Now on ScienceBlogs: Spirited Debate with Ray and Kirk

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Transcription and Translation

From the bench top to the public square.

transcription.jpg

Search

Profile


me3.jpg
Alex Palazzo is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at The University of Toronto.


follow ribonucleicacid at http://twitter.com

Recent Posts


Recent Comments

  • Alex Palazzo: The issue with long term postdocs, is does it pay read more
  • Lyle: Except that grants=faculty positions if you can't get the former read more
  • Alex Palazzo: If the number is larger than a few we have read more
  • Lyle: A question is how many PHDs does the average professor read more
  • Alex Palazzo: I admit that I now have a decent life, but read more
  • juliasero: Argh! My friend Dr. Historian of Medicine enjoys blaming the read more
  • anonymous: "The only way to attract more talented students, is to read more
  • Micha: The SMART-grant would be the most stupid thing ever invented. read more
  • george.w: Maybe a list of great scientists who did their best read more
  • anonymous: yes. its called stealing. read more

Archives

Links

Extras

Locations of visitors to this page

« No comment | Main | Nomenclature »

Steve Block is Crazy

Category: Pure Biology
Posted on: August 16, 2006 6:58 PM, by Alex Palazzo

(in the best possible way)

I'm scanning through Science when BAM:

RNAtrap.jpg

He's imaging RNA polymerase as it transcribes DNA .... nucleotide by freakin' nucleotide ... it's sequencing at the individual molecule level.

(To all those thinking about the future of biology and day dreaming of "big biology", this is where it's at ... single molecule enzymology.)

Ref:
William J. Greenleaf and Steven M. Block
Single-Molecule, Motion-Based DNA Sequencing Using RNA Polymerase
Science (2006) 313:801

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/18867

Comments

1

Why you do you always make the big/small biology an either/or debate? You'd be hard pressed to argue that "big biology" projects haven't produced some outstanding results (Human Genome Project anyone?) There's also plenty of evidence that suggests that the two approaches complement each other in all kinds of useful ways.

Why don't we all just get along and focus on the real issue facing science: How to get more funding and get more mileage out of the funding we have?

Posted by: Chris | August 16, 2006 7:32 PM

2

alright, yeah, that's pretty damn cool. but I don't understand the anti-big biology thing. if that gets scaled up and widely used, it would be "big", no?

and while the future of biology might be in that technology, it might also be in technologies like this one, which is excellent "big biology" (though microarrays as well started "little"). the difference between big and little is smaller than you think.

Posted by: JP | August 16, 2006 9:56 PM

3

I guess I hit a nerve. No more gratuitous Big Biology bashing, I promise (and you used a DB paper to bat me down, tsk tsk). Let me paste a comment I left at evolgen:

I have pissed (maybe a little too hard) on the proponents of Big Biology, but criticism is sometimes directed to ideas/trends/fads that are oversold. So oversold that others suffer. That's what happens when we spend all our resources on sequencing everything for the sake of doing it or measuring the level of every protein just for the sake of doing it. Too much big biology is brainless.

Posted by: apalazzo | August 16, 2006 11:23 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM