Papers of Tina Hesman Saey and Yuyri Lazebnik

Question: Write paper about How my life was changed forever after reading the papers of Tina Hesman Saey and Yuyri Lazebnik? Answer: Both Yuri Lazebnik and Tina Hesman Saey make pertinent points when they nudge biologists out of their comfort zones. The experimental biologists for having remained too long within the defined borders of research and the biologists who are comfortable publishing research that is not path breaking. It makes me wonder whether I want to enter the field of biological research which is so exciting to study, as mechanism after mechanism from photosynthesis to proteolysis to prions is discovered, questioned and then rewarded with recognition and Nobel prizes once the dust of scepticism settles down that the upheaval of the discoveries initially caused. As a high school student James Watson's 'The Double Helix' excited me enough to take up the study of biology and in my naivety I believed that science was based on proven, verified, analysed and discussed results obtained after years of perseverance, sacrifices made on personal and family fronts, and were to be believed with a sense of revere nce. That it can be difficult to verify or reproduce published results came as a shock. (Saey, 2015). For a believer in science it almost brought to me thoughts about quitting a career in science. But after some rational thinking, I think that once the importance of reproducible results becomes a feature of training students of science this malady can be removed. Surely the world will learn to distinguish between research carried out to earn more citations, publication in journals with higher impact factors and the race to earn funding for meaningless research will be replaced by a generation of scientists who will learn to distinguish the grain from chaff. Certainly, it is possible to train young and brilliant minds to respect the sanctity of research and discoveries that have stood the test of time. The system biologists will help biologists to make more sense of the hordes of data that research generates (Bhalla, 1999). Fortunately for us the history of science is not all dark. There are several rays that illuminate the road towards pursuit of honest science. It is also important to foster a culture where determining reproducibility of results becomes a norm rather than an exception. Timothy Errington's work is notable among such efforts made at finding whether findings are reproducible. (Timothy M Errington, 2014). Reading papers of Yuri Lazebnik and Tina Hesman Saey has changed another thing for me. (Lazebnik, 2002). The need for scientists to reflect upon the race they are engaged in. Instead of discussing research at conferences let them discuss the way forward for biological sciences research. Do we want our current and future generations of scientists to engage in research that 'finds' nothing? Or do we want every cent of funding spent for doing meaningful research that passes the scrutiny of time, quality and dependability. So, I have decided to join a scientific community that can initiate a change in policy when I am older. Where scientists and not people who wield power set the agenda for future research. Yes, I will continue to study and research biological science. I completely agree with Simone Schnall who says that reward for scientists should be based on reproducible findings. Rather than fighting for scant resources scientists should be more collaborative. I envision a scientific community where mistakes are allowed and honesty and integrity are respected (Ioannidis JP1, 2014). Lazebnik's writing opens my eyes to a world of science where scientific perspective is more traditional. But the new wave of systems biology approaches a refreshing view of looking at scientific findings. When biologists learn to devise new methods of forming larger pictures and tackling problems like engineers do for instance, they might begin to make more sense of data that yields little meaning with current methods of translating research into actual findings. The philosophy of research that directs younger scientists to develop original tools for investigation and to keep an open mind and tread an unmarked path while finding new solutions might work as sound advice for scientists of my generation. So yes, I plan to tread the unbeaten path. I almost wonder (since the revered p53 protein has 23000 publications based on it) how many maladies that afflict mankind can be cured using this protein as a target? And did the reviews that analysed the research papers on the single molecule drive research in the right direction? Reflecting upon our collective efforts at regular intervals is important. Stopping at the right juncture and taking stock is important. Patents and the entry of corporate research has made research a business enterprise. Practising the research profession in an atmosphere of trust, more collaboration than competition is what I dream of. References: Bhalla, U. a. I. R., 1999. Emergent properties of networks of biological signalling pathways. Science, Volume 283, pp. 381-387. Ioannidis JP, Munaffo,. M.R., Fusar-Poli, P., Nosek, B.A., David S.P. 2014. Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention.. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(5), pp. 235-41. Lazebnik, Y., 2002. Can a biologist fix a radio? - or what I learned from studying apoptosis. Cancer Cell, Volume 2, pp. 179-182. Saey, T. H., 2015. Repeat Performance. Science News, 24 January, pp. 21-26. Timothy M Errington, et al 2014. An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research. eLife, Volume 3, p. e04333..