Sciblogs
is the biggest blog network of scientists in New Zealand, an online forum for
discussion of everything from clinical health to climate change. Our
Scibloggers are either practising scientists or have been writing on
science-related issues for some time.
In my view the best method
developers–generalising here–are those who are both an advanced user and
developer of the method they are developing.
They are “scratching an itch”,
developing the method to serve their own needs.
Before elaborating on this, let me
quickly point to a couple of earlier posts that brush up against my views on
this.
Developers can be
scientists too
Some time ago (October 16) Fabiana
Kubke wrote Methods in
Neurosciencein
which she considered that
There are, in my
opinion, two types of scientists. Those who adapt the questions to the methods
they use, and those who choose the methods based on the questions they need to
ask.
She, of course, meant experimental
scientists. I just had to respond by adding
two categories of “method developers”, in particular:
2. Those that are
focused on a [research] question, but will develop new methods if that’s what
is needed to address the question.
As I went on to say, this is the
fashion I prefer to work in myself. Start with a biological problem and through
that develop methods (if needed). I’ll come back to this.
There is more than
computing involved
A post and comments by
Sandra Porter raise some points worth considering. From the paper her article is
examining she quotes:
The success of
bioinformatics software is based not on the elegance of the software design,
but rather its utility as a tool for driving and answering biological
questions. Consequently it is no surprise that many successful bioinformatics
apps are written by biologists who lack formal computer science training, as
they undoubtedly put scientific utility ahead of architectural elegance and
completeness.
(Source: PLoS Computational
Biology: A Quick Guide for Developing
Bioinformatics Programming Skills. Dudley and Butte.)
I’m not going to review this paper
itself. I’d recommend it to those interested involved, or becoming involved in,
bioinformatics. While no one person is going to agree with every portion of
advice there, it is well worth reading and most of what is said is worth taking
note of. (See also Sandra Porter’s
comments on the paper.)
What I’d like to focus on is what
skills are needed to develop new methods.
Post a Comment
Thanks for reading my blog.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.