It is an anticlimax, to say the least. Mere weeks before its official start, thegenomics X Prize – intended to spur a revolution in fast, cheap and accurate human-genome sequencing – has been abruptly cancelled. Peter Diamandis, chair of the X Prize Foundation in Playa Vista, California, says the Archon Genomics X Prize has been abandoned because it wasoutpaced by innovation.

Announced seven years ago, the prize asked companies to design devices that could sequence 100 human genomes in 30 days or less, with additional requirements for accuracy and cost. Today, companies are routinely sequencing human genomes for less than the $10,000 per genome the prize originally required.

But the full picture is more complex. Yes, the cost of genome sequencing has plummeted, which explains why the prize haddropped its cost goal to $1000 per genome. But current technologies are still some way from meeting the revised goal for accuracy: making only one error per million DNA bases sequenced.

Accuracy matters

Genomics pioneerCraig Venter, who conceived the prize, is disappointed that companies and scientists “seem to have little or no interest in meeting the demanding goals we set up”. Indeed, only two teams had entered.

Given that the genome-sequencing industry hasannual revenues in the billions of dollars, it is perhaps no surprise that a $10 million prize did not prove a huge incentive. In the long term, though, Venter argues that concentrating on speed and cost over accuracy is misguided. “I think for the future, it’s an absolute mistake,” he says.

While fast, cheap and somewhat inaccurate genomes may be good enough for research projects, Venter argues that high accuracy will be paramount as we move towards a future in which genome sequencing is used routinely for medical diagnosis.

Slap at innovators

Clifford Reid, who headsComplete Genomics of Mountain View, California,one of the leading companies in the field, agrees. But he is confident that accuracy will improve, whether or not there’s an X Prize on the table. “The market forces are in the process of changing from meeting the needs of the research community to the needs of medicine,” says Reid.

Still, the announcement has left a bitter taste for those who were gearing up to compete for the prize – especially as the starting gun was supposed to be fired on 5 September.

“It’s disappointing, because this was one of the few awards out there to encourage innovation in the life sciences,” saysGeorge Church of Harvard Medical School in Massachusetts, who headed one of the competing teams. The cancellation is a totally avoidable slap at innovators, he says.