Now on ScienceBlogs: The death of Tetrapod Zoology

Enter to Win

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

  • Jim Thomerson: At 42, I was a well situated Full Professor. However, read more
  • www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000403466720: The SMART-grant would be the most stupid thing ever invented. read more
  • sikiş: Part of the discussion there focuses on how to increase read more
  • Hendrian: your wife is asian? She's cute. read more
  • OSHA 10 30 Hour Training: @OSHAPro While it may be true that more and more read more
  • Comrade PhysioProf: Dude, how fucking stupid do you think we are? That's read more
  • Alex Palazzo: Hendrian, Yes, science may have adopted theories that were later read more
  • Hendrian: Thanks for your response Alex. I may be wrong, but read more
  • Alex Palazzo: MP, I along with most people approach the world issue read more
  • Alex Palazzo: Hendrian, A more general philosophical explanation is that we perceive 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
Collective Imagination
Enter to win the daily giveaway
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

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