3 ms·
> It turns out for most complex analytical procedures there are a million more ways to do something wrong than right. That's why as much as I like the idea of p
by nordsieck 6y ago
> It turns out for most complex analytical procedures there are a million more ways to do something wrong than right. That's why as much as I like the idea of publishing failures along with successes, it just doesn't make sense. However, as you mention, that doesn't mean that something is irreproducible... get the right grad student to show you how (hopefully they can actually comment on your procedure and help, but pharma/bio-chem is notoriously touchy). Like cooking, good experimental method and helpful documentation (recipes) take both temperament and training.
This sounds like a complicated way of saying the procedures for some scientific research are underspecified.
- kurthr 6y agoWell, yes... the problem is that if you're not reasonably proficient and observant then entire books worth of specification will be insufficient. Intel deals with this in their fabs by Copy Exactly! Not just the equipment and recipes, but the floor wax, the paint, the roof, soda machines, cafeteria... everything but the people who don't go inside except to fix stuff. So, if you're in software enjoy the fact that you have the wonder of a compiler, an OS, and a CPU you can (mostly) trust. The rest of the physical world dreams of that level of control and repeatability for anything like the tiny incremental cost. Other than math and theoretical physics that's as close as you'll get to fully specified.