Quote:
Originally Posted by firebug
While the article is lengthy, it is interesting and explores some of the common themes that get rehashed over and over here on CP (eg. Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof, adaptability of science, etc.).
Origin of Species~firebug |
Worth mentioning that the problem with this is that a lot of computational biologists (or moreso computer scientists working on biological models ....) seem to think that it is within their right to ask and receive for data on a whim with no idea of the effort or money involved in collecting said data or contributing to the collection of the data.
This is the bit I don't agree with.
Quote:
|
The one lesson that all sides of the debate now agree on is that the new age of computational biology must be one of data transparency. Such disputes can only be resolved—and the scientific method can only survive the digital age—if scientists dump their digital notebooks online for anyone to try to replicate.
|
Sure ... dump it online .... once the owner of the data has exhausted all uses for it. Computational biologists want data ... either enter into a formal collaboration, wait until the owner of the data has exhausted their use for it or collect your own. It's a dog eat dog world out there where publications = increased chance of funding. Who in their right mind is going to spend a lot of time and money collecting data so they can then dump it online so some nerdy kid with faster modelling skills can get the jump.
I agree though, that a claim like that should have been verifiable more easily and the data should have been released for verification purposes more readily.