Track your comments with coComment

I am finally giving the coComment service a try and I will be experimenting with it for a while here on the blog. coComment aims to help us track the conversations we have on other blogs by aggregating comments and checking for replies. You decide to track or not a comment before submitting it and the comments tracked appear on your homepage at coComments. Alternatively you can read them via RSS feed or with a coComment box on your own blog. You can customize a lot the box so you could do a much better job than I did in trying to integrate it into your blog :).

You can find a lot more about this in these two posts on TechCrunch

Postgenomic

I have been wishing someone would come up with a science.memeorandum for some time and now there is one: Postgenomic. The site created by Stew (still in beta) aims to aggregate discussions going on in the life science blogs about papers, conferences and general science news. This adds a needed feedback to the science blogosphere and therefore will, in my opinion, increase the quality of discussion.
This site can for example become an excellent repository for comments on papers. Instead of adding a comment on a paper in the journal website now you can just blog about it and the content gets aggregated on postgenomic. I am not sure but I think we could make a greasemonkey script to check the current web page for a DOI and see if there are reviews about it in postgenomic and add a little link somewhere.

Some more links about it:
Nodalpoint
Notes and more Notes

The search wars turn ugly

What will convince you to change your search engine ? So far it as been all about who gives the best results and who indexes the biggest number of pages. It looks like number two (Yahoo!) and number three (MSN) search engines are considering paying you to switch. How does MSNSearchAndWin sound like ? I also taught it was some kind of joke but you can try it yourself.
To be fair, someone mentioned also that Google is thinking of paying Dell to have Google software pre-installed on the new computers.

I would prefer it was about new innovation and not just about how as more cash to give to the users. It even sounds a bit ridiculou. It is not only free they are thinking of paying us to use it. Very competitive market.

BIND in the news

There is another editorial in the last issue of Nature Biotech about database funding. It focuses on BIND, explaining the growth and later decline (due to lack of funding) of this well known interaction database. Last December, BIND and other Blueprint Initiative intellectual property was bought by Unleashed Informatics but as far as I can understand, this deal merely keeps the database available on the site and there will be no further updating for now. Knowing that both BIND and unleashed were created within the Blueprint Initiative led by principal investigator Christopher Hogue (also Chief Scientific Officer of Unleashed Informatics) then this deal was probably just symbolic and a way to increase the value of the company.

According to the Nature Biotech article BIND used up "$17.3 million in federal and Ontario government funding and another $7.8 million from the private sector" to create it's value. Without the details it looks strange that so much value, mostly built with public money, ends up in a private company. Unleashed had to agreed to maintain the access to the existing value free for all and I guess it will use BIND to attract possible buyers to their tools.

Christopher Hogue posted a pessimistic comment here sometime ago about the future of databases in general. This editorial in Nature Biotech argues that it would take two important steps to allow for more permanent databases. The first step would be for the major funding agencies to accept and discuss the need for longer lived databases. The second step would be to create mechanism to decide what databases should be recognized as matured standards.

I thought that with examples like pubmed, the sequence databases and the PDB that the need for long lived databases was obvious by know to the funding bodies. The second step is a bit more tricky. Creating a minimal and stable standard for a type of data is a complicated process and it is not obvious when a database supports such a community of researchers that it would make sense to give it maintenance funding.


Some toughts from Neil, Spitshine

A similar discussion in Nodalpoint

Become a fonero and change the world

Today I read about FON, a global community of people that share wi-fi access. They just made the news because they announced support from several well known companies (Google , Skype, Sequoia Capital, and Index Ventures) that will surely catapult FON into the sky. The basic idea is to turn any wifi router into a hotspot and have people share their internet connection by installing some software on their routers or buying pre-configured wireless routers from the company. You can only use other people's FON hotspots if you are paying for one ISP at home so this is also good for the internet service providers. You can try to make money with your FON hotspot (they call these users Bills) or you can be more utopian and give away your internet connection for free (and be called a Linus). If you do not have a FON account you are called an alien but you can still connect to a FON hotspot and you will have to pay just like at any hotspot (and the ISPs get some money from this as well).
At first glance it looks like an all win cenario but only time will tell. It is certainly one case where the more that join the better the service will become and if this gets of the ground then once you pay for a connection at home you have it almost everywhere.

This is one of those simple utopian ideas with enough practical sense to make an impact so I think I will give it a try :).

I usually don't do this but ..

This is a really good blonde joke. Got love infectious silly memes.

BioPerl has a new site

If you use BioPerl go have a look at the re-designed site. From the full announcement at OBF:

"I am pleased to announce the release of a new website for BioPerl. The site is based on the mediawiki software that was developed for the wikipedia project. We intend the site to be a place for community input on documentation and design for the BioPerl project. There is also a fair amount of documentation started surrounding bioinformatics tools and techniques applicable to using BioPerl and some of the authors who created these resources."

Meta bloguing

I changed a couple of things on the blog template. If anybody reads this with an aggregator and all previous posts appear as updated please let me know.
I added a new section on the right bar were I plan to keep some previous post that might be interesting to discuss. I had this change in mind after reading this post in Notes from the Biomass about blogging. It is true that blogging platforms don't make it easy to revisit ideas. I'll try to find other ways to do this.

I also updated the blogroll with some links. Neil's blog and Yakafokon on bioinformatics, some tech blogs I particularly like and a the blog of a portuguese friend of mine.

Our Collective Mind II

Some time ago I posted an unusual short text about collective intelligence. I think it was motivated by the web2.0 explosion, all the blogging, social websites and the layer of other services tracking these human activities in real time. The developments in the last 2-3 years were not so much a question of technical innovation since most of the tools were already developed but it was mostly a massification effect. A lot more people started to participate online instead of just browsing. This participation is very easy to track and we have automatic services that can, for example, tell us what people are currently talking about. One can think of these services as a form of self awareness. If you go to tech.memeorandum you can see a computer algorithm tracking the currently most talked about subjects in technology and organizing them into conversations. This does not mean that the web can understand what is being talked about but it is self aware.

I read today a (very long) post by Nova Spinack about this subject of self awareness and how he proposes that we should build this on a large scale. Although I agree that this type of services are very useful I am not sure that one should try to purposely build some form of collective intelligence on such abstract terms. This idea of having everything collected under the same service feels to restrictive and not very functional. I would prefer a diversity and selection approach, just let the web decide. There is a big marked for web services right now and I don't see it fading any time soon. Therefore if collective intelligence is possible and useful then rapidly services will be built on top of each other to produce it.

If you have any interest on the topic and endorse his opinion write a post and trackback to him.

Power law distributions

Almost every time a lot of hype is built around an idea there is general backlash against the very same idea. In technology this happens regularly and it is maybe due to a snowball effect that leads to abuse. Initially a new concept is proposed that leads to useful new products and this in turn increases interest and funding (venture capital, etc). In response, several people copy the concept or merely tag their work with the same buzz to attract interest. Soon enough everyone is doing the same thing and the new concept reaches world fame. At this point it is hard to find actual good products based on the initial idea among all the noise. For a recent tech example just think of the web2.0 meme. Every startup now a days releases their projects in beta with some sort of tagging/social/mash-up thing. The backlash in already happening for web2.0.

What about the title ?
I had already mentioned a review article about power-law distributions. The author voiced some concern over the exaggerated conclusions researchers are making about the observation of these distributions in complex networks. Is the backlash coming for this hype?

Recently Oliveira and Barabasi published yet another paper on the ubiquity of power laws. This time it was about the correspondence patterns Darwin and Einstein where they claim that the time delays for the replies follow a power-law. This work is similar to earlier work by Barabasi about email correspondence. Quickly after, a comment was published in Nature suggesting that the data is a better fit for the lognormal distribution and this generated some discussion on the web. There is also some claims of similar previous work using the same data not properly cited.

The best summary of the whole issue comes in my opinion from Michael Mitzenmacher:
"While the rebuttal suggests the data is a better fit for the lognormal distribution, I am not a big believer in the fit-the-data approach to distinguish these distributions. The Barabasi paper actually suggested a model, which is nice, (...) anyone can come up with a power law model. The challenge is figuring out how to show your model is actually right."

Other papers have recently put questions also on the quality of the data underlying some of these studies. Is life all log-normal after all :) ?

What I actually want to discuss is the hype. Going back to the beginning of the post, how can we keep science from generating such hype around particular memes. People like Barabasi are capable of captivating the imagination of a broad audience and help bring society closer to science but usually at some cost. I think this is tied to science funding. What gets funded is what is perceived as the cutting edge, the trendy subjects. Trendy things get a lot of funding and more visibility until the whole thing crashes down with the weight of all the noise in the field.

In a brilliant paper (the one about a radio :) Lazebnik remembers some advice from David Papermaster:
"David said that every field he witnessed during his decades in biological research developed quite similarly. At the first stage, a small number of scientists would somewhat leisurely discuss a problem that would appear esoteric to others (...) Then, an unexpected observation (...) makes many realize that the previously mysterious process can be dissected with available tools and, importantly, that this effort may result in a miracle drug. At once, the field is converted into a Klondike gold rush with all the characteristic dynamics, mentality, and morals. (...) The assumed proximity of this imaginary nugget easily attracts both financial and human resources, which results in a rapid expansion of the field. The understanding of the biological process increases accordingly and results in crystal clear models that often explain everything and point at targets for future miracle drugs.(...) At some point, David said, the field reaches a stage at which models, that seemed so complete, fall apart, predictions that were considered so obvious are found to be wrong, and attempts to develop wonder drugs largely fail. (...) In other words, the field hits the wall, even though the intensity of research remains unabated for a while, resulting in thousands of publications, many of which are contradictory or largely descriptive."

Is this necessary ? Is there something about the way science is made that leads to this ? Can we change it?

European Research Council (ERC)

For those of you who don't usually read about European research policies, the European Research Council is a projected European structure being designed to support basic research. It is now clear that the ERC will be formed but it is still unknown how much money the EU budget will reserve for it. Recently the Scientific Council of the future ERC was nominated and the chairman is none other than Fotis Kafatos, the former EMBL director. Kafatos term as EMBL director ended in May last year and his nomination as chairman of the ERC will, in my opinion, strengthen the research council and hopefully help it attract the funding required.

For further reading:
Kafatos named Chairman of ERC Council (EMBL announcement)
Chairman explains Europe's research council (interview for Nature)
Election of Chairman of Scientific Council (press release hidden among several other)

Linking out (blogs@nature && workflows)

Rolf Apweiler called bloggers exhibitionist in a recent news special in Nature -"I have my doubts that blogging reduces information overload, but blogging will survive as it appeals to all the exhibitionists,". I hope this simplistic opinion is supported by more reasoning that was not included in the news piece because of lack of space. Blogging appeals to the easy creation of content, it makes it easier for people to have a voice. What gets people attention is how good (or bad) the content is, not the particular connections or any other bias. This makes blogs one the most democratic content medium I am aware of (compare it to newspapers, radio, tv). Discussion in Notes from the Biomass

Check out some interesting post on workflows in Hublog and Flags and Lollipops

Back to roots

I like bioinformatics because it is so useful at pointing out the next useful experiments and helping to extract knowledge from your data. This is why I think it is possible and useful to do experimental work alongside with computational work.
I have spent the last week back in the bench doing some biochemistry. I usually don't do much bench work although I have a biochemistry degree. It is at the moment not easy to keep up doing my computational work while doing the lab work but I want, until the end of my PhD, to find a way to keep doing both things at the same time. I should divide my time between the two mind sets but I am not sure of the best way.
Any ideas ?

Firefox 1.5

A quick post to promote the release of a new version of firefox. If you already have it, go get it here. If you don't have it yet, give it a try, it takes one or two minutes to install and has nice advantages compared to some other popular browsers (just an example of the top of my head ... it is better than the internet explorer :) ).
There are going to be some potentially funny films to see in Spreadfirefox.com.

I am still playing around with but the first surprise is immediate, much quicker to move between tabs. You can now move the tabs around with drag and drop to re-order them. New features listed here.

Meta Blogging

If by any strange reason you are searching for some blogs to read allow me to make a suggestion. Via NyTimes I found this site called TravelBlog for people blogging while traveling. From the site :"Travel Blog is a collection of travel journals, diaries, stories and photos from all around the world, ordinary people doing extraordinary things. For travellers, this site includes lots of features that help keep family and friends back home up to date with your adventure."

I would not put any of these in my usual reads but maybe I will check back to this page before my next long holidays ... umm .. sometime after I finish my phd.

SyntheticBiology@Nature.com

This week Nature has a special issue on <buzz>Synthetic Biology</buzz>. I have currently a kind of love/hate relationship with trends in biology. It is easy to track the trends (in the recent past: genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, systems biology, nanotechnology, synthetic biology) and it is somehow fascinating to follow them and watch them propagate. It holds for me a similar fascination has seeing a meme propagate in the web. Someone will still write a thesis on how a kid was able to put up a webpage like this one and make truck load of money selling pixels just because he ignited the curiosity of people on a global scale.
There is always a reason behind each rising trend in biology, but they are clearly too short lived to deliver on their expectations, so what is the point ? Why do these waves of buzz exist in research ? The mentality of engineering in biology is not new so why the recent interest in synthetic biology ?
I am too young to know if this has always been like this but I am inclined to think that this is just to product of increasing competition for resources (grant applications). Every once in a while scientist have to re-invent the pressing reasons why society has to invest in them. The big projects that will galvanize the masses, the next genome project.

I personally like the engineering approach to biology. Much of the work that is done in the lab where I am doing my phd is engineering oriented. Synthetic biology (or whatever it was called in the past and will be called in the future) could deliver things like cheap energy (biological solar panels),cheaper chemicals (optimized systems of production), cheap food (GMOs or some even weirder tissue cultures), clean water, improved immune-systems, etc. A quick look at the two reviews that are in this week's issue of Nature will tell you that we are still far from all of this.

The review by David Sprinzak and Michael Elowitz tries to cover broadly what as been achieved in engineering biological systems in the last couple of years (references range from 2000 to 2005). Apart from the reference to a paper on the engineering a mevalonate pathway in Escherichia coli, most of the work so far done in the field is preliminary. People have been trying to assemble simple systems and end up learning new things along the way.

The second review is authored by Drew Endy and is basically synthetic biology evangelism :). Drew Endy has been one of the voices shouting louder in support of this field and in looking for standardization and open exchange of information and materials (some notes from the biomass). The only new thing he says in this review that I have not heard before from him is a short paragraph on evolution. We are used to engineering things that do not replicate (cars, computers, tv sets, etc) and the field will have to start thinking of the consequences of evolution of the systems it tinkers with. Are the systems sustainable ? Will they change within their useful life time ?

There is one accompanying research paper reporting on a chimeric light sensing protein that is de-phosphorylated in the presence of red light. The bacteria produce lacZ in the dark and the production is decreased with increasing amounts of red light. You can make funny pictures with these bacteria but has for the real scientific value of this discovery I can link to two comments in Slashdot. Maybe that is exaggerated. Making chimeric protein receptors that work can be tricky and it is very nice that something started by college students can end up in a Nature paper.

Last but not least there is a comic ! The fantastic: "Adventures in Synthetic Biology". Ok, here is where I draw the line :) Who is this for ? Since when do teens read Nature ? How would they have access to this ? I like comics, I do ... but this is clearly not properly targeted.

BIND database runs out of funding

I only noticed today that BIND as ran out of funding. They say so on the home page and there are links to several paper regarding the issue of sustainable database funding (has of 16 November 2005).

From the frontpage of BIND:
"Finally, I would like to reiterate my conviction that public databases are essential requirements for the future of life sciences research. The question arises will these be free or will they require a subscription. Should BIND/Blueprint be sustained as a public-funded open-access database and service provider? "

I am not sure actually what would be a good way out for BIND. They could try to charge institutional access like the Faculty1000 or ISI. The other possibility would be to try to secure support from a place like NCBI or EBI. The problem is that there are several other databases available that do the same thing (MINT,DIP,GRID, IntAct,etc) so why should we pay for this service ? Why don't the protein-interaction databases fuse for example? I now that they agreed to share the data in the same format, so maybe there is not enough space for so many different databases developing new tools. The question is probably more of the curation effort then. Who should pay for the curation effort ? The users of the databases? The major institutions ? The journals (they could at least force the authors to submit interaction data directly) ?

There is also a link to the blog of Christopher Hogue called BioImplement. He expresses his views of the problem.

Google Base simple tricks

I was playing with Gbase, just browsing for content and I noticed that when you search for content that already has a lot of entries you can restrict the outcome of the search very much like you do in a structured database. For example when you look for jobs you notice that in top you have "Refine your search" and you can click for example "job type" and if you select for example "permanent" you get something like all jobs where job type is permanent. It is all above in the URL so it is very simple to mess around until you can guess what most of those things are doing up there.

From this:
http://base.google.com/base/search?q=jobs&a_r=1&nd=0&scoring=r&us=0&a_n194=job+type&a_y194=1&a_s194=0&a_o194=0&a_v194=permanent&a_v194=

You really just need:
http://base.google.com/base/search?a_n194=job+type&a_y194=1&a_o194=0&a_v194=permanent
to get the same effect. Basically this gets all entries with "job type" equal "permanent". The 194 is not even important as long as the number is equal in all of the variables.
So this also gives the same:
http://base.google.com/base/search?a_n1=job+type&a_y1=1&a_o1=0&a_v1=permanent
a_n[identifier]=NAME
a_v[identifier]=VALUE
a_y[identifier]= ? (I think it is a boolean of some sort)
a_o[identifier]= how to evaluate the value 0=equal 1=less than 2=greater than

You can add construction like this to get an AND construction but so far I did not find an equivalent to an OR construction. This is almost good enough to work with.

So all protein sequences from S.cerevisiae would be:
http://base.google.com/base/search?a_n1=sequence+type&a_y1=1&a_o1=0&a_v1=protein&a_n2=species&a_y2=1&a_o2=0&a_v2=s.cerevisiae

Google Base and Bioinformatics II

The Google Base service is officially open in beta (as usual). Is is mostly disappointing because you can do nothing with it really (read previous post). You can load tons of data, very rapidly although they take a lot of time to process the bulk uploads. Maybe this will speed up in the future. The problem is once you have your structured data in Google Base you cannot do anything with it apart from searching and looking at it with the browser. I uploaded a couple of protein sequences just for fun. I called the item "biological sequence" and I gave it very simple attributes like sequence, id, and type. The upload failed because I did not have a title so I added title and just copied the id field. Not very exciting right.

I guess you can scrape the data off it automatically but that is not very nice. This for example gets the object ids for the biological sequences I uploaded:

use LWP::UserAgent;
use HTTP::Request;
my $url = "http://base.google.com/base/search?q=biological+sequence";
my $ua = new LWP::UserAgent();
my $req = HTTP::Request->new('GET',$url);
my $res = $ua->request($req);
open(DATA, ">google.base.temp") || die "outputfile didn't open $!";
print DATA $res->content;
close DATA;
open (IN,"<google.base.temp")|| die "Error in input $!";
grep(/oid=([0-9]+)\">(\S+)</ && ($data{$1}=$2) ,<IN>);
close IN;
foreach $id (keys %data) {print $id,"\n";}

With the object ids then you can do the same to get the sequences.

Anyway, everybody is half expecting that one day google will release an API to do this properly. So coming back to scientific research, is this useful for anything ? Even with a proper API this is just a database. It will make it easy for people to rapidly set up a database and maybe google can make a simple template webpage service do display the content of the structured database. It would be a nice add-on to blogger for example. You could get a tile to put in your blog with an easy way to display the content of your structured database.

For virtual online collaborative research (aka science 2.0 :)?) this is potentially useful because you get a free tool to set up a database for a given project. Apart from this I don't see potential applications but like the name says it is just the base for something.

The Human Puppet

One of the current trends in our changing internet is the phenomena of "collective intelligence" (web2.0 buzz) where the rise and ease of individual participation can result in amazing collective efforts. The usual example for collective intelligence is the success of Wikipedia but more examples are sure to follow.
This sets the grounds for a possibly strange scenario in a kind of sci fi "what if" game. What if a human being decided that he/she did not want to decide anymore ? (funny paradox :) - "I'll be a vessel for the collective intelligence of the web, I'll be the human puppet". Taken to the extreme this someone would walk around with a webcam and with easy tools to constantly interact with the web. The ultimate big brother but voluntary. The masses in the web would constantly discuss and decide the life of the puppet. This someone would benefit from the knowledge and experience of a huge group of people and could, in theory really stand on the shoulders of giants.

Of course this is an extreme scenario that might not come to pass, but sci fi is useful to think of the possible consequences of a trend. Lighter versions of this scenario probably occur already in the blogosphere when people talk online about their daily lives and receive council from anonymous people.

Would someone ever give up their individuality to be directed by a collective intelligence ? Would a group of people be attracted by the chance of directing someone's life ?