Forum: Petition to demand that the Federal German Government release all genomic data on SARS-COV-2
24
gravatar for Istvan Albert
12 days ago by
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
University Park, USA
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k wrote:

GISAID, the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data, a service hosted and supported by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany stores the most complete and extensive information on the SARS-COV-2 genomes.

Yet unlike for all other scientific data resources, the data distributed via GISAID is locked away behind a lengthy and discriminative registration process that requires that users accept onerous and limiting licensing terms that hinder science and progress (GISAID terms of use).

Here is one of the many statements that a scientist must accept:

"You may not distribute GISAID data outside the GISAID community, such as by releasing genetic sequences obtained in GISAID in any publication".

GISAID will even relicense data that is already publicly available in GenBank! A publicly available sequence, when obtained from GISAID, will carry a license.

We believe that the data collected from across the world: China, Australia, United States, Iran, Europe with public research-funds should be freely, immediately and readily accessible to all members of the global scientific community.


Edit: March 23, 2020

User s.elbe writes: "Background information and history of GISAID (before COVID-19) can be found here:"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gch2.1018


Here are the relevant statements on how the GISAID data sharing was born:

GISAID's genesis was closely associated with Peter Bogner – a studio executive with a background in creating and licensing media content, and in philanthropic behind‐the‐scenes work for organizations such as the United Nations and UNICEF. Bogner provided the lion's share of funding for setting up GISAID (a low‐mid seven figure sum) and was key to the development of the licensing mechanism that defines the GISAID data sharing policy."

forum gisaid • 4.0k views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 1 day ago • written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
7

I understand that as a founder of this site you can bring up any topic you want, but is activism to change data access really one of the accepted topics of this site? Even if the answer to that question is yes - and it likely will be, given that the moderators define the goals of this site - this is simply inappropriate:

GISAID is a shame to science and open access!

If I tried to shame the US government on this forum for their response to pandemic, that would likely be shut down as inappropriate, and rightfully so. It is not a matter how justified my intent - or yours - might be. It is not appropriate.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Mensur Dlakic4.1k
1

And for the record, if calling it a shame is too much for some I understand, I changed that to:

GISAID is harmful to science and open access!

I for one believe it is disgrace to science - but I'll just call it "harmful"

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
2

I for one believe it is disgrace to science - but I'll just call it "harmful"

It is not a matter of what you believe or what I believe. Posting your beliefs here in a form you did is, to borrow a phrase frequently used by moderators, unprofessional. I have seen many instances, some involving yours truly, where moderators have called posters unprofessional for way less than shaming a whole institution.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Mensur Dlakic4.1k

If the US Government limited your bioinformatics data access, I for one, would most certainly fully support you. I don't understand why you think otherwise. What makes you think we would not support you?

The post is fully on topic - bioinformatics data analysis - and brings up a very important issue that most people are not aware of or take for granted.

Anyone would be welcome to start a petition, as long as it is on topic.

ADD REPLYlink modified 12 days ago • written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
1

I think the real problem becomes clear by looking at the punitive restriction of access rights, in response to criticism. Imagine using or working with a Linux kernel, one day you decide to voice that you don't agree with or criticize the developers or the terms of the GPL (without breaching them to be precise, just criticize), in response they shut down your right to run, compile, download or publish code based on the kernel. "Open data" that can be administered in a Louis XIV. style, depending on goodwill is not open data. To call it outrageous that taxpayers' money is spent like this in the face of a crisis is a valid opinion. As a German (even if not taxpayer) I do support it. The data belongs to the public, we have already paid for it.

ADD REPLYlink modified 12 days ago • written 12 days ago by Michael Dondrup47k

They banned me, but I'll remove that statement too. It sounds like some will think I have an ax to grind.

In my opinion, it is completely unacceptable- beyond outrage - that a scientific data distribution site simply bans you if you disagree with them.

ADD REPLYlink modified 12 days ago • written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

It is totally unacceptable, maybe one should keep that in mind when reviewing a paper where data was submitted to GISAID, and require that data is submitted to a real repository instead.

Reading through the terms again, it looks to me in part as if they are framed to solicit unjustified co-authorships.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Michael Dondrup47k
1

That is really the fundamental problem with GISAID, they pretend they are "defending" the scientists' rights - yet they could do that just as well by releasing the data with a license that requires that you cite the scientist.

Instead, they only allow access to the data through their site and service, and won't allow even to deposit data elsewhere - even if you cited the scientist and gave them credit. GISAID wants to be the gatekeeper, that is how they justify their existence, rather than by the added value that they provide.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
1

The post is fully on topic - bioinformatics data analysis - and brings up a very important issue that most people are not aware of or take for granted.

In my opinion, the post is on topic up until the last three paragraphs, or last three sentences if you will. From that point on it becomes activism, which I think is inappropriate for this forum. That you still keep those last three sentences only reinforces the fact that you as a founder of this site can post whatever you want, because you can. I think you should do the right thing and delete that last part. Your post will still call attention to a wrong practice without itself being wrong, because other moderators will never sanction the founder.

ADD REPLYlink modified 12 days ago • written 12 days ago by Mensur Dlakic4.1k

For me the lines that you object to are not activism at all, just a summary for nontechnical users:

"GISAID is harmful to science and open access!"

"Call on the Federal Republic of Germany to make the data freely accessible."

"GISAID enables, promotes and enforces unacceptable scientific data distribution practices that should have never been permitted in the first place."

I don't at all mind removing these. And I just did that. This is nothing more to me than stylistic flourish, maybe more emotional as typically needed.

ADD REPLYlink modified 12 days ago • written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

forgot to mention, I appreciate that you took the time to articulate what your concern was, I agree that overall being less antagonistic and militant will make for a more effective message

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

FWIW, if you wanted to shame the US government, you'd find no censorship forthcoming from me...

ADD REPLYlink written 8 days ago by Joe16k
3

I agree with you in principle. I'm curious if there are GDPR regulations that constrain what GISAID and other research groups may be allowed to do regarding the (re-)distribution of genomic datasets from Europe. Or is this policy directly from GISAID, itself? I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if there are larger legal constraints, here, that bind even the German government, if that makes sense.

ADD REPLYlink modified 12 days ago • written 12 days ago by Alex Reynolds29k

The datasets are not all from Europe, all the data is there, from all locations: US, China, Australia etc.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
1

I understand — even so, GISAID is headquartered in Germany and so would presumably be bound to German and European regulations regarding privacy, which may (or may not) apply to genomic data. Some light would be useful here.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Alex Reynolds29k
2

Hi Istvan. It is not just about SARS-COV-2. Things of course should be evaluated on a case-by-case fashion, but overall I would say that paywalls and the like for scientific contents are taking a much higher toll on health and society. Also, I do not want to be mean but please remember that you are selling community-based efforts too.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k

Your comment is unrelated to the issue at hand - instead, you should comment on the actual statements:

  • Do you want to live in a world where a gatekeeper limits your access to sequencing data?
  • Do you think the licensing scheme is acceptable?
  • Do you think it is acceptable that you cannot access data collected with taxpayers' funds?
  • Do you think it is acceptable to no be able to train students on the latest data?

As for your comment, yes of course! Paywalls to published research are just as bad. Does that address the GISAID practice where now you can't even access data? At least there are ways to get a publication from other sources.

Please also stop with personal attacks, be stronger than that. Many people when they run out of arguments start the personal attacks. Don't be one of them. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with how this site is supported. What are you hoping to achieve when comparing a global, taxpayer-supported data distribution platform to Biostars?

ADD REPLYlink modified 12 days ago • written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
1

Istvan, I genuinely do not want to be mean. I just wanted you to think that this case might just be among many other factors that hamper research, and even health-relevant research. The fact that Sci-hub exists (if this is what you mean) does not make the whole publishing machine any less criticizable than what GISAID might be.

The second part of my comment was indeed a reference to the text book promoted on BioStar (which is per se a commendable project). You are certainly among the main promoters of the initiative, and this is the only reason why I invited you to reflect on its business model: in smaller proportion, it recapitulates things that you are criticizing here.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k

I think we will make more difference if we spread the word on this particular case, send the ministry an email or two, make more people aware. This licensing and data distribution reflects a model that should have not been accepted in the first place!

Once this issue is solved we can come back and explore the minor tangential issues that may or may not be relevant here.

ADD REPLYlink modified 12 days ago • written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

Yet my feeling is that this is just one particular example of a still very diffused phenomenon, namely single entities selling (aright or not) knowledge about important topics to the same community that has produced it. But I understand that we all have our personal sensibility, and of course that one has to start from somewhere!

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k

I feel like the German government should seize the data and make it truly open.

ADD REPLYlink modified 12 days ago • written 12 days ago by Michael Dondrup47k
2

I just wrote them a mail requesting the unrestricted release of all SARS-CoV-2 data. Let's see if/how fast they act.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Michael150
2

Dears, this is just to notify that two comments I left here 19 and 21 h ago (see below) are now missing. Did anybody remove them?

Missing comments:

https://ibb.co/Ksv083x

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k
1

I removed (moderated) my own posts to shorten this discussion and keep it focused on the main subject,

when you remove a post (your own included) replies that directly attach to it also disappear

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
2

This is not nice, Istvan.

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k
1

Genomic research across a globe is hindered by a company of dubious origin. Our duty as scientists is to keep data open, research reproducible. This is what this thread is about, this is what its purpose is - my hope is to keep the focus on what we are trying to achieve.

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
3

Istvan, you are heavily editing a forum topic using moderator privileges and based on very subjective evaluations.

Even if BioStar turns to be a legit platform for activism, at least you should leave the dialog open, and let the reader form their own opinion.

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k
1

I am deleting my own posts - no moderator privileges needed there. You are also allowed to delete your own posts at any time, and for any reason.

If you feel strongly about the way the site is moderated and you don't agree with this policy, please start a new forum thread talk about it there. This thread is not the right avenue for that.

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

I just disagree on the way this specific thread is moderated. The fact that we all have buttons to do this and that should not, in my opinion, be taken as a plain right to use any tool as we want. By that token, in principle I would be perfectly entitled of filling up this space with profanities (not that I intend to do so). So if you decide to delete your comment, knowing that this action would also cut off two comments from another person, you are actually taking the freedom to delete other people's opinions on the matter, treating them as garbage. For instance, I already expressed the idea that research being hindered by companies is no news at all. Why should this opinion be irrelevant here?

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k
3

I think that we are ultimately trying to do what is good, here. How would you explain to the public that potentially useful research data on SARS was being restricted, and that the organisation restricting it was actively blocking contact with users who complain?

Edit: granted, this is not new, and has happened, e.g., in cancer.

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Kevin Blighe56k
1

Hi Kevin, I am aware that you all mean to act in the interest of open science here, I was just expecting a bit more respect.

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k

Sure thing / Certo - let's try to see our common goals and get through this together. Insieme, siamo più forti!

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Kevin Blighe56k

Ok Kevin, thanks for your (unnecessary but appreciated) attempt to mitigate things. I will keep following your efforts on this particular issue as I would have done anyway, ciao!

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k

Va bene. Ci vediamo dopo.

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Kevin Blighe56k

I have reopened everything I posted, I think it adds nothing to the discussion but if you feel so strongly about it sure, I have no qualms about it.

I was hoping the make this thread less like reddit style wrangling, derailed onto unrelated topics.

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

I see your point, just thought a forum thread should stay open for discussion, especially for comments, which serve this scope in all kinds of threads. Thanks for bringing my comments back, it does make a difference!

ADD REPLYlink written 8 days ago by Anima Mundi2.6k

In addition, we live in exceptional times, and we see exceptional situations.

Politics and activism were never a focus here until it actually encroaches on what we do - until we see the fundamental problems.

You have several choices: drive it, be sympathetic, be neutral, move along with indifference, be a doubter, or be an obstacle. Think about how you want to look back on your contributions once we solve this.

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

wait.. what? #facepalm

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Jonathanjacobs240
1

Hi Istvan. I agree. It is very ironic to call an initiative Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data, and then explicitly prohibit sharing of data. In my opinion, public funding should in general not be used to generate restricted data. Somehow, these restrictions will work against scientific publications based on them. How to publish an analysis based on the data, if one is not allowed to publish the basis of findings?

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Michael Dondrup47k
1

The Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture seems to be the host and main source of funding. Maybe we should send a petition to Ms Klöckner and ask to change this waste of taxpayers' money.

Visitor's address: Wilhelmstraße 54, 10117 Berlin Postal address: 11055 Berlin
 Telephone: +49 30 / 1 85 29 - 0 Telefax: +49 30 / 1 85 29 - 42 62 E-mail: poststelle@bmel.bund.de

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Michael Dondrup47k

Excellent idea. I will send an email. I would suggest others do it too.

ADD REPLYlink written 12 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

I think we have to ramp this action up somehow, politicians and decision-makers won't recognize it here. Possibly by:

  • Online-petition platforms
  • Petition to the German parliament
  • reach out to journalists
  • reach out to the ministry
ADD REPLYlink written 5 days ago by Michael Dondrup47k

Online petition platforms:
https://www.openpetition.de/
https://www.change.org/

Also could be self-hosted on wordpress with this plug-in

ADD REPLYlink modified 5 days ago • written 5 days ago by Jean-Karim Heriche21k
6
gravatar for Ad fontes
11 days ago by
Ad fontes110
Ad fontes110 wrote:

It might seem ironic, but when GISAID first started, it was as an improvement to WHO (World Health Organization), who at the time only shared some of its data with a few select scientist, see "A nonscientist pushes sharing bird-flu data"

In 2006, after 70 scientist had asked in Nature for more sharing of data, a mr Berger took the initiative for GISAID, and has been at the helm ever since.)

Alas, I cannot see that they have kept up with the times; not sharing data is so yesteryear. And they have been critiqued for years for this "restricted model", see eg this anon blog: ¨Peter Bogner’s Excellent Skiing Techniques and Killer Flu Database (And yes, I understand why they are anon: when Dan Graur critiqued the ENCODE project, his funding dried up. Ditto, for Marilyn Kozak (of "Kozak consensus sequence"-fame) when she criticised the science of some powerful people"First human bioinformatician criticizes bad science of nih-funded bigshots"),

But we should really demand of all our government that they no longer fund anything that will only publish restricted data; as have been said above: we have already paid for it with our tax-money.

ADD COMMENTlink written 11 days ago by Ad fontes110

Correction: that is mr Bogner, not mr Berger.

Perhaps it is time with a scientist at the helm of GISAID?

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Ad fontes110
5
gravatar for Ad fontes
11 days ago by
Ad fontes110
Ad fontes110 wrote:

I suspect that when researchers now upload COVID-19 data from Sheffield, from Seattle, from India, or Brazil, etc, etc, to GISAID, they assume the data will be available for every interested researcher.

It is not. As also documented in the blog linked above: if you disagree with anything GISAID says/does: then you are cut off.

Today, this simply isn't good enough. We need every single interested researcher onboard, -whether we agree with their opinions -or not.

I don't know about Germany, but country after country (including my own) are now passing absolutely draconian emergency laws. If Germany are passing any emergency laws: make sure that making free access to vital data-bases are included! (I somehow doubt that politicians will think of that for themselves :/)

ADD COMMENTlink written 11 days ago by Ad fontes110
3
gravatar for colindaven
11 days ago by
colindaven2.1k
Hannover Medical School
colindaven2.1k wrote:

If you feel this strongly about it, and I can understand arguments from both sides, then feel free to start a petition here: https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/

You can write it in English and use google translate for a pretty decent german translation (yes, I can judge this, because I have lived in Germany for ~20 years).

ADD COMMENTlink written 11 days ago by colindaven2.1k

I will, but I feel that the process for that is too lengthy and tedious.

For now, raising awareness is, most likely, the most effective way to stop the practice.

Scientists should not be allowed to deposit data to GISAID in the first place. They can just as well put it into GenBank. Problem solved.

When a scientist uses public research money to do a work they do not gain the right to re-license data under various restrictive terms.

Raising awareness at funding levels, at agency levels is just as important. The German government should act since they are the supporters and enablers of the practice.

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

So far, I haven't heard any good argument from the other side, to be honest, I am sure there are arguments but I doubt they are legit.

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Michael Dondrup47k

What can be good argument to support this requirement:

You may not distribute GISAID data outside the GISAID community, such as by releasing genetic sequences obtained in GISAID in any publication, transferring the data to colleagues that are not registered users, or offering GISAID data on a server accessible by others who are not duly registered with GISAID;

At the very least it flies in the face of open science to which various agencies and governments have publicly committed.

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Jean-Karim Heriche21k

The phony rationale is that they are "protecting" scientists. As if a registration window would protect anyone's IP rights, or that clicking "I accept the license" checkbox on a site were legally binding. Both are bogus.

In my opinion, GISAID has no legal basis to ask a scientist to sign over any rights to them anyway. The scientists do not have that right, to begin with. It is not enforceable, and none of the entities in the business of vaccines would be deterred one bit. This is about keeping people either out or in check. You make noise, you get the boot, good luck publishing in the field.

Beyond that, figuring out why GISAID exists and whose interest it really promotes is probably the job of an investigative journalist who can peel away the layers.

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
1

I don't want to defend people commercialising science during an outbreak, but I think Nick Loman pointed this following ling out on twitter (anyone know what's going on there?). I'm 100% for open science, but remember guys, not everyone can be or wants to be open and transparent (my University still wants to restrict code sharing on github, I've worked at a company where you can't share -anything- without permission, etc).

https://globalbiodefense.com/headlines/chinese-lab-that-first-shared-novel-coronavirus-genome-shut-down/

ADD REPLYlink written 6 days ago by colindaven2.1k

Universities are funded by public money (mostly) -- so should be open. Those places are not there to monopolize data!

Private companies are a different thing. Do not mix those things. Although many companies share data as well because they see that it helps them as well.

ADD REPLYlink written 6 days ago by Michael150

I will add a link to this to the main post

ADD REPLYlink written 6 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

Here is the original source:

South China Morning Post writes that the laboratory that first shared coronavirus genome with the world ordered to close for ‘rectification’, hindering its Covid-19 research

ADD REPLYlink written 6 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
2
gravatar for Istvan Albert
11 days ago by
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
University Park, USA
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k wrote:

More background information on the GISAID controversy:

  • Open-Access Flu Research Web Site Is Relaunched Amid Controversy, published in 2009 in the Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gisaid-sib-flu-database/

ADD COMMENTlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
2
gravatar for Jean-Karim Heriche
11 days ago by
EMBL Heidelberg, Germany
Jean-Karim Heriche21k wrote:

It seems sequences can be obtained from the China National Center for Bioinformation. See release stats.
Recent progress lists "Adding 25 genome sequences from GISAID. (2020.03.20)."

EDIT: GISAID are not available there. Scrolling down the page, one finds this notice: "Because of usage rights, sequences from GISAID cannot be downloaded here. Please log into GISAID's website to retrieve them."

ADD COMMENTlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Jean-Karim Heriche21k

Note the disclaimer there:

Because of usage rights, sequences from GISAID cannot be downloaded here. Please log into GISAID's website to retrieve them.

all you get there are 166 genomes.

ADD REPLYlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k

Yes just saw that and edited my post. I didn't see it at first because I'm on a laptop.

ADD REPLYlink written 11 days ago by Jean-Karim Heriche21k
1
gravatar for Istvan Albert
11 days ago by
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
University Park, USA
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k wrote:

Others have also noted the same:

https://twitter.com/jxtx/status/1240710224245329920

ADD COMMENTlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
1
gravatar for Istvan Albert
11 days ago by
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
University Park, USA
Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k wrote:

In this answer, I will attempt to collect examples of why the GISAID model is flawed

  1. Is it possible to download the full EpiCov database from GISAID?

  2. User on slack:

we are hoping to push some data to GISAID so that others can at least pull from one central source, but I’ve now been waiting 12 days for my registration to be confirmed.

ADD COMMENTlink modified 11 days ago • written 11 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
1
gravatar for Michael
10 days ago by
Michael150
Swizerland
Michael150 wrote:

I wrote to the authorities and they said we should contact the Robert Koch institute for this: https://www.rki.de/DE/Service/Kontakt/kontakt_node.html.

The contact you suggested, Istvan, is probably too "high level".

ADD COMMENTlink written 10 days ago by Michael150

The problem there is that this is not the time to bother civilian authorities that have to service the population. I want to respect their time and limited resources.

ADD REPLYlink written 10 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
1
gravatar for s.elbe
8 days ago by
s.elbe10
s.elbe10 wrote:

Background information and history of GISAID (before COVID-19) can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gch2.1018

ADD COMMENTlink written 8 days ago by s.elbe10

Fascinating reading, thanks for the link, among the information there:

"GISAID's genesis was closely associated with Peter Bogner – a studio executive with a background in creating and licensing media content, and in philanthropic behind‐the‐scenes work for organizations such as the United Nations and UNICEF. Bogner provided the lion's share of funding for setting up GISAID (a low‐mid seven figure sum) and was key to the development of the licensing mechanism that defines the GISAID data sharing policy."

basically genomic data is licensed as a movie or a song.

ADD REPLYlink modified 8 days ago • written 8 days ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 83k
1
gravatar for Michael
7 days ago by
Michael150
Swizerland
Michael150 wrote:

If you have access to GISAID you can download the acknowledgement table. There you can identify labs/hospitals uploading data to GISAID. You can contact them and suggest that they (also) upload to GenBank/ENA/etc.

I just did that, let's see what response I get ;)

ADD COMMENTlink written 7 days ago by Michael150

Are you allowed to share that table?

ADD REPLYlink written 7 days ago by Jean-Karim Heriche21k
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1098 users visited in the last hour