> We would have tools to ‘diff’ two different pieces of DNA and highlight the differences. Ya know, like Github but for DNA.
I remember the [Vanderbilt 2014 iGEM team](https://2014.igem.org/Team:Vanderbilt_Software/Project/Home) (which I think was [basically](https://github.com/cosmicexplorer/darwin) "Danny McCalahan") tried to make a simple git-based version control tool for DNA... In some ways I feel like we've made a lot of progress since then (I see a lot of teams using Benchling, and wonder if we'll see more people experimenting with other LIMS / lab notebook service software).
>Many papers don’t even attempt to make the exact DNA sequences they use available.
Often because they want to keep a (perceived) competitive advantage. I once emailed some authors and asked for expression vector sequences for BMP15 and GDF9, and they refused to share them.
I think journals should require sharing sequences as a condition of publication. It's really not that hard.
> We would have tools to ‘diff’ two different pieces of DNA and highlight the differences. Ya know, like Github but for DNA.
I remember the [Vanderbilt 2014 iGEM team](https://2014.igem.org/Team:Vanderbilt_Software/Project/Home) (which I think was [basically](https://github.com/cosmicexplorer/darwin) "Danny McCalahan") tried to make a simple git-based version control tool for DNA... In some ways I feel like we've made a lot of progress since then (I see a lot of teams using Benchling, and wonder if we'll see more people experimenting with other LIMS / lab notebook service software).
>Many papers don’t even attempt to make the exact DNA sequences they use available.
Often because they want to keep a (perceived) competitive advantage. I once emailed some authors and asked for expression vector sequences for BMP15 and GDF9, and they refused to share them.
I think journals should require sharing sequences as a condition of publication. It's really not that hard.