Comment by adjejmxbdjdn
17 hours ago
There are other quotes that do think it’s significant. Why do you think the more critical scientists are more correct?
> John Glass, a synthetic biologist at the J. Craig Venter Institute in La Jolla, Calif., who was not involved in the study. “It is dazzling that she has put these things all together,” he said.
> “We’re going to remember this moment,” said Roseanna Zia, a computational biologist at the University of Missouri who was not involved in the project.
Maybe you prefer scientists who put their money where their mouth is (even if that’s a conflict of interest)
> When Dr. Adamala showed SpudCell to Dr. Endy… (a synthetic biologist at Stanford University) … last year, he was so awestruck that he decided to help her found Biotic, the nonprofit organization intended to create a community of SpudCell researchers. “I’m pouring my life’s work into this,” Dr. Endy said.
> Why do you think the more critical scientists are more correct?
I am not qualified to make a judgement here, the point is following the process is better than jumping the gun on principle.
It literally doesn’t matter if it’s eventually considered groundbreaking research or not, jumping the gun is a bad idea.
> I am not qualified to make a judgement here, the point is following the process is better than jumping the gun on principle.
Why? The process is quite obviously net negative; we'd get better results with no process at all.
> we'd get better results with no process at all.
I’m going to give some advice that you probably won’t understand for years, but when you don’t find value in a process you’re missing something about what it’s doing.
A common shortcut is to look past who is making money to who is paying for that process and why they would want to pay for it.
2 replies →