Synthace reposted this
I think sometimes we use biology’s complexity as an excuse. When an experiment fails, it can hurt: it’s hard to deal with, given all of the efforts and emotional energy we’ve invested. So as a defense mechanism, our response is often to blame it on biology. We sigh, we commiserate with our colleagues: “Science is hard.” And of course, that’s true. Biology is complex, and if we blamed ourselves every time, we wouldn’t stay biologists for long. But here’s the challenging bit: are we so used to the difficulties of biology that we don’t spend enough thought on how we could do better at unpicking that complexity? If an experiment gives inconclusive results, it’s because biology is highly variable and complex. There can be a certain blameless fatalism to the whole thing. But what we’ve learned at Synthace is that our lack of agency doesn’t always come from biology itself— but often from the methods we’re using to try and understand it. Without multidimensional ways to study biology, and the complex interactions at the heart of all biological systems, failure will always be commonplace. But we’ll be ok with that, because, you know. Science is hard. #Biology #DOEForBiology #DesignOfExperiments Image credit is Nathan W Pyle- go check out his website! :)
The true sailors are those that navigate the complexity through maximizing effective simplicity. Over my whole life I have felt like an idiot very often... I could blame science on that, but it's entirely my fault because I love it so much. Cannot help but to jump on a simple boat, almost inevitably to get caught in a raging storm of complexity, then float stranded for a while, lost. At some point of paddling I glimpse a bird that takes me to shore with some more knowledge and awe, and then I jump in the next boat.
You can still cry if it goes wrong though, right?
Love the image!
I feel this on such a deep level. I imagine all experimental troubleshooting as a flow chart of yes/nos leading to an answer. But currently at the very end of every chart is the final answer which is “that’s just science” 😂. Sometimes I feel as though it’s voodoo or the phases of the moon etc messing with my experiments, but you’re right, it really is just needing to unlock more insights on the complexity of it all.
Yes, when an experiment fails to go the way we want, it hurts. Life of a chemist is all about hypothesis, experiments, iteration, learning, experience, and empathy 🙂
Realised years ago that sometimes biologists just don't have the tools available to gather the specific information they need, rather than a mish-mash of effects. Microfluidics is helping there, but the experiments still need to be well designed to use the tools that are available as best possible. Even with best efforts though, sometimes the statistics of biology still get in the way.
The "Black Box of Biology" needs lighting. As it is built on an unknown set of yet finite interactions, high dimensional testing is the lamp...
Sad but fascinating.Isn't it ? What goes around being so complex, truly feels walking on air when decoded.✨
The complexity of science is what makes our *community* so important. When experiments keep failing, we need to collaborate, share ideas, spark creativity in each other to tackle the hard stuff in new ways. Or at least share a drink together because science is hard 😅
DOE & Data Analytics Evangelist | Nervously excited about Digital Future of Science, Engineering, R&D, Manufacturing | Medium-pace runner and road cyclist
2moThe contrast with chemistry is interesting (for me, at least). If an experiment fails, the chemist will quickly come up with a post-hoc rationalisation. It's never because the chemistry was beyond the understanding of the chemist. The chemist always knew what was going to happen. 😁 I'm probably being massively unfair here but I feel like this is how the culture around chemistry taught me to think.