|
|
|
|
|
by dekhn
3206 days ago
|
|
Building a science grade microscope that can be used to produce research-grade results is not a trivial problem. Sure you can strap a few lenses and steppers to a frame and make a microscope but that's a very long distance from being able to produce quantitative results of other scientists care about. |
|
Hmm, Nikon, check. Agilent, check. Zeiss, check. Hell, everything in that paper, from the Sigma-Aldrich sourced chemicals to the BioGen PCR sequencer is 100% bog standard. Go pick up this months copy of any journal of medicine (hard medicine, not like, psychiatry -- JAMA, NE Journal of Medicine, Cell, whatever) and see what hit-rate you have with those 5 brands. "Research quality science equipment" is bog standard.
In fact, I was curious to see what equipment the CRISPR-Cas9 guys were using, because I mean cleaving nt's is about as low-level as anyone with an MD/PhD is going to get. (It also meets your "research-grade" criteria, cause, you know, its CRISPR-CAS9.)[2] Same brands, more sensitive equipment, still pretty bog standard. Again, semi-conductor equipment from the mid 2000s still has it beat for requirements re: sterile conditions for SiO seed -> ingot growth, re: resolution by an order of magnitude (at least) for making chip masks, re: chemical purity when CVD'ing your poly/metals, and for resolution re: SEM/FIB'ing for inspecting your wafers.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/IC56Nxj.png [2] https://i.imgur.com/EAQo77W.png