Now on ScienceBlogs: Charles Darwin February 12, 1809 - April 19, 1882

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

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

  • Abdelhakim moutabarrik: Je veux calculer mon h index read more
  • http://www.howtobebetterinbed.org/: • Require a walk soon after your diet. read more
  • Sandoval23Regina: Do you know that it is the best time to read more
  • Francois Berthoux: I want to calculate my h index; i am in read more
  • Francois Berthoux: I want to calculate my h index; i am in read more
  • mary: Can't resist: I have 15 papers and the least cited read more
  • Novella Comins: Babaganoosh here and this was such a treat, boost out read more
  • Annoyed: Shocked: I don't think Landecker was insulting, just pointing out read more
  • cugel: Why is Keith Yamamoto overlooked when their are discussions of read more
  • Simon: Hello, I wanted to tell you about an plugin to 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

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook

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
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.