Comments on: More than models

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:01:36 +0000

Dan: she’s aiming to go to med school. The demand for MDs is still substantial, I think.

By: 5371

5371 — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:13:10 +0000

When someone uses the word ‘truly’ it’s usually bullshit.

By: Tom Bri

Tom Bri — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:57:00 +0000

I have always thought there were sharp limitations on mice as proxies for humans in research. Nocturnal, subterranean, seed-eating rodents, severely inbred and selected for life in little cages and for mutant traits like albinism. Who knows what all traits were accidentally selected for. Obvious why, of course, but most any kind of primate would have been better. But, mice are cheap.

By: DK

DK — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:52:08 +0000

Surprisingly, the authors of the Scientist piece are even more into hype than traditional journalists.

“…Next generation sequencing technologies have emerged as an important catalyst for a new revolution in biological understanding”.

Catalyst? Well, maybe – in the future. Because there has not been a revolution in *understanding* so far.

“and as a result, an ongoing explosion in our understanding of the genetic basis of variation among individuals”

Really? “Explosion in our understanding”?

The whole vision of ‘we’ll sequence an organism and from that understand what makes it different from another’ needs to be thoroughly validated before proclaiming that the shiny heights are within reach. If I am not mistaken, the missing heritability continues to be the dominant genetic factor observed thus far.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 02:08:55 +0000

“This is the reason why I encouraged my daughter to pursue a biology major in college, vs. one in the physical sciences.”

I wouldn’t encourage it. There’s currently a glut of postdocs currently stuck in the system, making <$40,000/yr,despite having over a decade of post-bac education, waiting for PI positions to open. Less than 15% of biology PhDs are obtaining permanent academic positions. The pharmaceutical industry, long the "back up" plan for many biology PhDs, is slowly moving all of its research positions to places where they can get away with paying employees <$25,000/yr. On top of that, success in biology is one of the few fields that depends almost completely on luck. You have to be lucky enough to get a project in grad school where your hypothesis proves correct, black swans don't happen, and it all comes together in a publishable form in less than five years. Failure to do so, even if you graduate, will result in an uphill battle to obtain a position.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:50:14 +0000

“But with the ability to address molecular mechanisms in the natural world, we can truly begin to understand how all of these factors interact to generate the biological diversity that motivated the early scientists and continues to inspire us today.”

I would add that models are still very important (possibly indispensable) tools to “address molecular mechanisms”, but these models can be in vitro, in silico as well as in vivo.

I think I understand that the authors believe in the idea of obtaining “hypotheses generating” data from sequencing projects in natural environments. On the other side of this coin, it will not always be possible to test hypotheses in this setting.

By: Razib Khan

Razib Khan — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:47:36 +0000

#1, one minor caution: a math, physics, and chemistry, background can be quite useful and give on a leg up in graduate work in biology.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:43:27 +0000

There is a reason for the hype that the 21st century will be to biology what the 20th was to physics.

This is the reason why I encouraged my daughter to pursue a biology major in college, vs. one in the physical sciences. Not that my suggestion was anything but a minor perturbation of her own desires, mind you.

She’s enjoying it hugely, and I’m enjoying that transition period when a child’s knowledge outstrips the parent’s.