He mentions that very clearly in the article, and also makes it clear what he stands (and does not stand) to gain financially from Lander's article being discredited.
It's a very provocative title, but the policy recommendation in the article—that we stop issuing Nobel prizes and patents to individuals when discoveries happened over a long process—is pretty fair. And he does credit Lander for acknowledging all the scientists that predated both of their universities' work.
It's 'useful' in countering an image that people who only read Lander's paper might come away with, and useful in drawing attention to the problem he (Mike) perceives.
Whether any of this is useful in a broader sense is unclear, but we are almost certainly seeing the most important story in history of biology for this generation unfolding before us.
It's a very provocative title, but the policy recommendation in the article—that we stop issuing Nobel prizes and patents to individuals when discoveries happened over a long process—is pretty fair. And he does credit Lander for acknowledging all the scientists that predated both of their universities' work.