omnisci

It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO. I'm going to pitch this company and see if I can raise a $5M seed round, I mean, at this point, why not!

How exactly are you so sure about this? And if it's small, that doesn't mean it can't have an impact. Also, perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't see like we have any real info about this, if you have more, I'd love to read it.

It takes someone/something with some ability to make something happen. Are they going to change how all academic science is done? Probably not, but could they have an impact and begin a process in which academic science begins to respond/change? Yes, that is probable. Between YC and Google life science, things are happening...and it's going to take us (I'm assuming you are a scientist) to support this change.

Every time I explain my experience in academia to VCs or those in business, they don't believe me. "It can't be that bad!" It is. I've worked at 3 of the top schools in the world and it's a total mess as the OP mentioned. It's also a mess that hurts everyone, so I'm happy to see this type of initiative.

To answer your first question, 1. they can move much faster than academic research. More money in basic research isn't going to fix the antiquated process in which academics live. It's also not going to help researchers learn how to budget properly, or learn to manage people. So that alone is a value add. A 1% increase in gov spending simply adds money without fixing a problem that currently exists....not really going to make a difference in my opinion(PhD research scientist)

you can try http://zocdoc.com . It's like Yelp for doctors, we have it in NYC and it's quite good. It's the only resource I've found to find doctors in this city.

Stirplate.io, New York City (Soho area) is looking for a Sr. Backend PHP developer. http://www.stirplate.io Stirplate is a VC funded started that aims to completely change how life science research is performed. We are building tools to full automate genomics data analysis (hundreds of GB each experiment) allowing life scientists to work much more efficiently. Our goal is to make genomics analysis and bioinformatics so simple, that anyone can do it. Our long term vision looks something like “Github for life science.” We are looking for a Sr. developer with experience working with big data, cloud computing (EC2 or Google compute) and a solid interest in helping scientists. We use PHP, python, JS, BigQuery, R and a variety of open source bioinformatics tools.

No bioinformatics, or even an understanding of biology is needed.

Bonus points if you’ve worked with BigQuery, cluster computing, or have a bioinformatics background.

Benefits: Health/ Dental/Vision,stock options, lunch/beer, good tech,happiness, and working on something that matters. More info can be found here or you can email me at [email protected] https://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs/76598/php-dev-interes...

I didn't know that:) In the Life sciences, we tend to pay. We also publish images which are very costly. We have one publication that is going to cost us around $3k to publish as it has a lot of microscopy images.

Are you using keith @ stirplate.io ? It should be working...sorry if messages are getting bounced.

What you mentioned there is one of the reasons why I left to do this company. They won't come if you build it, and many of the science startups have felt that (Quartzy.com and ScienceExchange.com). Both are doing well, and run by awesome people, but academics need something to drive them to a site. Hence why I built data automation tools :)

Re: PhD, Cool, best of luck:) If you ever want to work on something outside of academic work, let me know. I'm always looking for people to work on Stirplate with me. Also,I'm always happy to help people getting started, so feel free to reach out if you have any questions keith @ stirplate.io

Also you don't pay a lot of money to post to Facebook or Reddit. You do when you publish (Cheapest publication I have was ~$500). Publishing a paper is expensive.

I'm working on something similar to what you mentioned right now @ stirplate.io

However, to "make it mandatory for publicly-funded ..." is the difficult part. I'm with you 100% (I'm a neuroscience PhD) and this needs to happen,but it needs to come from the financial groups such as NIH/NSF who really just aren't good at dealing with this kind of stuff. They do make it mandatory, but they don't provide real resources for scientists to access these tools. Either that, or they are insanely difficult to use, so people don't do it. I'm shooting for getting raw data from scientists, populating a huge f'in database that is linked and categorized, and if/when the group makes the data open, allow scientists to work off of that huge database of raw, unedited data. (this is specific to life sciences)

I've learned the following when talking about my company: 1. Investors don't want to hear about open science because they immediately get stuck on "what if they don't share". That tends to end the conversation. 2. Scientists themselves complain about the system, but are unwilling to change behaviors. So we have to address their fears in order to start making change (that is what I'm working on now) 3. Schools and funding agencies are using technology from 1996 and thinking that is sufficient. People need to be educated, and this is hard to do.

This isn't impossible and it's happening slowly...the mindset of academics just needs to change. (IMHO)

That is 100% true, but that isn't a fair comparison.

Peer review should be open, scientists shouldn't be allowed to choose who reviews/doesn't review their papers, and the process by which selection is done needs to be more rigorous.

My suggestion, open it up to everyone in the field and make sure that the reviewers are identified. Anonymous peer review has the same effect that anonymous posting on internet forums has, people become e-thugs or just say things that they shouldn't ever say because they know the reader doesn't know who they are.

This sounds like it doesn't happen, but you would be surprised that the stuff that happens behind closed doors. Scientists are people, people are flawed (which is fine), but that shouldn't hold back scientific discoveries.

Or people spend a lot of time and money trying to chase down something that a ground "found" and published. It's very common to read a paper, think it sounds good, then try build on it only to find that you can't.

Peer review is completely flawed. Until it's made more transparent, like at F1000, it's going to continue that way.

Not being a negative Nancy here, but I've been on both sides of the fence (reviewed and had grants/papers reviewed) and it isn't an efficient system. Much like many other things in science, it's an antiquated process that needs to be overhauled to get back to it's "roots".

Hello all, I'd love to get the feedback of any of the Life science HN members.

The ultimate goal here is to centralize, organize and automate scientific data. There is such a big gap between basic research and technology that I had to do something:) This is my answer to the many servers/NAS/USB keys I've set up throughout my graduate career. Looking forward to any feedback you may have, Keith

Hi all, 4th attempt w/ recommendations from YC founders and no interview this time. I think I know why (single founder, little traction).

My company, Stirplate.io, is an app for scientists to store, share and analyze their data in the cloud.

Science needs help managing it's data, so my company helps with that process. We also automate data analysis for scientists, making hours of excel work take about 15seconds.

I have to agree, Elizabeth is fantastic. Super nice, easy going, and clearly very intelligent :) Really happy to see that she is getting involved in this, looking forward to seeing how YC picks up science based companies.

I'm counting on it:) I think we can see something like this in our life time the way that information is moving.

Love the idea, I'm a single founder as well and tend to talk to my poor GF about my issues (luckily, she is awesome :) ). Looking forward to see where this goes.

Github solves a problem that I don't have, but that doesn't mean it's a bad product right? Not to argue with you specifically, but the concept of "solves a problem I don't have" isn't really an issue. I use Uber frequently because I don't drive (NYC), you may not if you have a car. Is Uber a shitty company? Nope, its pretty awesome, but it solves a problem for a small subset of people. Same with Coin. I highly doubt YC would have taken on coin if they didn't have a large market to go after. Whether or not it applies to me is less important and that seems to get lost in these conversations (which is weird being on HN).

I'm always surprised how long it takes for someone to post this question :-) the notices tend to go out around 8-10pm est. Good luck everyone!

Agreed, there is nothing wrong with GSD as long as it's organized. I see this in science all the time, "I'm too busy to show you how to do something, just GSD!". That ends up meaning: 1. GSD 2. Do it again, it wasn't done right 3. Do it again, because it still wasn't done right (repeat 2 & 3 a few times over) 4. .... 5. Profit! This would be more effective if they followed what you posted, then said "GSD". Communication, planning and proper support are critical and without them, you aren't getting shit done, you are getting SHIT done (and wasting time). Plan quickly, train quickly and throughly, then get shit done effectively. GSDE would be a better mantra.

Thanks, I was worried about that:) Cool idea though, once it's a little more structured, that could be helpful.

I've been on internet forums for over 14 years now, the complaints the OP has are the same complaints I've heard everywhere else. I've heard people say the same stuff (maybe slightly different topics, but the same content) numerous times. I have no intention of sounding like a dick here, but who cares? He is going to find the same thing everywhere he goes. People are the driving force behind his problems...can't fix that unless we end up being owned by skynet.

I’m a scientist and I agree with this article. Fact is that the way we incentivize science is what is causing these issues (that and tenure, but that is a longer post).

Science, at least in biology, is just like any business. Both are motivated by $.

The good news is that open science and the impact that the internets is having on science can help this problem. In my opinion, transparency in science will fix many of these issues.

Science funding is what drives science now. So the article is correct as are you.

Nope! It's easier to complain about it online! #angry #omg #whyisthishappeningtome?!?!

I love the internets, technology and how we've progressed at an amazing rate. I also like how everyone has a voice, but at the same time...that part isn't always as shiny. I agree with your post 100%!

So this woman spends some time in a cash checking place and now knows why "poor" people don't use banks?

Poor people don't use banks because you don't need a bank when you live check-to-check. One doesn't need to make a deposit when the check they just got doesn't cover their expenses from last month. So her concluding statement of "the banking industry needs to develop different fee and service structures designed to accommodate lower income depositors "makes no sense.

It's not a choice, it's not like people are like "Hmm, well I could deposit my money and make 0.5% back next month", it's more like "shit, I'm behind on my gas bill and can't have my family freezing again this winter."

The fact that the teller at the check cashing place is like "family" and they speak spanish isn't really a reason why the poors go there, it's because they don't have a choice.

As an former academic who made it out of the poverty system with some serious work and lots of scars to prove it, this article really pisses me off. Not only due to it's lack of perspective, but due to it's lack of due diligence to actually answer the question they claim to answer in the title.