What all of you are talking about is “real science”.
What would you think about players also writing short scientific publications making hypotheses and testing them? I am talking with some people about setting up a track in PLoS Currents here:
these tracks are for disciplines where so much stuff is happening so fast (e.g., influenza, disaster science) that the normal scientific review process is slowing down progress. If we can get our experimental throughput up and get you all to write micropapers, I think we would merit such a track.
That will be great. As you say, we are already talking real science. And we sort of have started writing short science articles in the GetSat area. So with a little push, like help on how to structure things and feedback, we should be ok. I’m in!
In my ideas for how to structure the comming big heap of RNA data, I mentioned that near twin designs were very valuable.
That made me think about this. I would love to have a search mechanism, like on internet browsers, that gives you pages similar to the one you already have. So instead of related pages or articles, give me related designs.
Eterna game sort of already have this function, as it gives scores to designs that don’t gets synthesised, after the similarity to those which does.
So I would like a function that can give me designs similar to the ones I want near twins for. Or just give me similar designs, that fulfill certain criterias.
Mat was asking into the writing of science papers. So I asked Jee to hear more about it. Here is the chat for all of you:
Eli Fisker: I was wondering. Rhiju asked if we wanted to write micropapers. Could we get an example to inspire us [16:47 GMT]
Eli Fisker: Telling us what should be in, in which order and so on
jeehyung: http://knol.google.com/k/hilary-placz…# This is one example
jeehyung: We are not entirely sure what exactly topics of micropapers will be. I think they would resemble strategies. For example, you could state a hypothesis “the optimal percentage of GC pairs is 60%”…
jeehyung: then use hundreds of synthesis slots to test designs with wide GC pairs range…
Eli Fisker: Yes, market strategies, but I also have testable theories in my getsat posts
jeehyung: analyze your results, and publish the results if your hypothesis was right.
jeehyung: Yes GetSat post too. Strategy was just an example, players should be able to do whatever experiments they want to do with EteRNA/synthesis pipeline
jeehyung: That’s our goal
Eli Fisker: Sounds great
Eli Fisker: Ok. But to make it really simple for us. We haven’t tried before, so could we have an example with headlines, like hypothesis here, test here and so on, else people will be unsure what to do
jeehyung: And there’ll be a big renovation of whole website for that, so it won’t be like just using GetSat / Strategy - there’ll be more formalized structure to do this
jeehyung: Yes - we are concerend that not many people are familiar with scientific papers
jeehyung: We are brainstorming about that…we even thought of having a dedicated editor who would help players to write papers. But that’s quickly going to become overwhelming…
Eli Fisker: Yes, I’m been trying talk a good player (no names) into writing getsat posts, and I would love to have him write science papers too. But he says he is not sure how to start
Eli Fisker: I can see why you would want us to write for our selves
jeehyung: I’m thinking of maybe having a template people can start with. It’s not optimal since many papers will sound alike,
jeehyung: but it would be a good starting point
Eli Fisker: Yes, that sounds great. Maybe a couple of different. But that will be a big help
Eli Fisker: Just like headlines, and headwords
jeehyung: I think players will catch up though. Good papers will be accepted, and some will get rejected. Soon there’ll be player strategy guides to get papers accepted.
Eli Fisker:
jeehyung: (I personally can’t wait to see that : ] )
Eli Fisker: This is so much fun
Quasispecies: hi all
Eli Fisker: hi Quasispecies
Quasispecies: how’s it going?
jeehyung: hi Quasispecies
Eli Fisker: good, sort of back again after a short holiday, and you?
Quasispecies: good, about to go out for some some soccer in a bit. thought i’d see what excitement is brewing on eterna
Quasispecies: i like that idea for a “strategy guide for getting papers accepted”
Eli Fisker: Yep, that is a great idea
Quasispecies: there was a lab i worked in a couple of years ago that pinned something similar to the wall. it was completely snarky and non-serious, of course
Eli Fisker:
Mat mentioned an old idea of his, I liked it so much, that I resurfice it here. He have earlier suggested having a tool with eterna energy parameters.
His latest thought on the subject is: If we get 10,000 (slots pr.) round we could get enough to make a eterna energy parameters, that could be used with rnafold, it time.
With the new synthesis possibilities, this might be a more realistic scenario.
I have a feeling that if we are to have a truly predictive tool for synthesis success, we will have to develop it ourselves.
I think these words are very true.
Clollin also said: I think any one tool or even metric within a tool is not enough - u have 2 verify all aspects of many tools and see a trend occurring.
I, like Dimension9, think what we do in Eterna is too different to what the other RNA tools are designed for. We will need a tool specificly designed for Eterna.
I’m in!