3 ms·
I read the article and parent is correct in part. However, equally the article touches on the fact that many people may use a spreadsheet and not all will be co
by proactivesvcs 6y ago
I read the article and parent is correct in part. However, equally the article touches on the fact that many people may use a spreadsheet and not all will be correctly trained to use their complex tools properly, in order to ensure data integrity.
I consider this a failing not in software or Excel, but in education and professional standards. Scientists can be expected to understand and use their tools correctly, since not doing so will taint their data.
- conductr 6y agoIs the simple renaming of 27 genes a good solve? I think it is. Any time you expect people to be trained, you’re planning for failure. Even a trained person can make a mistake or forget to do the manual steps. This eliminates the possibility.
- proactivesvcs 6y agoI think it's the pragmatic approach, yes. I'm disappointed that the article (and so many of the comments here) are not addressing the root cause. The worst part is that not all of the people using it need to be trained - data validity enforcement ought to solve this outright.