compromise the ultimate result."5
While some sequencing-center heads maintain these criticisms, others have ducked the fray. Richard Gibbs, director of the Baylor College of Medicine genome-sequencing center has had the help of Celera in the effort to ...
