4 ms·

Can someone explain why this is not as big a deal as it seems / bullshit, as usual?

• LoveMortuus 5y ago
  Probably do to existence of electron microscopy which is already more or less widely used.
  • cstross 5y ago
    Electron microscopy has drawbacks when it comes to studying biological samples. The sample has to be prepared for examination in a vacuum chamber using ionizing radiation and using fixating processes and reagents that kill the cells and may damage/distort lipid membranes. Brief intro here: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/500-preparing-samples-for-the-electron-microscope https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/500-preparing-samp... A low energy optical microscope can examine living samples (in aqueous environments).
    • amelius 5y ago
      But an electron microscope can see small molecules or even atoms.
      • cstross 5y ago
        The structures in biological samples are often very delicate, their structures ruined by all of those treatments: think soap bubbles rather than bones. It doesn't matter how small the structures you can observe are if you can't be sure they haven't been warped and distorted by dehydration, doping with heavy metals like osmium, exposure to vacuum, and being blasted with radiation until it's heated to 150 degrees celsius. Don't get me wrong: electron microscopy is great for mineral samples, and can be used for biological samples subject to some constraints. But you can't examine specimens with it while they're alive.
• Gatsky 5y ago
  This isn’t bullshit. Directly observing the behaviour of live cells in context is a powerful technique. This work means such techniques will be even more powerful, by increasing the feature resolution and reducing light induced damage to the cells.
• quenix 5y ago
  Why the negativity? This can be an interesting, valid scientific advancement while not being a huge breakthrough.