61–70 of 179 posts
Surely they can't get that far without having some kind of sensible method?
- This guy clearly has a limited understanding of the field. This quote is laughable: "There are only two computationally difficult problems in bioinformatics, sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree construction."
- As a bioinformatician, I feel sorry for this guy. Just like any other field, there are shitty places to work. If I was stuck in a lab where a demanding PI with no computer skills kept throwing the results of poorly designed experiments at me and asking for miracles, I'd be a little bitter too.
- Just like any other field, there are also lots of places that are great places to work and are churning out some pretty goddamn amazing code and science. I'm working in cancer genomics, and we've already done work where the results of our bioinformatic analyses have saved people's lives. Here's one high-profile example that got a lot of good press. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/health/in-gene-sequencing-...)
- I'm in the field of bioinformatics to improve human health and understand deep biological questions. I care about reproducibility and accuracy in my code, but 90% of the time, I could give a rat's ass about performance. I'm trying to find the answer to a question, and if I can get that answer in a reasonable amount of time, then the code is good enough. This is especially true when you consider that 3/4 of the things I do are one-off analyses with code that will never be used again. (largely because 3/4 of experiments fail - science is messy and hard like that). If given a choice between dicking around for two weeks to make my code perfect, or cranking out something that works in 2 hours, I'll pretty much always choose the latter. ("Premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." --Donald Knuth)
- That said, when we do come up with some useful and widely applicable code, we do our best to optimize it, put it into pipelines with robust testing, and open-source it, so that the community can use it. If his lab never did that, they're rapidly falling behind the rest of the field.
- As for his assertion that bad code and obscure file formats are job security through obscurity, I'm going to call bullshit. For many years, the field lacked people with real CS training, so you got a lot of biologists reading a perl book in their spare time and hacking together some ugly, but functional solutions. Sure, in some ways that was less than optimal, but hell, it got us the human genome. The field is beginning to mature, and you're starting to see better code and standard formats as more computationally-savvy people move in. No one will argue that things couldn't be improved, but attributing it to unethical behavior or malice is just ridiculous.
tl;dr: Bitter guy with some kind of bone to pick doesn't really understand or accurately depict the state of the field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I can call myself a bioinformatics researcher, I guess, as I have CS Ph.D working in genetics/genomics. I see your point of throwing computers at simple solutions as cheaper than throwing good programmers. I do that too. We are very fortunate in that we write run-once programs that only have to work in one environment using one inputs. However, bad programmers write incorrect programs, which give wrong conclusi…
>We are very fortunate in that we write run-once programs that only have to work in one environment using one inputs. If you work with that mentality, you're asking for trouble. Well, not so much asking for trouble, but sending Trouble a voicemail that says "We're over here, you lazy bastard, just see if you can mess something up!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was initially a programming error but the Duke researchers refused to acknowledge it and reanalyze their data, because that might mean retracting their prominent paper. From there it just snowballed. It was certainly fraud after the error was pointed out to them. There might also be other elements of fraud in their paper. I watched a presentation by MD. Anderson researchers who spotted the error and spent more tha…
The smoking gun was an error, but there were something like 9 Potti papers that ended up getting retracted. There's no way that someone could have accidentally made that many mistakes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, I'm a bioinformatics researcher. Apparently I work for this guy's ex(?)-employer although I have never heard of him before. My single most limited resource is programmer time. My time and the time of other people who work with me. I have access to loads of computers that sit idle all the time, even if it is on nights and weekends. There is zero opportunity cost to me in using these computers more fully. I have en…
>There can be a big opportunity cost in trying to rework a workflow so that it is more efficient and then test it thoroughly ensure correctness. Hi, I recognize your name as a legit bioinformatician, am a huge fan of the lab that you're currently in, and others should listen to you. I'd like to add that for many projects, general reusable software engineering is not necessarily a huge advantage. Instead of verifying…
Reproducible code: extremely important. Correct code: extremely important. Readable code: very important. Efficient code: often not as important.
Even today, the UCSC Genome Browser is an example where efficient code is important. It is interactive software, has many human users who can work much efficiently when the browser is responsive. And with projects like ENCODE, there are now incredible amounts of data available from the browser that would not be easily possible with a less efficient system.
Very different from an analysis system that will be run a handful of times in batch mode.
This is a little discouraging - BioInformatics was my top choice for a Master's program I'm planning to start this year. The program at Melbourne Uni looks really good (accepts from three streams, Math/Stats, Biology or Computing and tailors the course based on your background). Maybe I should go for a more generic Machine Learning one and try to apply that to healthcare in some other field if things are really this…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was initially a programming error but the Duke researchers refused to acknowledge it and reanalyze their data, because that might mean retracting their prominent paper. From there it just snowballed. It was certainly fraud after the error was pointed out to them. There might also be other elements of fraud in their paper. I watched a presentation by MD. Anderson researchers who spotted the error and spent more tha…
The smoking gun was an error, but there were something like 9 Potti papers that ended up getting retracted. There's no way that someone could have accidentally made that many mistakes...
It is intentional fraud, no doubt about it; they restarted halted clinical trials. I was just pointing out they did sloppy work too.
The fact of the matter is that through high-throughput sequencing, microarrays, what have you, generation of biologically-meaningful results is possible.
There are a lot of problems in bioinformatics that need to be solved. Github has helped. More of bioinformaticians are learning about good software development practices, and journal reviewers are becoming more enlightened of the merits of sharing source code.
If you really feel strongly about something, write it dispassionately (normally some time after the event) and treat it like a dissertation, backed with case studies and citations.