4 ms·
I read this article twice, and I'm still not sure why it exists. It seems like a lot of flowery and vague language to basically say nothing other than "we shoul
by droptablemain 3y ago
I read this article twice, and I'm still not sure why it exists. It seems like a lot of flowery and vague language to basically say nothing other than "we should think about things differently because it's 2024 and old ideas are bad."
- sohkamyung 3y agoI'm now reading the book the article is reviewing. Like previous Philip Ball books, it is a dense but enjoyable read. Like other books on genetics and biology, it is best to read it while it is still fresh: in several years time, parts of it might be obsoleted by new biological findings.
- mcphage 3y ago> I read this article twice, and I'm still not sure why it exists. It’s a review of a book.
- doctorpangloss 3y agoA significant amount of research output from life science labs right now is descriptive single cell RNA sequencing papers. It is perhaps the single largest present genre of basic science research, and it is sucking all the air out of the room. I agree this article is pretty vague about criticizing this research. It doesn't name RNA sequencing.