We notified you earlier about the 'Start of arguments' and as we expected, they continued! And guess what!? - they're still about data!
Steve Kemp had a lively session after lunch and provoked lots of questions, opinions and passion! At the start of his talk, he (bravely) said: "There's been a collosal failure of biologists to manage their own data. Biologists have no idea how bad they are at managing data."
After his talk, many hands were raised for both questions and opinions!
Onesmo ole-MoiYoi said he was aware there's ignorance amongst animal and human health people. The plant people are aware of this too. Ecologists and agronomists have been tackling this for years!
Phil Thornton said: I don't think it is right to tar all biologists with the same brush!
Saidi Apale, a young brilliant Kenyan bioinformatician, seemed intrigued by the following quote (in this workshop's workbook) from WIRED magazine:
Scientists have always relied on hypothesis and experimentation. Now, in the era of massive data, there's a better way." - Chris Anderson, WIRED, July 2008
Siadi then asked Steve three questions:
1. Do you agree with Chris Anderson that data is replacing hypothesis?
2. Is it already happening?
3. Should we be doing it?
Steve replied saying: Yes, yes and yes!
(We think a few eyebrows were raised at this point as this might mean that machines could replace scientists!)
Steve has offered to convene a session with participants interested in further exploring the Great Data Debates!
Interestingly last week a Nature Special Issue (4 Sep) examined what big data sets mean for science? The Nature editiorial says:
"Beyond a certain point, as an increasing number of research disciplines are discovering, the vast amounts of data are presenting fresh challenges that urgently need ot be addressed.
"Above all, data on today's scales require scientific and computational intelligence. Google may now have its critics, but no one can deny its impact, which ultimately stems from the cleverness of its informatics.
The future of science depends in part on such cleverness again being applied to data for their own sake, complementing scientific hypotheses as a basis for exploring today's information cornucopia."
As the debate continues, what do you all think?
P.S. This Nature article also reminds us that it's Google Search's 10th Birthday. So prior to that you wouldn't have been able to "Google" anyone or anything! Can anyone remember that!? Happy Birthday, Google Search!
