ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

It took nature BILLIONS of years to develop the human genome. What were we expecting, a little AAA map inside that says "This way to cancerland"?

To think that after all this time nature was just going to allow us to fix her own system without a fight is ridiculous. The complexity of nature is something we can continue to explore and someday maybe even solve. Just because the sequences and mutations are uncovered doesn't mean we know what it means.

Nature's life has been challenged multiple times on earth by her own catastrophes, each time it was restarted in different directions. From the PreCambian extinction 650 million years ago to the great extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago there have been hundreds of extinctions in between and millions of species eradicated.

Genomes have been destroyed, altered and rearranged until nature stumbled around and created us. Life is still totally misunderstood as to "why", to think we will soon decide "how" life happened and how we can control it may be a bit misguided.

Life is a complex entity, to think we're just going to figure it out in 100 years or so is naive on our part. From the simplicity of a single celled amoeba to the massive size of a hump-back whale, from the simple intelligence of a flower following the tract of the sun to mans incredible intellect, it is all linked.

Despite our curiosity and even our grandiose desire to use natures most incredible creation to benefit our existence, life is still a mystery. We may expose nature, we may even discover the secrets buried in lifes blueprint, the question we will face is,,,

now what?

How much of humanity's health problems are actually 100% genetic rather than the consequences of living a @!$%#ty lifestyle on a toxic planet? No magic bullets here folks, better move along to alt.energy. Or prayer, because everyone knows that always works and is cheap as free.

do think tthat nature accidentally stumlble on this complex we called human existence,through the evolutionary process?. is evolution a theeory or a scientific discipline

Well it was wortha try. It's a good start to a long process.

How can we figure out how to cure genetic-linked diseases if we can't even stop an oil leak?? Besides, the earth, our home, is overpopulated now and would be impossible if life was extended and death didn't trim the population....which isn't happening now. All our efforts are fairly useless and probably detrimental to the survival of the human species.

Fisherman ..... too much mercury?

USARogue #1.1: Great comment..................of course no AAA map...........how about a Mapquest address for that cancer gene!

Seems to me this is largely a problem for the press who has hyped this thing beyond the bounds of reason. Scientists have rarely said we would have cures in 10 years. Anyone who works in research or in drug development knows it takes 15 years minimum (and a billion dollars!) to bring a drug to market once the drug is first made. However it can take 15 years to even conceive of the drug once the genetic targets are known. There also needs to be staggering investment for the basic academic research, which has been staggeringly reduced over the last 10 years. And all this won't make the drug work if there is more to the complexity of the diseases. Often we learn more about the disease after drugs are already being made, as is the case in Alzheimer's.

Further, knowing the basic genome doesn't tell us what the genes do, or how the proteins that they code for interact and regulate each other. Decoding the genome was a big first step in an even bigger journey to decode our biochemistry. If Clinton said 10 years to some interesting cures he was wrong - and right. We have had amazing advances in many fields and there are many new avenues of research that have been stimulated by the technologies and information from the genome project. There are drugs being made and marketed today that are a direct result of this new field. They just happen to not be all out cures, but rather treatments for many chronic conditions. All the low hanging fruit has been plucked decades ago. Gone are the days of getting a simple shot in the arm for a cure. The remaining diseases are much more complicated and require more complicated medicines and treatments.

Also remember that some diseases such as cancer are a combination of genetic problems and no two cancers are alike. There is no magic bullet for cancer and the public needs to get that idea into their heads. Blaming scientists and the drug industry for not curing the world of disease in 10 years just shows the depth of ignorance within our population. People either need to get a degree and do some research themselves or they have really got nothing to add to the conversation.

USARogue & radagast - Excellent comments! What is your background? I'm an FP physician.

Agree we are near the beginning, not the end, of genetic research and genomics. By doing the basic science, we truly have discovered how little we know, and raised many more questions about the unknown. Applied science will take more time. We are not yet 300 years in the future where Dr. Crusher of Star Trek can sequence a genome and synthesize a cure within the span of a TV episode.

Given that safe and effective designer drugs are few and far between, and that the cost for demonized "Big Pharma" to bring a new drug to market is on the order of $1 billion. We have a long way to go.

For now, I still would emphasize to patients taking personal responsibility, living healthy lifestyles, not seeking a pill to fix everything, and taking the cheaper generic well-established medications when medically indicated.

Always good to meet another medical professional! I'm an Alzheimer's researcher doing basic academic science. I am continually awed and humbled by new advancements every year and the pace of work continues to increase. The theories of just 5 years ago are proving to only describe part of the story and I know this is largely true of many fields. What we know today will be dwarfed by next year. The pace of discovery and the understanding that comes with it is directly related to our understanding of the human genome and the techniques that were developed. But the picture that is evolving is one of staggering complexity beyond what even the craziest scientist ever dreamed. Without ways of dealing with the huge amounts of data we are largely limited in our interpretations. But if I didn't think it was worth doing I wouldn't be doing it and I know that that goes for the vast majority of researchers out there. That's why I bristle at people who state that science is all about greed and cover-ups. These people clearly have no understanding about the things they espouse.

You're right that being healthy overall and being responsible for one's own health goes a long way to avoiding many chronic diseases. Genetics is showing us clearly that our environment and lifestyle alters the activity of our genes and that it isn't just mutations that predispose us to negative health. A large part of Alzheimer's involves a breakdown in overall health that eventually manifests in the brain. Healthy lifestyles go a long way to mitigate these changes. That's good news because we don't have to wait 20 years for a drug in order to make a healthy change in people's lives.

radagast - Thanks!

FYI - http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/362/21/2001 - NEJM article on genomics. Things are a lot more complicated than DNA ---> RNA ---> protein.

Tell me about it! I'm trying to write a grant right now and I keep starting over with every new paper I read. The post translational modifications to proteins in signaling cascades are ridiculous to comprehend and people keep finding more. This is where the action is in driving biochemistry and we barely understand a fraction of it because we never had the tools to detect it. I'm trying to put it all together in a meaningful way in my research and you'd be surprised how many previously misunderstood things come into rapid focus when these modifications are incorporated. I need more grad students!

Thanks for the article!

And why should it not be so? After all, the god of America is named Profit. The more lives that can be placed on Profit's alter the better.

You can remove all the genetic causes for cancer, and people will still get cancer. There is enough industrial waste in the food chain and all around you to ensure millions of americans (that are not predisposed to cancer), will eventually get cancer.

Throw in cosmic radiation (and pretty much all forms of radiation) and mutation of genes, and genetic causes will eventually find there way back in to the genome anyways.

That is why the free market is such a dumb way to run a healthcare system. Too bad no one will let us fix it.

This article is one of the most ill-responsible and naive pieces I have ever seen written . Let's see,, the process of apoptosis, Gleevec as a drug that has saved 100's of thosands of lives for G.I.S.t and CML, but more importantly, the ability to turn on and off genetic "signals with a pill.

It has been intrumental in finding drugs that make living with AIDS possible. here is a long list of FUTHERING the process to undestand how things work.

12 years is not long time, and it was never intended to be a magic bullet . The really strange part is the writer says that it has not yielded and good information ( not true) but then admits , that people are only now starting to have their own genertic sequences done. DUH.

It was made as a map , not everyones is the same , so to say it is a waste is nuts.

They are in the process of,, lets say Pain medication, where YOUR pain were be treated specifically to your genetic make up. Same thing with YOUR cancer, and many other diseases.

So your ___— will have drugs, made specifically for your body and genetic make up. It is a HUGE leap in the treatment of disease, pain, etc. HUGE.

The writter,and we know who he works for, ( at least it gives him an excuse ) did not research his info very well.

The Gnome is already changing the way that drs will treat people . As with Gleevec, the ability to turn on and off a gene with a pill is like the invention of electricity .

Bobby - You are apparently foreign or semi-illiterate in English with your bad grammar and terrible spelling......but you have some good ideas. Keep thinking. That's all we can do.

It's the mercury from the fish ,or maybe the effects of the chemo therapy that is saving my life on my eye sight .

One of the 2

The whole reason we see no cures from this project is because Big Pharm doesnt want there ever to be cures, else they'd be out of business.

CoH be damned, that is one of the most irresponsible, untrue, mentally impotent, and just plain dumb lines of reasoning ever postulated. I have to respond simply because of the real divisions and mistrust that these kinds of comments sow in the real world. The author of that quote is hardly alone in this thinking however, and it shows the imbecilic nature of thought in America these days. Just a bunch of armchair scientists and conspiracy theorists who troll the internet getting naive people angry about nonsense, because it fits their personal narrative of victim-hood and helplessness. It must feel good to have no responsibility for the world and just create false scapegoats instead. Saying that drug companies won't cure diseases simply because they will run out of products to sell is like saying that musicians don't write songs because they are afraid of running out of songs to sing.

Instead of turning people against each other, people like this ought to get involved, do some research, and make a difference. Get educated.

Biological research is an expensive, time consuming, and complicated endeavor. It is made even harder to achieve anything when our population turns against science or spreads insidious lies about research ethics.

Cygnus - You are free to voice your opinions. That is what is great about our country. Instead of ranting, how about be part of the solution. Comments by radagast (1.9 & 2.7) are right on!

Bobby - You are partially correct about Gleevec. But sometimes the malignancy develops resistance to this drug. The more we learn, the more complex we discover things are. The science behind the drug and the cellular processes is amazing.

The health care system in this country has NEVER been a free market system in your lifetime. This is a fact. Sorry people, those of you who endlessly caw on about the free market being corrupt normally point out examples that aren't free market systems. Sounds to me that most people who complain about the free market have no idea what it really is.

Secondly, it's not only the US who's working on this puzzle. There are plenty of other nations that have thrown their hats into the ring who don't have the restrictions of the US Government over their heads that are making small amounts of progress in different areas related to genetics. Get your head out of the sand and you'll see it.

There is actually a lot of short term money in curing cancer. If it takes $10k to test your genome, i am sure it will cost a heck of a lot more to alter it.

Most corporations are all about short term gains, which allows them to move on to the next best thing. That is, of course, if you are not part of some government subsidized corporation. Then profits dont matter.

Did God not give us the gift of knowledge? Does he just say " ride it out? " I think not.

Jesus and teaching people to fish rings a bell somewhere.

maybe he gave us that knowledge and reason for a reason? just a thought

If the scientists are trying to solve this mystery, it is god that is letting them.

If god did not want scientists to do this, then they would not be doing this.

"Where's the profit in finding a cure for a disease?"

History bares this out. Everyone knew there was no money in pharmaceuticals and the big bucks were in leaches, blood letting, and electroshock.

History bares this out. Everyone knew there was no money in pharmaceuticals and the big bucks were in leaches, blood letting, and electroshock.

There is a lot of money in antibiotics too. You would be amazed at things that are in the pipeline.

You don't have to use them. Keep letting your kids use anti-bacterial soap every 3 seconds, and then when you are sitting in a tree, with a 103 fever they cant treat because the bacteria is resistent to everything, you will be thankfull that this project was done.

will you stick to your principles and not use anything that comes from this reasearch? I doubt it.

isn't living with diabetes much more manageable than 20 years ago? They are very close to some major treatment annoncements that will change that disease forever.

still whose responsiblity for the HUGE increase in childhood diabetes? The parents not watching diet . coke vs water. Giving the kids crappy meals with 20 lbs of surgar in it?

Personal responsiblity plays a role

Still, who'd

JA,

Why don't you use your body to test these things? Biotechnology has created ways to produce artificial cells that generate insulin. Are you willing to put this "crap" in your body for the betterment of science?

Most people are not, so science has to work with what it has. The day they allow widescale testing on humans is the day medical science can actually create these miracle cures that so many people demand.

I did. Chemo therapy saved me from a certain death sentence . 100% death, fast without it, 100 % cure with it.

where is the hesitation in that equation?

Was your chemo therapy experimental? Or, was it tested on mice and other animals for years before that? When human testing was finally allowed, did they first test it on people in very low dosages. You know, the people that had a high probability of survival without the meds?

Sorry to say Bobby, but I seriously doubt you were testing out anything that was not tested many years before human trials.

You can either have safety or you can have fast turnover on experimental treatments. Most people, including our government (atleast most of the time) will take safety over everything else.

I am sorry to hear about your dad.

Yes, lung cancer is bad, but the progress they have made in the last 5 years has been a huge leap. Made another huge leap in the last year, with a vaccine now in final stage approval process, and the results have been phenominal .

The trickey thing abut cancer, and more specific , lung cancer is why someone who never smokes get's it ( Chris Reeves wife) and someone who smokes 5 packs a day, never does . There is a group of people in Italy who they are studying very closely who smoke like there is no tomorrow. No lung cancer.

What are they using to figure out why? The genetic make up of these people, directly resulted by the Gnome project. Once they found the genetic make up of the sequence, as the writer of this article "blurted" in a single sentence, then they go to the individual's sequence . They are not the same in everyone . The " Gnome" mapped the general sequence, but individuals will have a variation of the sequence , which also must be mapped.

There is ony 3 cancers that can be cured for the most part with Chemo therapy . Testicular has gone from an almost 100 % death sentence to a 100 % cure rate. childhood lukemia , and Hodgekins. The same.

Cancer,is triggered by something in the sequence and something in the world . This project has gone a long way to understanding where to find the triggers. Cancer will never be cured as a blanket treatment for everyone. It will be treated, cured, or be a chronic , treatable disease based on the individuals "system"

This article is poorly written and researched , and it is clear the author had no idea what he was writing about .

Again, as a canncer survivor of 13 years , I am very sorry about your father . It may or may not be any comfort,b ut what they learned from your father will one day help many, many people with lung cancer. They have made great leaps toward treatment, and they are close.

Hang in there.

They now understand the process called Apoptosis. It is the genetic signal that tells the heart cells to die. Without the project, they would have taken decades to find this out.

It is important as if they can stop the signal, or messages for the heart cells to die, then they stop or hghly reduce the number of cells that die during a heart attack , reducing damage to the heart, which is a muscle.

This is directly related to the gonome project. There are many many more. it is ludicris for this author to say " gee, it has been 10 years, where are the cures? " He completely over looked, or was extremely lazy in his reasearch, as he never mentioned a single one that have been used in treatment , directly from the project.

He never mentioned the HUGE advancement in pain treatment. It won't be take a percocet for evveryone, but it will be a tailored treatment for Bobby's pain, or Jims pain.

Same for treatment of cancer. Same for heart disease. The gnome was to map the sequence of the genes of the human body. The subset of that, which he touches on, briefly, was actually the "meat" of the story . Everyones subset is different in some ways . Once they have your subset , then they can create treatments for a specific individual , rather than one size fits all. We all don't have the same shoe size, or same color eyes. Why is that? It is our own subset of genes.

He/she wrote this article on a one size fits all perspective. that is what is wrong here. he/she didnt get the big picture.

There are tons and tons of things, treatments coming from this in a relatively hort period of time, as far as research is concered. You will one day in the not so distant future, have Bobby's medicine, or Nibor's medicine rather than "one size fits all." had he/she looked, she would find examples of this becoming the norm, everywhere .

yes it is expensive , but as with everything , the more people doing it, the lower the price will be .

Totally lazy, and poorly researched article.

Look at the history of science and you'll see there have been many experiments and studies that resulted in no useful outcome except the knowledge that a particular path of study was a dead end. How long did it take for electricity to advance from an interesting curiosity to a useful force that could be controlled and used?

Really Steve? Gimme a break!

You know what? That statement is ...... well, you know if you look deep down inside yourself .

Cures or treatments would shorten hospital stays , thus reducing cost to insurance companies. Treatments for CML with gleevec has reduced cost 10 fold by keeping people out of Hospitals .

One of the best Oncologist in the world, at Indiana University, who discovered the protocol that is most studied in the world for treatment of Testicular cancer said one time. " if i could bill by the hour like a lawyer, he woulld be rich ". He doesn't , and he isn't. he will never refuse anyone treatment based on pay. the majority of his patients do not pay. he never complains , nor is it his motivation , and he helps people all over the world. Free. I think he makes approx 80,000 a year. that doesn't cover basic med school any more.

A GP, if he gives a vaccination in his office LOSES 50.00 for every shot he gives . Great potential for profit there eh steve?

Now, if you are thinking about those evil Drs a certain politician often cites who are making Billions cutting off peoples feet, and removing their tonsils, resulting in skyrocketing medical cost, you my have a point.

The problem is, I know 100's of Drs, and not one of them have ever amputated someones feet. Not a single time, let alone all the time. I also dont see a ton of people walking down the street, or excuse me, kneeling on skate boards , rolling down the street , because there is some mass foot amptation going on somewhere, at some secret locations so a Dr can buy a new boat.

Moronic.

Less hospital, quicker treatment means less cost. Ask anyone in the UK. they first make you wait, so if you die ( funeral is cheaper than heart surgery ), they may or may not give you a glass of water, you see a nurse not a dr ( sometimes good ,sometimes bad ) if you need a Ct-scan more wait, and if you are still alive, you are out in days. But it's free right? opps forgot those taxes you pay for shoddy treatment.. great system cause it's free.

Sure... the Pharma's LOVE the insurance companies. I don't think so......

Aside from the obvious sham science that is espoused in your post, you areright that environment plays a role in many chronic diseases. However, understanding genes is necessary to understanding how our cells' biochemistry works at a functional level during health and disease and how environmental conditions affect those genes. There may not be a magic bullet cure in every disease that can be found in our genes, but the understanding we gain as to the regulation of genes and which genes are doing what and when is instrumental. We seek to understand the biological processes of cells in the same way we understand how a car's engine works. Until we achieve that level of sophistication we will have no shot at understanding the disease processes of chronic disorders.

I agree with one statement you made. White, refined surgar is one of the most dangerous substances on this earth, and is in almost everything we eat.

Use raw brown surgar.

Ever visit a sugar refinery? I used to work in one. 98% of raw brown sugar, as you call it, is nothing but white refined sugar with molasses added to it. Brown sugar can be produced by adding the molasses at an earlier stage of refining, but there are still loads of chemicals involved in it's manufacture. Sugar is bad news, white, brown, pink with yellow dots, it doesn't matter.

C. albicansis not the cause of all cancers. Academic scientists compete against each other for accuracy. I highly doubt there is a conspiracy to reduce accuracy among the thousands of private research groups, by stifling data. If Dr. Simoncini is right (and most evidence says otherwise) he will be eventually borne out. Conspiracies do not survive long in scientific circles, not by the nature of the people, but by the nature of the process.

"Big Pharma is never going to allow any cures for diseases because of the enormous loss of profits on drugs to treat"

So... there are no cures for any diseases because they don't make money? I think there are a lot of cures for a lot of diseases. I could name 1,000's.

so nonsense .

Do you know how much it takes to research and develop a drug, take it thru the FDA etc?.

You want it for free? the problem is, that you pay for it one way or another, either out of pocket , insurance, or through Taxes.

Where is the free in that picture?

Where do you work Common? Would you work for free? I wish next time I go to a restaurant, the waiter is free, the drinks are free, maybe they will do my laundry , all for free?

new clothes. free. New car, free and the guy selling it to me, better be free and nice.

Even in Cuba, things are not free. canada, not free. UK, Italy, China, India, not free. Saudi ,not free. Dubai, very not free and in fact expensive.

where do you get the idea that things should be free? start with yourself, and give up your paycheck, or Government check , then we can talk.

would you work for free? Serious question

Is your internet free? your x-box or cell phone? nope

Common"sense", then how about you stop seeing doctors and stop using medicines altogether and help lower my insurance payments?

Saying that drug companies won't cure diseases because they will run out of drugs to make is like saying musicians don't write songs out of fear of running out of songs to write.

CommonSense - Your logic is faulty. Cures are incremental and very costly to develop. Genomics is the future and is fascinating scientifically, but the discoveries that result (e.g. personalized medicine, a cure for every individual harmful gene mutation or single nucleotide polymorphism or chromosomal translocation) are frightfully expensive.

yes, it cost me a lot too. I paid it , took 5 years but I paid it.

I don't believe cancer should be political , butt the Politicians like it that way. It's about controll, not compassion.

There are tons and tons of resources for people with cancer . Most Drs will treat for free, as cancer survivors are good with understanding the difficulty and cost, and are very generous with their hard earned dollars. Komen, LAF, and 1,000's of others are there to help.

One of the biggest misses people do is when they find out they have canccer, immediately ask for the LCSW that is available to everyone. hey are the angels, and they find the money. many people don't pay a dime , because there are so many places and people that help.

That's America. Anytime at a hospital, ask for the social worker. They are true angels

The majority of Pharma research is "rented or purchased" from Universities, who now form Corporations to protect their discoveries.

Take what you said and reverse it. pharma's cut R & D about 15 years ago, which is why you saw a surge in Small Biotect Companies, which were the universities forming Corporations . It was less expensive to do it this way, rather than doing it all themselves .

So they "rent " part A from one University, Part B from another... so on and so on.

it is win-win for both . many a University researcher or groups of them, and the Universities themselves make a ton of money from this research, which is "rented or sold to the parma companies.

Shocking I know, but the Universitiy Researchers and the schools themselves wanted a piece of the pie .

Again, started about 15 years ago, and is now the norm. Has been for quite a while

How about some free science to dispell your myth? Go to www.pubmed.com. Poke around and you'll find millions of scientific papers published to the public. The only fee is for the journal subscription and that can be gotten around by simply using a computer at a medical university's library, which are for the most part open to the public. The vast bulk of science is available to the public if you know what you are reading of course.

Companies protect their investments - that is nothing new. Should they not have a right to profit from their investment? How could anyone produce a drug if they can't at least be garaunteed to recoup the money they put in? However, the basic science that they build their business on is freely available.

I agree about the diets, but the big problem is that we can't feed all the people in the world with natural foods. The productivity is just too low. We have grown beyond our means. How do we feed everyone without using processed foods or factory farms?

Also scientists aren't ignoring environment and diet in favor of genetic causes. The focus is on understanding how genes interact with themselves and the environment. Genes are not static things, they are very dynamic during normal biochemistry.

Eugenics is not genetics. Some misguided pseudoscientists used the new ideas of the time to espouse their twisted political views. They have nothing in common with modern genetics, or even genetics from their time.

The American Cancer Society claims that less than 90% of Lung cancer are associated with smoking. I wonder what other "facts" you've made up?

Agree with estcst that smoking is the cause of about 90% of lung cancers, not 98%.

I think that a fair amount of Medicare fraud is committed by persons not even involved in the care of patients (i.e. don't be so quick to blame doctors and otheer ancillary providers). I don't have any stats to back this up, just anecdotes. I'm thinking about persons who steal identities and create ficticious medical practices, and bill Medicare for services that did not exist, or even those scooter manufacturers and medical supply companies that advertise on TV (except Liberty) selling their high-priced items compared to companies that do not waste health care dollars on advertisements but rather contract directly with hospitals and Medicare.

The discoveries in the past were low-hanging fruit.

Your "nobody can interpret" line is erroneous, as are many statements that deal in absolutes. Scientists like radagast and physicians like myself interpret data regularly and gradually advance the field of medicine.

Pluto - if you even had an inkling of an idea of the complexity of the biological systems that are being understood and the continued genius of our researchers, you would understand why what you have said is as ignorant as it is insulting. If you have a problem with scientific research then why don't you do some of your own and see what it is really like? Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

The amount that the average researcher gets paid is similar to what a road crew gets paid to fix potholes. Only the road crew isn't in debt to the tune of $80K, they have a union, They work 40 hrs not 60 per week, and get paid overtime.

Yeah, follow the money!

Dumb idea. Do musicians run out of songs to sing? No the reason you think that there is a greedy conspiracy is because you are an armchair scientist who never took the time to do any real research of your own and try to contribute to the research. Perhaps you have spent your time on other worthwhile pursuits, but regardless, science is not one of them. If it had been however, you would know why what you espouse is nothing more than a scapegoater's attempt to play the victim in the face of a complex problem. You imagine vast conspiracies to fill the void of your ignorance. You are not alone in this line of thought however, as many posts here attest, but that is no excuse for not getting the facts.

Diseases are complex and many are simply beyond our reach. So please either get involved in the cures or get out of the way. Your ignorant position is an insult to the millions of people who dedicate their lives to the persuit of cures.

Jakeman: "it can be said with certainty that your doctor would soon go out of business if you were to suddenly be 'cured' of any disease."

Although that is obviously untrue, and your hyperbole is a little wild, what you say has some slight merit. The free market does often encourage the investment in treating symptoms rather than disease. That is one of many reasons why the free market is a bad way to run a healthcare system. Too bad it is the American people themselves who won't let us fix that.

P.S. Anybody using the phrase "it can be said with certainty" in the middle of a conspiratorial diatribe, can probably be taken fairly lightly.

I'm pretty sure that the techniques used to sequence the genome are absolutely blind to coding and "junk" DNA differences. How could they only focus their efforts on sequencing coding sequences when they wouldn't know what was coding and not coding until after they sequenced it?

Also Craig Venter's group sequenced the genome privately without the government.

I'm not sure that your anger is well placed.

Also, Why wouldn't the government have the right to decide how its money will be spent? If the government funding agencies want to fund only projects that they feel will bear fruit isn't that their right - and obligation? Would you rather the NIH just gave money to any fly-by-night research without making sure that they had a plan to find something worthwhile? It sounds to me like you are all for government money for research, but not for government oversight of how that money is awarded. You can't have your cake and eat it too.