I think your point is accurate, but jaded.  Much as the above posters point out, there was no sudden &#x27;click&#x27; where an individual discovered something and made genomics possible.  And to the extent that&#x27;s what we mean by &#x27;genome sequencing&#x27;, then you are correct - the shotgun approach coupled with big-data hasn&#x27;t been very useful yet.  However, if the message is more one of genetics at large, and how the ability to read&#x2F;write DNA has affected our research, our discoveries, our therapeutics, and will affect our lives in the near-future, then your tone seems entirely too myopic. Nearly every drug you see on TV commercials today is a monoclonal antibody - which cannot have been made but for the ability to read and write DNA. Sure, it doesn&#x27;t <i>require</i> the ability to read an entire animals&#x27; DNA at once (do the full genome sequences yet <i>actually</i> read every base in your genome even?).  But it is a very real and very finite milestone on that exact same path.  You are correct, genomic ≠ genetic, but in so far as they are similar (mostly), our understanding of genetics really has been a powerful driver in the past two to three decades.