Sir

Further to points raised in your Feature 'The future of biocuration' (Nature 455, 47–50; 2008), an example of the inadequate state of biocuration is to be found in the large number of entries in GenBank listed as “unpublished”. In many cases, a quick online search of journal listings turns up the publication. Obviously, the journals and GenBank are not communicating as well as they ought.

It's also important not to lose sight of the underlying need to curate biological specimens and materials, a function that needs much more support. Biology deals with actual organisms, so proper curation of voucher specimens and reference cultures, or their equivalent, is essential to confirm, test and build on previous studies.

There is also a lack of support for many of those taking time to build up data sets. “I spent lots of time online editing a database” doesn't get you anywhere on a resumé or tenure review, or help an unpaid volunteer make a living.