- Well, as some suggested to me I did read "All biology is computational biology" and, well, am unimpressed 1/n http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002050 …
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841924531006644225
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:10:25 - Yes, computational biology is critically important and its importance is only growing 2/n
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841924646073163780
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:10:52 - I agree w/ part of article quite a bit but seems to contradict rest - this part argues that computational biology is one of many tools 3/n pic.twitter.com/AuvutGUUSa
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841925603716673536
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:14:40 - Claim that all biology is computational biology is unnecessary, extreme & exclusionary - plenty of non computational work very important 4/n
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841925941874049024
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:16:01 - Claim sounds a lot like "all chemistry is physics" or "all biology is chemistry" or "all biology is physics" etc each of which is silly 5/n
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841926376114532353
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:17:44 - @phylogenomics ... As someone in a Bioinformatics Department ... I'm waiting for the "but"
https://twitter.com/BenOyserman/status/841926586689585154
— Ben Oyserman (@BenOyserman)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:18:35 https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841926757599043586
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:19:15- Claim that all biology is computational biology is indirectly a discounting of all non computational work and it is offensive and absurd 6/n
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841927252166230017
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:21:13 - @phylogenomics the part that stood out was thoughts on training. Should computational biologist take plant identification courses 1/2
https://twitter.com/BenOyserman/status/841927621634080768
— Ben Oyserman (@BenOyserman)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:22:41 - @phylogenomics I think we can all agree Biologist should learn more programing, even if they spend most of the time in the field or lab
https://twitter.com/BenOyserman/status/841927977889873921
— Ben Oyserman (@BenOyserman)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:24:06 - Plus - statement that computation is "turning biology into a quantitative science" ignores the qBio that existed before any computers 7/n pic.twitter.com/2hHUROjnUB
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841928057309040640
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:24:25 - @BenOyserman I would definitely not support that statement - I think most biologists would benefit from learning programming but not all
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841928359928037376
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:25:37 - .@BenOyserman I think we need to take very broad view of what biology is & if we do that saying all should learn programming is constraining
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841928860165902336
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:27:37 - @phylogenomics @BenOyserman people have an unfortunate habit of taking a good message and then trying to over universalise it
https://twitter.com/ZaminIqbal/status/841929491064754176
— Zamin Iqbal (@ZaminIqbal)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:30:07 - @BenOyserman @phylogenomics and be a jack of all trades, master of none? Ideas and inspiration are more than techniques.
https://twitter.com/dutchscientist/status/841929844460027904
— Dutch Scientist (@dutchscientist)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:31:31 - I think we need to take a very broad view of biology & it is confining & unwise to say it is or should all be computational in some way 8/n
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841929969227964416
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:32:01 - @phylogenomics May be a way to 'masculinise' biology? Biology historically has had to prove its deductive props vs physical sciences
https://twitter.com/jennifer_stiens/status/841930189617659904
— Jennijane (@jennifer_stiens)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:32:54 - @phylogenomics Good research starts with good questions, which need good observations. Programming can't help you with that. 1/2
https://twitter.com/JJeiter/status/841930747879514114
— Julius Jeiter (@JJeiter)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:35:07 - @phylogenomics Ironically, trained in pharmacology, worked HGP, science teacher, MS in hist of sci and now starting bioinformatics course!
https://twitter.com/jennifer_stiens/status/841930855371177984
— Jennijane (@jennifer_stiens)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:35:32 - We should err on the side of letting students & researchers be creative & define biology & what tools should be used how they see fit 9/n
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841930861310316545
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:35:34 - @phylogenomics @ZaminIqbal @BenOyserman It is harder for post-docs to find positions, without prog skills, as many see prog as essential!
https://twitter.com/micro_steve/status/841931131750608898
— Stephen Summers (@micro_steve)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:36:38 - A very reasoned comment on a paper doing the rounds. https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841924531006644225 …
https://twitter.com/keyboardpipette/status/841931225052909569
— A. Domingues (@keyboardpipette)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:37:01 - @micro_steve @ZaminIqbal @BenOyserman w/o doubt programming is very useful skill but does not mean "all biology is computational biology"
https://twitter.com/phylogenomics/status/841931544361095170
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics)Wed, Mar 15 2017 08:38:17
