Biotech Values

[vinmantoo]

{{To be honest I am surprised that anyone reading this board regularly would think some particular area was somehow much cleaner than other areas (see JQ's list).}}

I answered this in the other post I just made.


{{And I would further add the concept that if researchers in one particular area think they are immune it may be a good indicator that they are not - skepticism is a powerful tool.}}

I never said any area was immune, and one would have to be an idiot and a fool to think so. I am the king of skeptics. Certain research areas are far more prone to variation and certain key assays have a low signal to noise ratio.

I am also fully aware that there are pressures and egos that one most deal with and control. The way I approach reading a published manuscript, and the way I teach students to do it, is that you assume it is a complete POS. Look at the data carefully and see how conclusive it is, does it have the right controls, and what if any key controls are missing. Equally important is to figure out what experiments are missing. I also tell students not to read the authors conclusions as they aren't relevant. I also make it clear to technicians and students that I don't care what the data says, I just want them to be as sure as possible of what they are reporting. When I get results that fit my models, then I get worried.

I read the book by Richard Feynman. There was a quote that always stuck with me. He said something along the lines, "You have to be careful as you are the easiest one to fool".