actually it reminds me more of finding 1000s of human contaminants annotated as proteins within draft bacterial genomes in GenBank, which we published in 2018 (and @aphillippy.bsky.social knows this work): pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31064768/

this is hilarious. AI fails again 🤣

We also see the same patterns in other datasets:
📊 PCAWG
📊 TCGA - Cleaner signals produced by a fantastic paper today from Peter Ge, @stevensalzberg.bsky.social & team)

www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

Congrats @kuanhaochao.bsky.social ! It's been great having you in the lab, and I can't wait to see what you do next!

I agree that it's clearly illegal to put all grant funding under the absolute control of OMB and Russell Vought. But did anyone notice that NIH has not issued a single new R01 award (or competing renewal) since Aug 1? So the halt last week, which was supposedly overruled, seems to have happened?

Truly awful behavior by OMB and Vought. And in case no one has noticed, NIH has issued zero new R01s or competing renewal R01s since August 1. So it seems they did in fact pause all funding last week, despite reports to the contrary.

I guess you've been reading the latest papers on deep learning models such as AlphaGenome and Evo2? 🤣

I listened to the clip. Vought is telling outrageous lies that he knows to be false. He is just an evil guy, there's no other way to interpret it.

I don't understand how you get to 5/8. If you fully fund a 4-year grant, doesn't that cost 4 times as much as funding just the first year? And what if a grant is in year 1 out of 4 - does this mean they fund the remaining 3 years now? How much of each year's budget goes to new grants on average?

well, if you delete it, then you've lost your 23andMe account. If you signed up in the first place, you presumably found some usefulness in that. I'm saying that the upside (whatever subjective value that is) outweighs the downside for me, and for me the downside is very small.