Sciblogsis 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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment