This is super valuable. One of the biggest gaps in science is that it's hard for academic researchers to get grants for software engineering. Academic life scientists often rely on code written by postdocs and students in their nonexistent free time between running experiments. https://twitter.com/michael_nielsen/status/1129019618620690432 …
Biology is increasingly moving towards large-scale, automated experiments and computational analysis of high-dimensional data. That all requires software engineering. Which is hard to do well in academic labs, given traditional funding policies.
-
-
That's one reason why biotech companies can sometimes do research where universities can't -- they have the resources to actually hire whole engineering teams. (Heads-up, academia: this is how we steal your best postdocs. It's not just the money, it's the autonomy & resources.)
Show this thread -
BUT, profit incentives often dissuade biotech companies from sharing as much of their data & tools as would be ideal, for the purpose of accelerating science. It sucks, and I'll try to fight those pressures at Daphnia, but they're there.
Show this thread -
That's why nonprofits like CZI https://chanzuckerberg.com/rfa/essential-open-source-software-for-science/ … and the Broad Institute, which build open software and data infrastructure for life science, are so essential.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.