ODONNELL@arcb.afrc.ac.uk (03/19/91)
>>Top omitted > People learn to use what they need. Anyone who can design and >perform a subcloning experiment - with all the steps required to >isolate fragments, match ends, ligate, and transform - can figure out >how to login, check a directory, edit a file, and run the sequence >analysis programs on unix or VMS. Anyone who is doing a sequencing >project MUST learn to the machine. So they do. > >Bill Pearson A short reply: If only that statement were true! Most users' experience is to the contrary, and surely what sparked the whole debate off. The point is that DESPITE the high level of ability in one area, many biologists find the use of computers a difficult task. Biologists typically do not login frequently enough to keep up with all the minor changes that are made to the system. The analogy of riding a bike, using a power tool etc - People don't change the position of the handle bars, the brakes and pedals since the last time you rode it. Research scientists typically spend several weeks or months in the lab gathering data (ligating, running gels etc), then turn to the computer. "Ah, now what did I do last time?....". If they remember, it sometimes won't work anyway because someone has 'improved' something. So the PERCEPTION of many (certainly not all) is that computers only make life harder, and that programmers etc only seek to find new ways of confusing users. So lets not pretend the problems don't exist, but work with them. Just think of all those "SUPPORT" jobs that wouldn't exist if everyone found it too easy :-) Cary O'Donnell
unasmith@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Una Smith) (03/20/91)
Bill Pearson: >>People learn to use what they need. Cary O'Donnell: >If only that statement were true! Most users' experience is to the contrary, >and surely what sparked the whole debate off. The point is that DESPITE the >high level of ability in one area, many biologists find the use of computers >a difficult task. In my experience, both views are accurate. Some highly regarded scientists seem incapable of doing anything more than writing grant proposals on MACs or PCs. Occasionally, students have this problem too, but only rarely. I have introduced many, many scientists (faculty and students) to computers, and seen most of them quickly grasp these tools, becoming highly competent, efficient computer users. In my experience, scientists are capable of absorbing almost effortlessly everything they need to know to do the things they want with computers. When scientists (and others) fail to learn in this fashion, I generally get the impression that they don't really care to learn. They may make a stab at learning, but only because they see other scientists getting excited about computers, and they think that computers are something they too should know how to use. Computers are not the only modern tool that many scientists think they have to use; molecular techniques are another tool that some researchers feel compelled to learn to use, whether they need it or not. The ratio of computer support to need-for-support seems to vary with the proportion of the faculty who use computers. In other words, when researchers are stuck on the low end of the computer resource curve, thus needing the most support, they have the most trouble convincing their colleagues and administrators that computers (and computer technicians) are needed. It's a sad situation: the more you need relative to what you have, the less you get. Departments on the low end of the computer resource curve tend to perceive computers as hard to use, and not worth the investment needed to significantly improve computer resources; they tend to lock themselves into a vicious cycle, and do not advance up the resource curve unless the university administration steps in. Departments on the high end of the curve are astonishingly adept at staying there. I should explain how I came by my opinions. I worked as a computer consultant at Princeton University for 4 years, 1983-87, during which time most departments went from the very bottom to well up the computer resource curve, thanks to a very strong committment by the University President and Trustees. Then, for 2 years, I worked for the Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution (a branch of the Smithsonian Institution located in Panama). During this time, individual faculty members and graduate students in the Princeton department continued to make significant contributions to the computer resources of the entire department, and the department began to demand that the university supply it with even more resources, instead of being forced to take them by the university. Meanwhile, the Smithsonian realized that a growing number of visiting researchers either brought their own computers with them, or required that the Smithsonian provide them with computers during their stay. Suddenly, over the course of a two year period, virtually every permanent employee was given a PC, and computer laboratories were set up for the use of visitors in every facility. The process was extremely educational for everyone concerned. As is often the case, the Smithsonian staff initially saw no need to provide computer resources to visiting students, nor to hire computer support personnel. But once the students at one facility managed to assemble a computer laboratory, and began to use the laboratory to analyze their data as they collected it, it became obvious that they did indeed need computer resources. Once computers were available, the many visiting scientists quickly showed just how useful computers can be, and the computer literacy and sophistication of the Smithsonian staff and administration grew by leaps and bounds. The willingness of the Smithsonian to consider hiring computer support personnel increased only with increasing computer literacy. The rate of change has been truely dramatic, and I believe that the quality and quantity of research has also increased significantly. I am now a graduate student at Duke University, where the Life Science departments are still stuck at the bottom of the computer resource curve. A recent accreditation inspection of the University gave generally high marks, but singled out computing as a severe deficit. There are many signs that the University administration recognizes the problems, but the University has not yet seen fit to invest any significant financial resources to improve computing at Duke, apparently hoping that the individual departments will find their own solutions. How bad is the situation here? I'll just point out that I find it either convenient or necessary to use a computer at Princeton to participate in this discussion. - Una
frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca (03/21/91)
In article <9103191019.AA06674@genbank.bio.net> ODONNELL@arcb.afrc.ac.uk writes: > >>>Top omitted > >> People learn to use what they need. Anyone who can design and >>perform a subcloning experiment - with all the steps required to >>isolate fragments, match ends, ligate, and transform - can figure out >>how to login, check a directory, edit a file, and run the sequence >>analysis programs on unix or VMS. Anyone who is doing a sequencing >>project MUST learn to the machine. So they do. >> >>Bill Pearson > >A short reply: > ... stuff omitted ... >Biologists typically do not login frequently enough to keep up with all the >minor changes that are made to the system. The analogy of riding a bike, >using a power tool etc - People don't change the position of the handle bars, >the brakes and pedals since the last time you rode it. > >Research scientists typically spend several weeks or months in the lab >gathering data (ligating, running gels etc), then turn to the computer. >"Ah, now what did I do last time?....". If they remember, it sometimes won't >work anyway because someone has 'improved' something. So the PERCEPTION of >many (certainly not all) is that computers only make life harder, and that >programmers etc only seek to find new ways of confusing users. > >Cary O'Donnell I disagree. My experience is that laboratory scientists are always using their computers. Most of the time is devoted to word-processing, but people are always doing something with the computer. As electronic mail and other network applications become more widespread, usage will increase. The problem is that most users never bother to invest the time to learn what the computer can do for them. For example, most people who have access to databases use them for two things only: searching for sequences similar to their own sequences, and retrieving sequences. With just a little extra sophistication, the user could also be addressing questions such as: - What other genes have been cloned in the species I work with (eg. source of probes, examples of codon usage) - What other genes have been cloned that are associated with the biological problem I am working on (eg. heat shock, photosynthesis) - Do the transit peptides of thylakoid proteins have characteristics that distinguish them from the transit peptides of plastid matrix proteins? ... etc. Databases aside, the computer can do lots of other things for the molecular biologist. There are programs for managing clone collections, designing oligonucleotide primers (an everyday occurrence now), calculating the sizes on unknowns on gels, assigning RFLP's to map positions, mapping restriction fragments. Molecular biologists are the biggest bunch of whiners in science. Physicists, astronomers, ecologists, population geneticists etc. have recognized that they can't function without being able to work with computers. The didn't complain, they learned to use an important tool of their trade. The computer is the ultimate general purpose machine, if you have some understanding of how to use it. With the expansion of the matrix of biological knowledge, there is, and will be in the future, too much important information out there to ignore. However, the benefits of this 'general purpose machine' are only available to those willing to put in a little effort to understand it. I maintain that the things a user needs to learn are quite small: - how to organize your data in directories, and the file-name syntax that goes with them - 15 or so basic commands for moving, copying, deleting, and listing files - use of a screen editor - use of a mailer - use of online help Can somebody tell me why the above is so hard to learn? Do you let people use your HPLC without fairly lengthy training? The reason people get so frustrated with computers is that they want to start NOW, without learning anything. In the long run, it's a lot easier to simply take a 1 afternoon course, or read a high-school level book on using your operating system. =============================================================================== Brian Fristensky | Department of Plant Science | Can you say University of Manitoba | Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2 CANADA | CHICKEN UBIQUITIN, CHICKEN UBIQUITIN frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca | CHICKEN UBIQUITIN, CHICKEN UBIQUITIN, Office phone: 204-474-6085 | CHICKEN UBIQUITIN, CHICKEN UBIQUITIN FAX: 204-275-5128 | CHICKEN UBIQUITIN, CHICKEN UBIQUITIN... ===============================================================================
ahouse@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (Jeremy Ahouse) (03/24/91)
>Bill Pearson: > >>>People learn to use what they need. > >Cary O'Donnell: > >>If only that statement were true! Most users' experience is to the contrary, >>and surely what sparked the whole debate off. The point is that DESPITE the >>high level of ability in one area, many biologists find the use of computers >>a difficult task. > >In my experience, both views are accurate. There are several reasons that Macintosh (which costs more than a PC clone if all you want to do is word processing) is successful. The one I want to focus on is attitude. Unlike almost everyone else (NeXT may be an exception) the Mac world puts a premium on design. Microsoft had 3-5 years to emulate the successes of the Mac and MS Windows is still only a first step. How can so many spend so much money for so long and end with such a pale shadow of the thing itself. That all computers can still get easier to use (i.e. more powerful, what is the point if you can't harness the power?) is a trivial truism and Macs have gotten sucked into a corporate machine that may make them unable to put their own past behind them. But there is still nothing close. Spend some time with Mathematica or Theorist or Mac Spin. These products let you do things that you weren't able to do before. Drop diagrams from draw paint and post-script drawing programs into your word processor. The kinesthetic experience of these actions just isn't found in other machines. But the programs will be ported and sharing of data will also be found on a PC or XWindows terminal near you soon. But so far there is a still an attitude about the position of the users with respect to the machine which doesn't seem to be finding its way to the other boxes. I am ready to move past the Mac, for some of my work I have to and for portability I have to. But DecStations don't have the emphasis on design and Suns don't and PC's certainly don't. So what conclusions are there? Humans are exceedingly clever and can learn almost any system. (Some people still use WordStar.) But that doesn't mean that they should have to. Macintosh (both the GUI guidelines and the operating system that supports them) respects my time. I want to get things done and that means consistency and giving me choices. Remember if IBM had had their way we would all just have terminals hooked up to mainframes some where. Enough diatribe. I don't usually get my self drawn into these things. The Mac is a wonderful tool and is the first real stab at computers as 'toasters.' I want UNIX to grow into this as well, but it won't happen until some the attitude is transferred to those who work in UNIX, PC environs. Thanks for listening.
LIEBER@UVAX.ISX.COM (Bill Lieberman) (03/30/91)
I agree with your opinion on the (lack of) use of standards. The analogy I favor is that if I come over to your house with an LP record, I expect it to play on your record player. I don't (have to) bother caring what brand your machine is, what your AC voltage is, what your frequency is (50 or 60 Hz), or anything else (with the possible exception it's a machine more than 40 years old and plays only 78's). Furthermore, it would play on record players virtually everywhere in the world. So it's a question of expectations in the users' minds. Once standards are really accepted, people will increase their useage. Would not manufacturers and developers make more money in the long run if they converged on standards, and then sell a lot more systems to a lot more people who would then have confidence going in? Bill Lieberman ISX Corp. -------