In article <9303231605.AA14920 at net.bio.net>, preissj at CLVAX1.CL.MSU.EDU ("J Preiss--Seq Anal") writes:
|> I recently saw this post asking what software do biologists need. I thaught
|> it was a great question.
|> ... we have gotten a rather pathetic series of snipes and jokes
|> about some silly metaphores. I have no interest in these.
They were not snipes. And, not all serious comments need be made grimly.
Should we check your potential interest before making subsequent posts?
|> Can we please resume a discussion of what software is needed by
This next reply is actually to another post... Computational biologists,
as scientists, should not limit themselves to polling biologists. Let's
turn the tables, and let's say that a biologist gets an interesting idea
for a computational metaphor derived from biology, e.g., genetics.
Should the biologist poll me to see whether I need another computational
metaphor, and abandon the idea if I decline? I should say not: he should
determine whether the work is worthwhile scientifically by using his scientific
taste (well developed, let's say) supplemented by collegial discussion. Did
contemporary biologists need Mendel's laws of inheritance?
The original poster is a graduate student in something or other at Harvard.
Let's encourage his creativity, tempered with wisdom.
Raul E. Valdes-Perez valdes at cs.cmu.edu
Carnegie Mellon University (412) 268-7127