It was said moment ago...:
" Today's methods, BioBricks or other, are tremendously overhyped and the "design by trial & error" methods have a failure rate of near 100% when scaled beyond the trivial. The journalists universally fail to report these facts and unfortunately are never held accountable. "
Dan says:
Regarding the blued text especially.
Huh. I suppose this is roughly a verification of what I believed and poked in here as text, unfortunately.
It's remarkable how ( hopefully its unintentional ) misleading the WWW stitched around databases is for these alleged magic rabbits-from-hats systems composed of WWW programs, fat PDF's and CSV ( or more fashionably, TSV ) files.
I worry I am rattling on about the obvious, but you might notice I am interested in numbers that create milestones in time, or other ways to estimate actual, as opposed to synthetic, progress.
One way I thought about it lately is the H.S.-tuna-fish-to-ATP benchmark. The baseline is, if I gobble back a tuna fish sandwich and a map is developed from plate to ( ATP and 10 A.A); and we assume the area under the curve is 95% the mass of the food; ( ex. exclude metabolics for the olives, maybe etc.). How many unique proteins are in that transformation ?
e1) < 100
Huh. I suppose this is roughly a verification of what I believed and poked in here as text, unfortunately.
It's remarkable how ( hopefully its unintentional ) misleading the WWW stitched around databases is for these alleged magic rabbits-from-hats systems composed of WWW programs, fat PDF's and CSV ( or more fashionably, TSV ) files.
I worry I am rattling on about the obvious, but you might notice I am interested in numbers that create milestones in time, or other ways to estimate actual, as opposed to synthetic, progress.
One way I thought about it lately is the H.S.-tuna-fish-to-ATP benchmark. The baseline is, if I gobble back a tuna fish sandwich and a map is developed from plate to ( ATP and 10 A.A); and we assume the area under the curve is 95% the mass of the food; ( ex. exclude metabolics for the olives, maybe etc.). How many unique proteins are in that transformation ?
e1) < 100
e2) > 100 < 1000
e3) > 1000 < 5000
If you go super low and dare e2. think how reliable each transformation has to be characterised to win ? If many are 30 xforms long ... and 98% percent grokked. 30^ in that subset is in for failure in series is ... 0.98^30 = 0.55
So if either the deviation from the central dogma, errors of omission, mini-fraud, whatever is at 98% some are only 1/2 good. out of 30 of those, the chance ones important and completely obliterates the analysis is kind of well, certain.
So if either the deviation from the central dogma, errors of omission, mini-fraud, whatever is at 98% some are only 1/2 good. out of 30 of those, the chance ones important and completely obliterates the analysis is kind of well, certain.
So beyond P.R. to get funded, get queen-kissing-ops with Nobel Prizes, etc Mother nature has made this not medium hard but really, really hard.
I wonder if this kind of thinking has utility, or the general approach is: "Shut up and keep shoveling", that is the hard way is the only way... period.
A.I. programs kind of allow some more deviation to allow the unknown, but expecting a lot of them seems to me more misrepresentation, maybe.
I'd suggest a lot more humility in goals, and specifically NAMING of projects etc would help slightly. To explicitly discuss hoping to get from 2% to 10%, not a vague sci-fi ready story that's some mix of wishful thinking and fraud.
I wonder if this kind of thinking has utility, or the general approach is: "Shut up and keep shoveling", that is the hard way is the only way... period.
A.I. programs kind of allow some more deviation to allow the unknown, but expecting a lot of them seems to me more misrepresentation, maybe.
I'd suggest a lot more humility in goals, and specifically NAMING of projects etc would help slightly. To explicitly discuss hoping to get from 2% to 10%, not a vague sci-fi ready story that's some mix of wishful thinking and fraud.
Regs,
Daniel B. Kolis
my ref: BioBricks, blog, 28 Dec 2022, JonC
-- 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/343a016c-d2c1-4613-90ab-153a291e212an%40googlegroups.com.
0 comments:
Post a Comment