3 ms·
We don't know yet. That is the idea about research. When the microscope was invented, people made the same question: What is the use of it? Just watching thing
by pritovido 6y ago
We don't know yet. That is the idea about research.
When the microscope was invented, people made the same question: What is the use of it? Just watching things we already know bigger?
That is a recurring question. So much that Aristotle created the book MetaPhysics(meta meaning different from the Physics book) with the idea that this particular book did not need to be useful to be created. It was a compilation of non useful things.
This non useful compilation helped create science as we know it.
- TomJansen 6y agoOh please, this philosophical stuff is unnecessary. Cyro-EM is about a decade old and is just an alternative to X-Ray Crystallography for elucidating the structures of proteins. This article describes a way to improve the resolution of Cyro-EM, matching it to X-Ray Crystallography. The biggest bottleneck of X-Ray Crystallography is the production of protein crystals which is not necessary with Cyro-EM.
- twic 6y agoIt's unbelievable how cryo-EM has come on. When i was a student, it was an also-ran behind crystallography and NMR, something that a few weird groups used to study a few special cases. Now you have to wonder if there's any point doing crystallography at all! I still like NMR, because you're looking at proteins in solution. But if the freezing is good in cryo-EM, maybe even that becomes moot.
- natechols 6y agoIt's especially shocking how many crystallographers have switched over - when I started, the ribosome crystal structures were the latest heroic achievement, but now nobody would waste time trying to crystallize ribosomes.
- thereisnospork 6y agoI'm not sure if it applies to proteins, but for smaller molecules there seemed to be some really interesting results a few years ago about using MOF's to adsorb analytes in a spatially repeating manner so x-ray diffraction techniques could be used without crystallization. Haven't followed closely enough to know if anything is panning out though.
- tom-thistime 6y agoI agree about the microscope comments. On metaphysics I'm sorry but I have to disagree. "Metaphysics" was not Aristotle's name for those books, and unfortunately it's not even clear what the word means https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#WorMetConMet https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#WorMetConMet