Standardization of DNA Collection and DNA Databases

In a recent article from Nature, and subsequent discussions (here and there), it is argued that a "growing chorus of scientists" would like to see more standardization of data so that sorting through that data would be a little easier. Indeed, biology in general is becoming more data intensive and less experimental, results of significant funding initiatives and advances in scientific methods that have brought the genome sequence down to about the price of an MRI. This means that the metadata or "things that I never cared about," such as the vocabulary used to describe data, is becoming paramount for quick and easy data mining. I, for one, wish that this chorus would include some neuroscientists as we suffer, possibly much more than geneticists, from a near fatal disease called "multi-vocabularia." This disease was brought about over the last 100 years by several disciplines, mainly anatomy and electrophysiology, essentially not talking to one another and became aggravated by molecular biologists trying to report gene expression in brain regions and really having no idea whether they should include the olfactory bulb in their reports of cortical gene expression (perhaps we could vote the olfactory bulb off the cortex island?). So, if geneticists lead the way, singing their way out of the data mess they created, perhaps we neuroscientists can at least take some lessons from them. Of course, geneticists as a group  named one gene stonin, and another one goaT (yes, it does tend to be difficult to find goat antibodies against it) and their favorite disease is an astrological sign, so our hopes may be way too high.