You mention Jupyter seems to be visualized as populated with endless little Python programs and graphs, maybe some tables, etc and not "maybe this maybe that" reasoning.
I notice for USA NIH R&D Jan 29 2023 is the deadline for a new requirement for grants to explain in considerable precision how results are shared.
Your example of maybe an embedded inventory control data base is interesting. Labelling, barcodes ( whatever ) and sample naming is pretty essential.
"Sharing" with people on site in your group, in the 'group' but in facilities at a distance, and explaining to 3rd parties trying to graft the new knowledge onto their projects are really, really different sorts of communication.
Probably your line item of control is accessible via some program like Python script or from a notebook.
So, does a project end up with a 'master' 'lab book' with all of them poured together, or what ?
Why do little programs instead of paragraphs of indecision end up in notebooks ? A: Notebooks feel more like personal assets than project line items...
I suggested to an insider ISO 900X would be a better credential for science then these little vows of happy talk. He said: "Too expensive", I disagree. but not all science could be written up in that form. Theres no single answer to the open questions, none at all... But there can still be incremental improvement..
The new requrement:
Beginning in January 2023, the Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing (NOT-OD-21-013) will require researchers to include a data management and sharing (DMS) plan in funding applications. In preparation for the policy implementation, NIH has launched a Scientific Data Sharing Website.
Interesting stuff,
I notice for USA NIH R&D Jan 29 2023 is the deadline for a new requirement for grants to explain in considerable precision how results are shared.
Your example of maybe an embedded inventory control data base is interesting. Labelling, barcodes ( whatever ) and sample naming is pretty essential.
"Sharing" with people on site in your group, in the 'group' but in facilities at a distance, and explaining to 3rd parties trying to graft the new knowledge onto their projects are really, really different sorts of communication.
Probably your line item of control is accessible via some program like Python script or from a notebook.
So, does a project end up with a 'master' 'lab book' with all of them poured together, or what ?
Why do little programs instead of paragraphs of indecision end up in notebooks ? A: Notebooks feel more like personal assets than project line items...
I suggested to an insider ISO 900X would be a better credential for science then these little vows of happy talk. He said: "Too expensive", I disagree. but not all science could be written up in that form. Theres no single answer to the open questions, none at all... But there can still be incremental improvement..
The new requrement:
Beginning in January 2023, the Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing (NOT-OD-21-013) will require researchers to include a data management and sharing (DMS) plan in funding applications. In preparation for the policy implementation, NIH has launched a Scientific Data Sharing Website.
Interesting stuff,
Daniel B. Kolis
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CADZtRaLqQbGpap7r6HSc2GYeP2n5Lrsc7p%3DrknmQGBuputLH%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
0 comments:
Post a Comment