Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most recent post
A ton to be thankful for -- here is one part of that - all the acknowledgement sections from my scholarly papers
So - it is another Thanksgiving Day and in addition to thinking about family, and football, and Alice's Restaurant, I also think a lot a...
-
I have a hardback version of The Bird Way by Jennifer Ackerma n but had not gotten around to reading it alas. But now I am listening to th...
-
There is a spreading surge of PDF sharing going on in relation to a tribute to Aaron Swartz who died a few days ago. For more on Aaron ... -
Wow. Just wow. And not in a good way. Just got an email invitation to a meeting. The meeting is " THE FIRST ANNUAL WINTER Q-BIO ...
Um, I'm pretty sure this is a spoof, to highlight the risks of contamination in sample handling for metagenomics. Microscopic sea monkeys - oh, were it really true!
ReplyDeleteI can reassure you that you are right. Something tells me that Jonathan might have figured this out, too.
ReplyDeleteWell, it is a satire of sorts. But he did find some unusual sequences in the GOS data. So it is not quite a spoof.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely amusing (would be more so if the humor didn't hit so close to home) and its good to make it clear that data is rarely (if ever?) perfect as I think Jonathan Eisen stated quite eloquently in the source blog. On the positive side, the paper(s) don't claim that any effort was made to remove "suspect" sequences so you get what you get, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Thats the raw data. I trust that the numbers are trivial enough as to not bias any of the conclusions.
ReplyDelete