I wrote an editorial piece in 'Science' about the nightly data release and how I thought it was bad for science as a field, I think a few years before Celera was formed.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
People think that Celera's trying to patent the whole human genome because it's been used as - I guess people in Washington learn how to do political attacks, and so it gets used as a political weapon, not as a factual one.
I think it was this curiosity about the natural world which awoke my early interest in science.
Science coverage could be improved by the recognition that science is timeless, and therefore science stories should not need to be pegged to an item in the news.
I learned from Linus Pauling it's not a disgrace in science to publish something that's wrong. What's bad is to publish something that's not very interesting.
I saw science as being in harmony with humanity.
The reason I spend so much of my time doing science is that the whole point of science is to help people resolve conflicting claims by saying: 'Show me the data.'
We really think it is a good thing for scientists to spend a little bit of their time either in the community or in schools or helping to train high school teachers.
I had then and still retain an interest in science for its own sake and as a metaphor for our current lives.
I don't recall any interest in science in particular. It came later in college.
Science shouldn't be just for scientists, and there are encouraging signs that it is becoming more pervasive in culture and the media.