I have found this very critical and questioning blog writing about the shadows of the bioinformatics field...
I would like to highlight sentences like:
" All the molecular biologists, devoid of skills beyond those of a laboratory technician, cried out for the mathematicians and programmers to magically extract science from their mountain of shitty results"
" intentionally or not, bioinformatics found a way to survive: obfuscation. By making the tools unusable, by inventing file format after file format, by seeking out the most brittle techniques and the slowest languages, by not publishing their algorithms and making their results impossible to replicate, the field managed to reduce its productivity by at least 90%, probably closer to 99%. Thus the thread of failures can be stretched out from years to decades, hidden by the cloak of incompetence."
" Fortunately for you, no one takes me seriously. The funding of molecular biology and bioinformatics is safe, protected by a wall of inbreeding, pointless jargon, and lies. So you all can rot in your computational shit heap. I'm gone. "
As bioinformatics student working in my master thesis is true there are several times experimental biologists come to you in order to find the light in results with no sense but I always try to find the reasons and give an explanation.
It is also true the high level of obfuscation, but that is something we ourselves should try to avoid... I know it is harder to program considering all those requirements in order to be clear in your code, but it is an exercise of collective help. As the last paragraph remarks, usually we tend to use hard jargons... but not lies (that depends more in the integrity of the researcher...). The goal here for me would be to learn how to express our ideas in the right way.
What do you think about? Do you agree?