4 ms·

For those not that deeply involved into this: There is the whole field of bioinformatics that is involved in this kind of research, creating data in the range o

by patall 10y ago

For those not that deeply involved into this: There is the whole field of bioinformatics that is involved in this kind of research, creating data in the range of multiple peta-bytes, using some of the biggest computing clusters around. That a big enterprise like Microsoft wants their part of the cake is obvious, especially as this is going to be a billion dollar market. But there is no reason to especially belief in Microsoft, they are just doing what everyone else is doing (and only with more money and/or expertise if they spent more than a few billion dollar on it, else this is mere marketing, nothing really note worthy). Maybe its a nice touch for the field that now even Microsoft has noticed it.

zbjornson 10y ago
Indeed there's a whole field, and I think Microsoft has a strong potential to radically improve it. Most bioinformaticians I know are poor developers, have limited knowledge of existing algorithms, and/or have critically limited bio knowledge. As a result you get buggy, slow and unmaintainable software (see: all the MRI analysis software posts recently), reinvention of classical algorithms (anything from basic statistical tests to full on clustering methods) or tools lacking the full scope required to actually be useful. I think MS could change this by having strong CS/SWEs with longer tenures than you see in academia, backed by more money and essentially unlimited computing resources, with a high profile name to win them collaborators who can share good datasets. (Compared with Google, they're not trying to generate data in-house as far as I've heard.) Some of the most notable advances in bioinformatics have come from applying decades-old algorithms that never made it to bio before then. Even if MS just accelerates this by applying people who know about these algorithms, that would be very helpful.
- _of 10y ago
  Cancer cannot only be solved with algorithms and machine learning. Remember that it's biology, not informatics. A lot of smart people have been working on cancer for decades. It's unlikely MS will 'solve' cancer.

by patall 10y ago

zbjornson 10y ago

Indeed there's a whole field, and I think Microsoft has a strong potential to radically improve it. Most bioinformaticians I know are poor developers, have limited knowledge of existing algorithms, and/or have critically limited bio knowledge. As a result you get buggy, slow and unmaintainable software (see: all the MRI analysis software posts recently), reinvention of classical algorithms (anything from basic statistical tests to full on clustering methods) or tools lacking the full scope required to actually be useful. I think MS could change this by having strong CS/SWEs with longer tenures than you see in academia, backed by more money and essentially unlimited computing resources, with a high profile name to win them collaborators who can share good datasets. (Compared with Google, they're not trying to generate data in-house as far as I've heard.) Some of the most notable advances in bioinformatics have come from applying decades-old algorithms that never made it to bio before then. Even if MS just accelerates this by applying people who know about these algorithms, that would be very helpful.

_of 10y ago
Cancer cannot only be solved with algorithms and machine learning. Remember that it's biology, not informatics. A lot of smart people have been working on cancer for decades. It's unlikely MS will 'solve' cancer.