Science administrators are my all time favourite bullshitters. But when it comes to science speaking, some young investigators are the big time champions of bullshit. ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEST!
Exaggerated tone on expected results is common. Uncommon are the new ideas and hypotheses. Same old stories of role of a gene/protein or few in a particular process. Assumption that deleting a chunk of protein will keep the physiological properties of protein intact and others will have some impact in the manner they test it, seems too naive to be interesting and enlightening. Claiming desired change upon knocking down common signal transducers, transcription factors or epigenetic modifiers is like expecting an animal to survive after acute dehydration. Some even tinker temperature and expect no response as null ! Well, my phone also hangs up when heated up! Wonder about the source of motivation and the nature of excitement the young PIs cherish in doing so. Bullshit stinks when someone claims that the deletion of quack quack domain has a role in blah blah interaction, while other domains are dispensable. Really? Thanks for the insight ! Would you kindly elaborate the changes in biophysical properties of the that protein? Does it still fold? Does it still phase separate? Are the cells fine, why to shy away from normality of cell-cycle curves. Biophysics, the bullshit pours in again, peeing something onto proteins and voila the conformation changes ! Thanks, I experience that every morning when I flush. And, the protein-protein interactions, we need to be in awe.... yeast two hybrids with >50% false positive rate seems the favourite toy, validating through partial col-localization of some clumps inside (and sometimes outside) the cell that is sandwiched like an omelet between two glass pieces, the immunofluorescence, as if both the techniques are complementary to each other! They are not even self compatible. Despite severe flaws, not working out an alternative approach seems so un-enlightening. Yet the bullshit is stuffed in the ears as the work is likely to cure the human diseases in future, though not done on normal human cells at first place.
Get a life !
Exaggerated tone on expected results is common. Uncommon are the new ideas and hypotheses. Same old stories of role of a gene/protein or few in a particular process. Assumption that deleting a chunk of protein will keep the physiological properties of protein intact and others will have some impact in the manner they test it, seems too naive to be interesting and enlightening. Claiming desired change upon knocking down common signal transducers, transcription factors or epigenetic modifiers is like expecting an animal to survive after acute dehydration. Some even tinker temperature and expect no response as null ! Well, my phone also hangs up when heated up! Wonder about the source of motivation and the nature of excitement the young PIs cherish in doing so. Bullshit stinks when someone claims that the deletion of quack quack domain has a role in blah blah interaction, while other domains are dispensable. Really? Thanks for the insight ! Would you kindly elaborate the changes in biophysical properties of the that protein? Does it still fold? Does it still phase separate? Are the cells fine, why to shy away from normality of cell-cycle curves. Biophysics, the bullshit pours in again, peeing something onto proteins and voila the conformation changes ! Thanks, I experience that every morning when I flush. And, the protein-protein interactions, we need to be in awe.... yeast two hybrids with >50% false positive rate seems the favourite toy, validating through partial col-localization of some clumps inside (and sometimes outside) the cell that is sandwiched like an omelet between two glass pieces, the immunofluorescence, as if both the techniques are complementary to each other! They are not even self compatible. Despite severe flaws, not working out an alternative approach seems so un-enlightening. Yet the bullshit is stuffed in the ears as the work is likely to cure the human diseases in future, though not done on normal human cells at first place.
Get a life !
No comments:
Post a Comment