|
|
|
|
|
|
by chrisamiller
4346 days ago
|
|
|
The field is slowly coming around. I've been very harsh when peer-reviewing papers without proper code release and documentation. I know that I'm not alone. Both investigators and funding agencies are starting to understand the message. This is especially true as older folks retire and a new computationally-savvy group of folks ascends into senior positions on editorial boards, faculty review panels, and grant review panels. Things may look messy in science, and they often are, but I'm optimistic about the future. |
|
|
I got a MS degree in Bioinformatics and for the past three years the only role it has served is collecting dust in my closet upstairs :)
I was the young bioinformatician in 2006 and when working in a lab it felt very isolating. The PI and Postdocs just had me solve simple computational problems (or even IT problems). It felt very much like I was a cog in their grant writing machine rather than a collaborator that deserved any kind of authorship in a publication.
And looking back there was no one to teach me about good practices of writing software like source control, SOLID, testing, etc. Or even storage of our microarrays.
I eventually went to work for a biotech consultancy but I discovered that biotech software was a gimmick used to hike up the prices on software. Sure it was a niche field but we would charge clients hundreds of thousands of dollars for software that was barely functional.
I think a lot of Research groups were badly burned by this and eventually started trying to do everything in house. I eventually became disillusioned/burned out and left the field entirely.
I've been out of the field for four years now but still feel badly as I felt I've wasted my training. I still have a retainer client as a way back 'in' back into bioinformatics.
It would be nice to find these 'bioinformatics groups' and see how they're successfully collaborating with other labs/research groups.