Published by Mr. Gunn on December 15, 2007
Two big portal plays recently: Scirus Topic pages and Google Knols. I don’t know if this is related to the recent Wikipedia infighting brouhaha, but it’s certainly timely. Wikipedia is great for what it is, but we do need something that takes identity and authority into account.
Of course, no one’s calling these new efforts portals, because that would be way too 1.0, but it’s what they are. A single comprehensive destination site, just like Facebook et. al are portals. One single place to go for people to whom the open web is too big and scary. There’s something to be said for that, as it allows the identity and authority that wikipedia and the web as a whole don’t have, but readers of this blog will know that I’m a fan of decentralization and distribution. My blog is where I create content, and the nexus of my social network. Of course, because the web is open, it automatically includes all these closed efforts, and ideally, will interlink them.
Published by Mr. Gunn on December 5, 2007
Yoursci.com is a Science 2.0 project along the lines of OpenWetWare, but with a little tighter focus. They’ve got a section for contributing a project, and protocol section, and what I particularly like, a negative data section.
Content contribution and tool making kinda trade off one another, but all too often the cycle breaks not because the tool isn’t functional, but because it’s ugly. YourSci.com is pretty, looks functional, and it just so happens that I have some information they’re looking for.
Published by Mr. Gunn on December 4, 2007
A set of video clips illustrating the technology behind a DNA microarray. This is also a good example of the use of video in science, leaving the focus on the process and not the reporter.
Published by Mr. Gunn on December 4, 2007
Even active scientists often make mistakes when they comment on fields outside their expertise. In a recent example not involving a crackpot theory of quantum consciousness or intelligent design, Charles Krauthammer, an columnist for the Washington Post with a background in psychiatry, writes: Continue reading ‘A couple reasons why columnists should be very careful when they opine about science.’
Published by Mr. Gunn on December 3, 2007
The Personal Genome Project aims to collect the genetic information of 100,000 people. According to Misha Angrist, one of the first ten volunteers, the cost to them will be about $1000, and it will cover the “exome”, or the protein-coding sequence of all 22,000+ known genes. This is still a tiny fraction of the total genome, though it’s significantly greater detail than the ~650000+ SNPs covered by 23andme for the same amount of money. More significantly, the PGP’s mission is to provide a benefit to society through research, whereas 23andme is for personal curiosity and there’s no explicit research infrastructure. Users of either service may find it useful to consult with a genetic counselor, such as DNA Direct or a service such as IMD, covered under some insurance plans. Fellow science blogger Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei is affiliated with DNA Direct.
More coverage here:
Genomics: Being Well Informed
Geek Doctor: Life as a Healthcare CIO
GenomeBoy.com
Full Disclosure
The Personal Genome Project
The PGP Blog
The commentary on “Defining Pluripotency in Human Cells” is up at the Niche.
Featuring commentary on their previous article by Peter Andrews, Shinya Yamanaka, Paul Tesar, and William Gunn(aka yours truly).
I really like Paul Tesar’s idea of a “pluripotency score”, because it’s just this kind of multi-factorial definition we’ll need to really nail down just exactly what pluripotency is.