s******9
发帖数: 283 | 1 人说：
"If this takes away from any of the R01s that would normally be funded by
the NIH, it would be bad. Right now the community is already so strapped we'
re at a breaking point."
called several of its technological proposals "science fiction"
...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1022.full
Brain Project Draws Presidential Interest, but Mixed Reactions
Emily Underwood*
Shortly after President Barack Obama made a seemingly innocuous pitch for
more brain research in his State of the Union address last month, National
Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins sent out a note to his
Twitter followers: "Obama mentions the #NIH Brain Activity Map in #SOTU."
Few paid heed, however, until a week later when a front-page story in The
New York Times indicated that the mysterious tweet referred to a soon-to-be
announced NIH-led effort rivaling the Human Genome Project in cost and
ambition, one that Obama planned to call for in his upcoming annual budget
proposal. The initiative aimed to do no less than "build a comprehensive map
of [the human brain's] activity" within a decade, the newspaper reported.
The story stunned and excited many in the scientific community but angered
and worried others. Lacking any official declaration of the project's cost
or how it would be funded, some researchers bristled at the prospect of a
large new federal initiative that could take money from traditional grants
for individual scientists, especially at a time when NIH faces a massive
budget cut (see p. 1020). The Atlantic, for example, published online a
series of negative tweets, mainly from non-neuroscientists, decrying the
Brain Activity Map (BAM) proposal, including this one from biologist Michael
Eisen: "someone has to go to congress and explain why basic research is so
important, not pander to them with big science crap."
Even some in the neuroscience community expressed concern. "If this takes
away from any of the R01s [individual investigator grants] that would
normally be funded by the NIH, it would be bad," says Eve Marder of Brandeis
University in Waltham, Massachusetts, a former president of the Society for
Neuroscience, who had attended one of the early planning workshops for BAM.
"Right now the community is already so strapped we're at a breaking point."
Whatever one's initial reaction to the new initiative, there is little doubt
that researchers, and potentially physicians, would benefit from better
ways of observing the brain in action. "The biggest need in neuroscience is
to develop technologies that would allow us to record the activity of many,
many neurons in a circuit to understand how the circuit functions through
that aggregated activity," says Story Landis, director of the National
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. "And we just don't have the
tools to do that."
Neuroscientists arguably can only crudely measure the activity of a brain
now. They can turn to PET and MRI imaging that each detect "activation" of
broad regions through proxies such as oxygen use, or they can measure the
electrical activity of individual or small groups of neurons. However, the
brain's most interesting functions, such as thought and perception, probably
incorporate thousands to millions of neurons, says neuroscientist John
Donoghue of Brown University, who has participated in planning the new
project. To understand "thought disorders" such as schizophrenia, he says,
we need to know what level of cellular activity produces thought. "Does it
take 1000 cells? 10 million? 100 million?"
In 2011, at a meeting of neuroscientists and nanoscientists in England
sponsored by the Kavli, Gatsby, and Allen foundations, a handful of
scientists proposed that the two disciplines combine forces to develop tools
to answer that question, by recording "every action potential from every
neuron within a circuit." Some naysayers called the idea "ridiculous," says
Rafael Yuste, a Columbia University neuroscientist who has helped plan the
BAM project. But George Church, the Harvard University molecular geneticist
in charge of the Personal Genome Project, pointed out that nearly every
objection had also been raised against the Human Genome Project. "The more
questions people asked," Yuste says, "the stronger the argument became that
this could be done."
After the meeting, Yuste, Church, and three other scientists hashed out a
white paper on their idea. Miyoung Chun, the vice president of science
programs at the Kavli Foundation, soon became its most vocal and organized
advocate, Yuste says. After the group coined the name "Brain Activity Map"
for the project, Chun sent the document to the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) at the White House. Within a few months, Yuste says
, they "made the rounds" in Washington, visiting OSTP, NIH, the National
Science Foundation, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
In June 2012, the group published a paper in Neuron outlining how three
areas of technological development could lead to a better understanding of
brain function. First, they envisioned finer, more pliant microelectrode
arrays that mold seamlessly to brain tissue and record from larger groups of
neurons. Second, they proposed an effort to advance the field of
optogenetics—which has lately revolutionized neuroscience by allowing
researchers to manipulate neurons using light (Science, 15 December 2006, p.
1674)—by incorporating voltage-sensitive, light-emitting particles such as
quantum dots and nanodiamonds into neurons, allowing scientists to track
and manipulate neuronal activity on a much larger scale.
Finally, drawing on the growing field known as synthetic biology, they
expressed interest in one day inserting artificial DNA-synthesizing enzymes
into neurons so that every time the neuron fired, the enzyme would make an
error in its DNA assembly, thus recording the cell's activity through a
series of mistakes. Whether such molecules could ever be used in humans, or
how the data they generate could be recovered is still unknown, the authors
said.
Such tools are far from being ready for human use, the scientists caution.
Nonetheless, they suggest that over 15 years the field could ramp up from
monitoring the equivalent of the whole brain activity of the roundworm
Caenorhabditis elegans, which has 302 nerve cells, to up to a million nerve
cells—equivalent to the entire brain function of a zebrafish or the
Etruscan shrew, one of the world's smallest mammals.
"There are people who may say this is not possible, that we are smoking
something. But if you look back at the genome project, a lot of people said
it was crazy and would never work. There are very few people saying that
today," says nanoscientist Paul Alivisatos, director of the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory in California and one of the project's planners.
A big unknown is how much pursuing such an initiative would cost. The New
York Times reported that Yuste and others involved have suggested the cost
would be $300 million annually for a decade, comparable to the $3.8 billion
spent on the Human Genome Project, yet the researchers offered no
explanation for that cost estimate when asked by Science. And OSTP and NIH
have so far declined to address the cost of the project and whether it would
draw on existing budgets or new money. Private money might aid the effort,
but only the Kavli Foundation has so far made any public commitment, stating
it expects to contribute up $4 million to $5 million per year of the total.
Gerald Rubin, executive director of Howard Hughes Medical Institute's
Janelia Farm Research Campus in Ashburn, Virginia, says his facility has
already spent more than $150 million on research relevant to the Brain
Activity Map over the past 6 years and will continue to use its yearly
budget of $100 million along those lines.
Beyond the budgetary issue, some researchers have questioned the realism of
BAM's stated goals. Partha Mitra, a neuroscientist at Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory in New York, called several of its technological proposals "
science fiction." And although he supports the project as a whole, "I
flinched when I read the phrase 'every spike from every neuron,'" says David
Kleinfeld, a neuro physicist at the University of California (UC), San
Diego. Capturing pulses of scattered light from nanodiamonds embedded deep
in the brain's intricately folded tissue would require inventing cameras and
microscopes that can record photons from all planes in three dimensions at
the millisecond speed that neurons fire—all the while making sure that the
method doesn't itself alter brain activity, he notes. Kleinfeld says he has
concluded from some rough calculations that such a feat isn't physically
achievable in more than a small region of cortex.
Further confusion about the project stems from a discrepancy between its
description in the Neuron paper, which focused on animal models, and the
current iteration, which reflects a "socially responsible," more human-
oriented version, Yuste says. During meetings with NIH, he explains,
officials said, "This is good that you're going to map the activity of every
neuron in the brain, but how about solving schizophrenia? What is this
going to do for mankind?" At that point, Yuste says the group invited
researchers with more practical links to patient care to join the planning.
In the updated version of the project, research with humans will be
conducted in parallel with more basic science, says Donoghue. He hopes that
BAM will reveal how the brain encodes movement, which would help him build
better brain-machine interfaces that allow paralyzed people to mentally
operate robotic arms more naturally.
Still, don't expect a complete human brain activity map by 2025. For ethical
and safety reasons, most of the techniques described in the group's new
proposal are decades away from being applicable to humans, Rubin says.
Research proposed in the Neuron paper will largely focus on flies, worms,
zebrafish, and mice, he says.
The most recent description of the project suggests establishing national "
brain observatories" that would "provide access to new technology to all
potential users, and serve as a collaborative node for the BAM community."
But it is impossible to tell how the project will be administered at this
point, says Ralph Greenspan, a systems neuroscientist at UC San Diego and
one of the core scientists planning the initiative.
Based on his experience with large research efforts such as the Human Genome
Project, Greenspan says new dedicated funding is needed to go ahead with
BAM. "In no sense is this something that should replace other basic research
" like the connectome project (see box), he says. But that decision is
largely out of his hands, Greenspan adds. "Our role was to bring it to the
attention of people in Washington, who to our delight seemed to embrace it
enthusiastically." Now, he says, "they'll do it the way they see fit." | s******9
发帖数: 283 | | P****d
发帖数: 564 | 3 中国好像已经有了一个类似的计划，比这个野心小一点，但是规模不小。 | s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 4 Brain Activity Map这个东西，怎么说呢？确实很重要，但是谁也不知道
到底有多重要，因为对于Outcome 的预计不是很清楚。
we'
【在 s******9 的大作中提到】
: 人说：
: "If this takes away from any of the R01s that would normally be funded by
: the NIH, it would be bad. Right now the community is already so strapped we'
: re at a breaking point."
: called several of its technological proposals "science fiction"
: ...
: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1022.full
: Brain Project Draws Presidential Interest, but Mixed Reactions
: Emily Underwood*
: Shortly after President Barack Obama made a seemingly innocuous pitch for
| P****d
发帖数: 564 | 5 大脑遥控器，30年的pre order。
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: Brain Activity Map这个东西，怎么说呢？确实很重要，但是谁也不知道
: 到底有多重要，因为对于Outcome 的预计不是很清楚。
:
: we'
| c******m
发帖数: 503 | 6 感觉很忽悠，Green那个听着挺不靠谱的，那个所谓的technique有点为了用而用的感觉
【在 P****d 的大作中提到】
: 大脑遥控器，30年的pre order。
| P****d
发帖数: 564 | 7 哪个technique？
【在 c******m 的大作中提到】
: 感觉很忽悠，Green那个听着挺不靠谱的，那个所谓的technique有点为了用而用的感觉
| c******m
发帖数: 503 | 8 那个DNA合成的，他以前就推什么DNA芯片一类的我记得
应该有很多其他的记录方法吧
【在 P****d 的大作中提到】
: 哪个technique？
| P****d
发帖数: 564 | 9 我也觉得有点儿玄。其他的记录方法有什么？
【在 c******m 的大作中提到】
: 那个DNA合成的，他以前就推什么DNA芯片一类的我记得
: 应该有很多其他的记录方法吧
| c******m
发帖数: 503 | 10 这个我就不知道了，只是觉得DNA那个不合适，想想一个转基因闹得，何况是这个。
到了他们设想的那个精度，在synapse上测电流或spectrum体外记录？不过我不是做神
经的。
大项目，还这么概念性，有点反感。至少多弄些搞物理工程的人进去吧，看看可行性，
不能由得几个人胡吹。
【在 P****d 的大作中提到】
: 我也觉得有点儿玄。其他的记录方法有什么？
| | | P****d
发帖数: 564 | 11 不知道有没有什么quantum dots之类的东西，每电一下，就改变一次状态。最后拿出来
读一下。
人脑本身又是个大问题，不能做完实验直接捣碎。
I once heard from one of the mater minds behind the human genome project,
who I have a lot of respect for (not Lander, he's more of a showman than
scientist to me), that we tend to be over optimistic on short term goals but
over pessimistic on the long term ones. So I do have a lot of hopes for
BAM -- not in the grandiose goal itself, but I think it will drive a lot of
technology development in the process that will change neuroscience
fundamentally.
【在 c******m 的大作中提到】
: 这个我就不知道了，只是觉得DNA那个不合适，想想一个转基因闹得，何况是这个。
: 到了他们设想的那个精度，在synapse上测电流或spectrum体外记录？不过我不是做神
: 经的。
: 大项目，还这么概念性，有点反感。至少多弄些搞物理工程的人进去吧，看看可行性，
: 不能由得几个人胡吹。
| b******k
发帖数: 2321 | 12 非常赞成 BAM唯一让我觉得还值得乐观的就是tool development了，也许在长期看会对
neuroscience有很大贡献。至于数据本身，我觉得会和ENCODE这种project一样基本啥
用都没有
but
of
【在 P****d 的大作中提到】
: 不知道有没有什么quantum dots之类的东西，每电一下，就改变一次状态。最后拿出来
: 读一下。
: 人脑本身又是个大问题，不能做完实验直接捣碎。
: I once heard from one of the mater minds behind the human genome project,
: who I have a lot of respect for (not Lander, he's more of a showman than
: scientist to me), that we tend to be over optimistic on short term goals but
: over pessimistic on the long term ones. So I do have a lot of hopes for
: BAM -- not in the grandiose goal itself, but I think it will drive a lot of
: technology development in the process that will change neuroscience
: fundamentally.
| c******m
发帖数: 503 | 13 这个没有异议，但是有个性价比的问题。总觉得这个big science背后并不完全
scientific。
but
of
【在 P****d 的大作中提到】
: 不知道有没有什么quantum dots之类的东西，每电一下，就改变一次状态。最后拿出来
: 读一下。
: 人脑本身又是个大问题，不能做完实验直接捣碎。
: I once heard from one of the mater minds behind the human genome project,
: who I have a lot of respect for (not Lander, he's more of a showman than
: scientist to me), that we tend to be over optimistic on short term goals but
: over pessimistic on the long term ones. So I do have a lot of hopes for
: BAM -- not in the grandiose goal itself, but I think it will drive a lot of
: technology development in the process that will change neuroscience
: fundamentally.
| l**********1
发帖数: 5204 | 14 About how to connect Quantum dots to the Molecular Theory of the Living Cell
pls try to read one new Book
'Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and
Biomedical Applications.'
Springer, New York.
by Ji SC Rutgers dot edu
>HTTP://pharmacy.rutgers.edu/content/faculty_profile_14
Book's Amazon link:
>HTTP: //www.amazon.com/Molecular-Theory-Living-Cell-ebook/dp/B00A9YGECK
and full text PDF free down link:
>HTTP://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Excerpts_Macro_Micro_coupling_2_3_4_5_6_8_9_10_15_16_17_20_21_03262012.pdf
>>
>>
【在 c******m 的大作中提到】
: 这个没有异议，但是有个性价比的问题。总觉得这个big science背后并不完全
: scientific。
:
: but
: of
| l**********1
发帖数: 5204 | 15 About how to connect Quantum dots to the Molecular Theory of the Living Cell
pls try to read one new Book
'Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and
Biomedical Applications.'
Springer, New York.
by Ji SC Rutgers dot edu
>HTTP://pharmacy.rutgers.edu/content/faculty_profile_14
Book's Amazon link:
>HTTP: //www.amazon.com/Molecular-Theory-Living-Cell-ebook/dp/B00A9YGECK
and full text PDF free down link:
>HTTP://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Excerpts_Macro_Micro_coupling_2_3_4_5_6_8_9_10_15_16_17_20_21_03262012.pdf
>>
>>
【在 c******m 的大作中提到】
: 这个没有异议，但是有个性价比的问题。总觉得这个big science背后并不完全
: scientific。
:
: but
: of
| P****d
发帖数: 564 | 16 靠，原来the Matrix也卖假药－－
"The book presents the first comprehensive molecular theory of the living
cell ever published since the cell doctrine was formulated in 1838-1839. "
Cell
【在 l**********1 的大作中提到】
: About how to connect Quantum dots to the Molecular Theory of the Living Cell
: pls try to read one new Book
: 'Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and
: Biomedical Applications.'
: Springer, New York.
: by Ji SC Rutgers dot edu
: >HTTP://pharmacy.rutgers.edu/content/faculty_profile_14
: Book's Amazon link:
: >HTTP: //www.amazon.com/Molecular-Theory-Living-Cell-ebook/dp/B00A9YGECK
: and full text PDF free down link:
| l**********1
发帖数: 5204 | 17 Re: PubMad (床前阳光灿烂)
用第三条中腿 那里的视觉器官看到的?
>The book presents the first comprehensive molecular theory of the living
from PDFfile we can only see below:
>
Part II applies these principles, laws and concepts to formulate a
comprehensive molecular theory of life which I have at various times
referred to as biognergetics (Ji 1985), biocybernetics (Ji 1991),
microsemiotics (Ji 2002a), molecular information theory (Ji 2004a), and
renormalizable network theory of life (Section 2.4), depending on the points
of emphasis or of prescinding (to use a Peircean idiom (Section 6.2.12)). | P****d
发帖数: 564 | 18 这个看着就更像卖大力丸的了。
BTW, learn to speak with your other head ;)
【在 l**********1 的大作中提到】
: Re: PubMad (床前阳光灿烂)
: 用第三条中腿 那里的视觉器官看到的?
: >The book presents the first comprehensive molecular theory of the living
: from PDFfile we can only see below:
: >
: Part II applies these principles, laws and concepts to formulate a
: comprehensive molecular theory of life which I have at various times
: referred to as biognergetics (Ji 1985), biocybernetics (Ji 1991),
: microsemiotics (Ji 2002a), molecular information theory (Ji 2004a), and
: renormalizable network theory of life (Section 2.4), depending on the points
| a********h
发帖数: 245 | 19 转一个相关的博客：
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1179
Blinded by Big Science: The lesson I learned from ENCODE is that projects
like ENCODE are not a good idea
By Michael Eisen | Published: September 10, 2012
When the draft sequence of the human genome was finished in 2001, the
accomplishment was heralded as marking the dawn of the age of “big biology
”. The high-throughput techniques and automation developed to sequence DNA
on a massive scale would be wielded to generate not just genomes, but
reference data sets in all areas of biomedicine.
The NHGRI moved quickly to expand the universe of sequenced genomes, and to
catalog variation within the human population with HapMap, HapMap 2 and 1000
genomes. But they also began to dip their toe into the murkier waters of “
functional genomics”, launching ENCODE, a grand effort to build an
encyclopedia of functional elements in the human genome. The idea was to
simultaneously annotate the human genome and provide basic and applied
scientists working on human disease with reference data sets that they would
otherwise have had to generate themselves. Instead of having to invest in
expensive equipment and learn complex protocols, they would often be able to
just download the results, thereby making everything they did faster and
better.
Now, a decade and several hundred million dollars later, the winding down of
ENCODE and the publication of dozens of papers describing its results offer
us a vital opportunity to take stock in what we learned, if it was worth it
, and, most importantly, whether this kind of project makes sense moving
forward. This is more than just an idle intellectual question. NHGRI is
investing $130m in continuing the project, and NHGRI and the NIH as a whole,
have signalled their intention to do more projects like ENCODE in the
future.
I feel I have a useful perspective on these issues. I served as member of
the National Advisory Committee for the ENCODE and related modENCODE
projects throughout their lifespans. As a postdoc with Pat Brown and David
Botstein in the late 90′s I was involved in the development of DNA
microarrays and had seen first hand the transformative potential of genome
sequences and the experimental genomic techniques they enabled. I believed
then, and still believe now, that looking at biology on a big scale is often
very helpful, and that it can make sense to let people who are good at
doing big projects, and who can take advantage of economies of scale,
generate data for the community.
But the lesson I learned from ENCODE is that projects like ENCODE are not a
good idea.
American biology research achieved greatness because we encouraged
individual scientists to pursue the questions that intrigued them and the
NIH, NSF and other agencies gave them the resources to do so. And ENCODE and
projects like it are, ostensibly at least, meant to continue this tradition
, empowering individual scientists by producing datasets of “higher quality
and greater comprehensiveness than would otherwise emerge from the combined
output of individual research projects”.
But I think it is now clear that big biology is not a boon for individual
discovery-driven science. Ironically, and tragically, it is emerging as the
greatest threat to its continued existence.
The most obvious conflict between little science and big science is money.
In an era when grant funding is getting scarcer, it’s impossible not to
view the $200m spent on ENCODE in terms of the ~125 R01′s it could have
funded. It is impossible to score the value lost from these hundred or so
unfunded small projects against the benefits of one big one. But a awful lot
of amazing science comes out of R01′s, and it’s hard not to believe that
at least one of these projects would have been transformative.
But, as bad as the loss of individual research grants is, I am far more
concerned about the model of independent research upon which big science
projects are based.
For a project like ENCODE to make sense, one has to assume that when a
problem in my lab requires high-throughput data, that years in advance,
someone – or really a committee of someones – who has no idea about my
work predicted precisely the data that I would need and generated it for me.
This made sense with genome sequences, which everyone already knew they
needed to have. But for functional genomics this is nothing short of lunacy.
There are literally trillions of cells in the human body. Multiply that by
life stage, genotype, environment and disease state, and the number of
possible conditions to look at is effectively infinite. Is there any
rational way to predict which ones are going to be essential for the
community as a whole, let alone individual researchers? I can’t see how the
answer is possibly yes. What’s more, many of the data generated by ENCODE
were obsolete by the time they were collected. For example, if one were
starting to map transcription factor binding sites today, you would almost
certainly use some flavor of exonuclease ChIP, rather than the ChIP-seq
techniques that dominate the ENCODE data.
I offer up an example from my own lab. We study Drosophila development.
Several years ago a postdoc in my lab got interested in sex chromosome
dosage compensation in the early fly embryo, and planned to use genome-wide
mRNA abundance measurements in male and female embryos to study it. It just
so happened that the modENCODE project was generating genome-wide mRNA
abundance measurements in Drosophila embryos. Seems like a perfect match.
But these data was all but useless to us, not because the data weren’t good
– the experiment was beautifully executed – but because their data could
not answer the question we were pursuing. We needed sex-specific expression;
they pooled males and females. We needed extremely precise time resolution
(to within a few minutes); they looked at two hour windows. There was no way
they could have anticipated this – or any of the hundreds of other
questions about developmental gene expression that came up in other labs.
We were fortunate. I have money from HHMI and was able to generate the data
we needed. But a lot of people would not have been in my position, and in
many ways would have been worse off because the existence of ENCODE/
modENCODE makes it more difficult to get related genomics projects funded.
At this point the evidence for such an effect is anecdotal – I have heard
from many people that reviewers explicitly cited an ENCODE project as a
reason not to fund their genomics proposal – but it’s naive to think that
these big science projects will not affect the way that grants are allocated.
Think about it this way. If you’re an NIH agency looking to justify your
massive investment in big science projects, you are inevitably going to look
more favorably on proposals that use data that has already, or is about to
be, generated by expensive projects that feature in the institute’s
portfolio. And the result will be a concentration of research effort on
datasets of high technical quality, but little intrinsic value, with
scientists wanting to pursue their own questions left out in the cold, and
the most interesting and important questions at risk of never being answered
, or even asked.
You can already see this mentality at play in discussions of the value of
ENCODE. As I and many others have discussed, the media campaign around the
recent ENCODE publications was, at best, unseemly. The empty and often
misleading press releases and quotes from scientists were clearly masking
the fact that, despite publishing 30 papers, they actually had very little
of grand import to say, today, about what they found. The most pensive of
them realized this, and went out of their way to emphasize that other people
were already using the data, and that the true test was how much the data
would be used over the coming years.
But this is the wrong measure. These data will be used. It is inevitable.
And I’m sure this usage will be cited often to justify other big science
projects ad infinitum. And we will soon have a generation of scientists for
whom an experiment is figuring out what kinds of things they can do with
data selected three years earlier by a committee sitting in a windowless
Rockville hotel room. I don’t think this is the model of science anyone
wants – but it is precisely where we are headed if the metastasis of big
science is not amended.
I want to be clear that I am not criticizing the people who have carried out
these projects. The staff at the NIH who ran ENCODE, and the scientists who
carried it out worked tirelessly to achieve its goals, and the
organizational and technical feat they achieved is impressive. But that does
not mean it is ultimately good for science.
When I have raised these concerns privately with my colleagues, the most
common retort I get is that, in today’s political climate, Congress is more
willing to fund big, ambitious sounding projects like ENCODE than they are
to simply fund the NIH extramural budget. I can see how this might be true.
Maybe the NIH leadership is simply feeding Congress what they want in order
to preserve the NIH budget. And maybe this is why there’s been so little
push back from the general research community against the expansion of big
biology.
But it will be a disaster if, in the name of protecting the NIH budget and
our labs’ funding, we pursue big projects that destroy investigator driven
science as we know it in the process. | b******k
发帖数: 2321 | 20 peng, hehe
http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Biology/31783141_3.html
biology
DNA
【在 a********h 的大作中提到】
: 转一个相关的博客：
: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1179
: Blinded by Big Science: The lesson I learned from ENCODE is that projects
: like ENCODE are not a good idea
: By Michael Eisen | Published: September 10, 2012
: When the draft sequence of the human genome was finished in 2001, the
: accomplishment was heralded as marking the dawn of the age of “big biology
: ”. The high-throughput techniques and automation developed to sequence DNA
: on a massive scale would be wielded to generate not just genomes, but
: reference data sets in all areas of biomedicine.
|
|
