Core Services: Reward Bioinformaticians. Chang, J. 520(7546):151–152. ![Core Services: Reward Bioinformaticians [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Biological data will continue to pile up unless those who analyse it are recognized as creative collaborators in need of career paths, says Jeffrey Chang. [Excerpt] The US Precision Medicine Initiative, announced in January, relies on bioinformatics. The US\$215-million project calls for collecting medical, physiological and genomic data from more than one million people in the United States, and aims to find patterns across individuals to improve health care. It does not address a worsening deficiency in the scientific community: biological data are accumulating faster than people's capacity to analyse them. [...] One explanation for the shortage seems obvious: there are not enough bioinformaticians. If so, the solution seems straightforward: train and hire more. As someone tasked with addressing this need at my institute, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, I can vouch that the situation is not so simple. [\n] The scientific community has failed to craft attractive career paths for those who do the analyses it increasingly requires. Institutions and funding bodies must carve out a viable place for bioinformaticians who focus on collaborations, and reward them for their abilities to navigate the myriad demands of multidisciplinary projects. [\n] Biologists are increasingly finding that questions that are initially based on a single protein or gene quickly expand to require large-scale experiments. To support them, dozens of institutions have set up centralized bioinformatics facilities. Most were established in the past decade [...]. To give greater support to researchers, our centre set out to develop a series of standardized services. We documented the projects that we took on over 18 months. Forty-six of them required 151 data-analysis tasks. No project was identical, and we were surprised at how common one-off requests were. There were a few routine procedures that many people wanted, such as finding genes expressed in a disease. But 79\,% of techniques applied to fewer than 20\,% of the projects. In other words, most researchers came to the bioinformatics core seeking customized analysis, not a standardized package. [\n] This experience is not unique to our centre. ” There are no 'one-size-fits-all' analyses,” says Ian Korf, interim director of the Bioinformatics Core at the University of California, Davis. Another issue is that projects usually become more complex as they go along. Often, an analysis addresses only part of a question and requires follow-up work. [...] [\n] Service cores such as ours are doing research. Our centre is more a partner than a routine service provider – the input affects the success of the project and shapes broader questions. As Korf puts it, ” Our service isn't just doing. It's also part of the thinking.” In our service core, surprisingly, only 5\,% of the time was spent on pure bioinformatics – that is, developing new algorithms that merit their own publications. Although we put together tools and analysis pipelines in creative ways, nearly all of our time was spent on applied bioinformatics. [\n][...] The resource relies on people being determined to help others at the expense of professional prestige. [...] [\n] In research institutes, there should be a formal career track optimized for applied bioinformatics. Like in tenure-track positions, promotions should be based on a body of work. A successful bioinformatician is one who contributes to successful collaborations, so evaluation schemes must recognize that applied bioinformaticians may never be corresponding or lead authors, but they are still accomplished scientists. Evaluation criteria should also consider whether a bioinformatician is adaptable, as shown by projects across diverse authors and specialities. [\n] Granting agencies should develop principles to evaluate collaborative staff. When researchers apply for grants to cover our services, they want to name core-centre personnel who have published in the area of analysis. Reviewers should instead judge bioinformatics collaborators by their prior success in working with biologists. Naming these people on grant applications would give them deeper motivation for projects. Finally, there need to be more opportunities for biologists themselves to learn bioinformatics skills. [...]
@article{changCoreServicesReward2015,
title = {Core Services: Reward Bioinformaticians},
author = {Chang, Jeffrey},
date = {2015-04},
journaltitle = {Nature},
volume = {520},
pages = {151--152},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/520151a},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/520151a},
abstract = {Biological data will continue to pile up unless those who analyse it are recognized as creative collaborators in need of career paths, says Jeffrey Chang.
[Excerpt] The US Precision Medicine Initiative, announced in January, relies on bioinformatics. The US\$215-million project calls for collecting medical, physiological and genomic data from more than one million people in the United States, and aims to find patterns across individuals to improve health care. It does not address a worsening deficiency in the scientific community: biological data are accumulating faster than people's capacity to analyse them. [...] One explanation for the shortage seems obvious: there are not enough bioinformaticians. If so, the solution seems straightforward: train and hire more. As someone tasked with addressing this need at my institute, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, I can vouch that the situation is not so simple.
[\textbackslash n] The scientific community has failed to craft attractive career paths for those who do the analyses it increasingly requires. Institutions and funding bodies must carve out a viable place for bioinformaticians who focus on collaborations, and reward them for their abilities to navigate the myriad demands of multidisciplinary projects.
[\textbackslash n] Biologists are increasingly finding that questions that are initially based on a single protein or gene quickly expand to require large-scale experiments. To support them, dozens of institutions have set up centralized bioinformatics facilities. Most were established in the past decade [...]. To give greater support to researchers, our centre set out to develop a series of standardized services. We documented the projects that we took on over 18 months. Forty-six of them required 151 data-analysis tasks. No project was identical, and we were surprised at how common one-off requests were. There were a few routine procedures that many people wanted, such as finding genes expressed in a disease. But 79\,\% of techniques applied to fewer than 20\,\% of the projects. In other words, most researchers came to the bioinformatics core seeking customized analysis, not a standardized package.
[\textbackslash n] This experience is not unique to our centre. ” There are no 'one-size-fits-all' analyses,” says Ian Korf, interim director of the Bioinformatics Core at the University of California, Davis. Another issue is that projects usually become more complex as they go along. Often, an analysis addresses only part of a question and requires follow-up work. [...]
[\textbackslash n] Service cores such as ours are doing research. Our centre is more a partner than a routine service provider -- the input affects the success of the project and shapes broader questions. As Korf puts it, ” Our service isn't just doing. It's also part of the thinking.” In our service core, surprisingly, only 5\,\% of the time was spent on pure bioinformatics -- that is, developing new algorithms that merit their own publications. Although we put together tools and analysis pipelines in creative ways, nearly all of our time was spent on applied bioinformatics.
[\textbackslash n][...] The resource relies on people being determined to help others at the expense of professional prestige. [...]
[\textbackslash n] In research institutes, there should be a formal career track optimized for applied bioinformatics. Like in tenure-track positions, promotions should be based on a body of work. A successful bioinformatician is one who contributes to successful collaborations, so evaluation schemes must recognize that applied bioinformaticians may never be corresponding or lead authors, but they are still accomplished scientists. Evaluation criteria should also consider whether a bioinformatician is adaptable, as shown by projects across diverse authors and specialities.
[\textbackslash n] Granting agencies should develop principles to evaluate collaborative staff. When researchers apply for grants to cover our services, they want to name core-centre personnel who have published in the area of analysis. Reviewers should instead judge bioinformatics collaborators by their prior success in working with biologists. Naming these people on grant applications would give them deeper motivation for projects. Finally, there need to be more opportunities for biologists themselves to learn bioinformatics skills. [...]},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13577390,cooperation,research-funding,research-management,research-metrics,research-team-size,science-ethics,team-diversity},
number = {7546}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"inqa2ykbvhyY5Tsyq","bibbaseid":"chang-coreservicesrewardbioinformaticians","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Chang, J."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Core Services: Reward Bioinformaticians","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Chang"],"firstnames":["Jeffrey"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2015-04","journaltitle":"Nature","volume":"520","pages":"151–152","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/520151a","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/520151a","abstract":"Biological data will continue to pile up unless those who analyse it are recognized as creative collaborators in need of career paths, says Jeffrey Chang. [Excerpt] The US Precision Medicine Initiative, announced in January, relies on bioinformatics. The US\\$215-million project calls for collecting medical, physiological and genomic data from more than one million people in the United States, and aims to find patterns across individuals to improve health care. It does not address a worsening deficiency in the scientific community: biological data are accumulating faster than people's capacity to analyse them. [...] One explanation for the shortage seems obvious: there are not enough bioinformaticians. If so, the solution seems straightforward: train and hire more. As someone tasked with addressing this need at my institute, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, I can vouch that the situation is not so simple. [\\n] The scientific community has failed to craft attractive career paths for those who do the analyses it increasingly requires. Institutions and funding bodies must carve out a viable place for bioinformaticians who focus on collaborations, and reward them for their abilities to navigate the myriad demands of multidisciplinary projects. [\\n] Biologists are increasingly finding that questions that are initially based on a single protein or gene quickly expand to require large-scale experiments. To support them, dozens of institutions have set up centralized bioinformatics facilities. Most were established in the past decade [...]. To give greater support to researchers, our centre set out to develop a series of standardized services. We documented the projects that we took on over 18 months. Forty-six of them required 151 data-analysis tasks. No project was identical, and we were surprised at how common one-off requests were. There were a few routine procedures that many people wanted, such as finding genes expressed in a disease. But 79\\,% of techniques applied to fewer than 20\\,% of the projects. In other words, most researchers came to the bioinformatics core seeking customized analysis, not a standardized package. [\\n] This experience is not unique to our centre. ” There are no 'one-size-fits-all' analyses,” says Ian Korf, interim director of the Bioinformatics Core at the University of California, Davis. Another issue is that projects usually become more complex as they go along. Often, an analysis addresses only part of a question and requires follow-up work. [...] [\\n] Service cores such as ours are doing research. Our centre is more a partner than a routine service provider – the input affects the success of the project and shapes broader questions. As Korf puts it, ” Our service isn't just doing. It's also part of the thinking.” In our service core, surprisingly, only 5\\,% of the time was spent on pure bioinformatics – that is, developing new algorithms that merit their own publications. Although we put together tools and analysis pipelines in creative ways, nearly all of our time was spent on applied bioinformatics. [\\n][...] The resource relies on people being determined to help others at the expense of professional prestige. [...] [\\n] In research institutes, there should be a formal career track optimized for applied bioinformatics. Like in tenure-track positions, promotions should be based on a body of work. A successful bioinformatician is one who contributes to successful collaborations, so evaluation schemes must recognize that applied bioinformaticians may never be corresponding or lead authors, but they are still accomplished scientists. Evaluation criteria should also consider whether a bioinformatician is adaptable, as shown by projects across diverse authors and specialities. [\\n] Granting agencies should develop principles to evaluate collaborative staff. When researchers apply for grants to cover our services, they want to name core-centre personnel who have published in the area of analysis. Reviewers should instead judge bioinformatics collaborators by their prior success in working with biologists. Naming these people on grant applications would give them deeper motivation for projects. Finally, there need to be more opportunities for biologists themselves to learn bioinformatics skills. [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13577390,cooperation,research-funding,research-management,research-metrics,research-team-size,science-ethics,team-diversity","number":"7546","bibtex":"@article{changCoreServicesReward2015,\n title = {Core Services: Reward Bioinformaticians},\n author = {Chang, Jeffrey},\n date = {2015-04},\n journaltitle = {Nature},\n volume = {520},\n pages = {151--152},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/520151a},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/520151a},\n abstract = {Biological data will continue to pile up unless those who analyse it are recognized as creative collaborators in need of career paths, says Jeffrey Chang.\n\n[Excerpt] The US Precision Medicine Initiative, announced in January, relies on bioinformatics. The US\\$215-million project calls for collecting medical, physiological and genomic data from more than one million people in the United States, and aims to find patterns across individuals to improve health care. It does not address a worsening deficiency in the scientific community: biological data are accumulating faster than people's capacity to analyse them. [...] One explanation for the shortage seems obvious: there are not enough bioinformaticians. If so, the solution seems straightforward: train and hire more. As someone tasked with addressing this need at my institute, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, I can vouch that the situation is not so simple.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] The scientific community has failed to craft attractive career paths for those who do the analyses it increasingly requires. Institutions and funding bodies must carve out a viable place for bioinformaticians who focus on collaborations, and reward them for their abilities to navigate the myriad demands of multidisciplinary projects.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Biologists are increasingly finding that questions that are initially based on a single protein or gene quickly expand to require large-scale experiments. To support them, dozens of institutions have set up centralized bioinformatics facilities. Most were established in the past decade [...]. To give greater support to researchers, our centre set out to develop a series of standardized services. We documented the projects that we took on over 18 months. Forty-six of them required 151 data-analysis tasks. No project was identical, and we were surprised at how common one-off requests were. There were a few routine procedures that many people wanted, such as finding genes expressed in a disease. But 79\\,\\% of techniques applied to fewer than 20\\,\\% of the projects. In other words, most researchers came to the bioinformatics core seeking customized analysis, not a standardized package.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] This experience is not unique to our centre. ” There are no 'one-size-fits-all' analyses,” says Ian Korf, interim director of the Bioinformatics Core at the University of California, Davis. Another issue is that projects usually become more complex as they go along. Often, an analysis addresses only part of a question and requires follow-up work. [...] \n\n[\\textbackslash n] Service cores such as ours are doing research. Our centre is more a partner than a routine service provider -- the input affects the success of the project and shapes broader questions. As Korf puts it, ” Our service isn't just doing. It's also part of the thinking.” In our service core, surprisingly, only 5\\,\\% of the time was spent on pure bioinformatics -- that is, developing new algorithms that merit their own publications. Although we put together tools and analysis pipelines in creative ways, nearly all of our time was spent on applied bioinformatics.\n\n[\\textbackslash n][...] The resource relies on people being determined to help others at the expense of professional prestige. [...]\n\n[\\textbackslash n] In research institutes, there should be a formal career track optimized for applied bioinformatics. Like in tenure-track positions, promotions should be based on a body of work. A successful bioinformatician is one who contributes to successful collaborations, so evaluation schemes must recognize that applied bioinformaticians may never be corresponding or lead authors, but they are still accomplished scientists. Evaluation criteria should also consider whether a bioinformatician is adaptable, as shown by projects across diverse authors and specialities.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Granting agencies should develop principles to evaluate collaborative staff. When researchers apply for grants to cover our services, they want to name core-centre personnel who have published in the area of analysis. Reviewers should instead judge bioinformatics collaborators by their prior success in working with biologists. Naming these people on grant applications would give them deeper motivation for projects. Finally, there need to be more opportunities for biologists themselves to learn bioinformatics skills. [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13577390,cooperation,research-funding,research-management,research-metrics,research-team-size,science-ethics,team-diversity},\n number = {7546}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Chang, J."],"key":"changCoreServicesReward2015","id":"changCoreServicesReward2015","bibbaseid":"chang-coreservicesrewardbioinformaticians","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1038/520151a"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-13577390","cooperation","research-funding","research-management","research-metrics","research-team-size","science-ethics","team-diversity"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:04.046Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-13577390","cooperation","research-funding","research-management","research-metrics","research-team-size","science-ethics","team-diversity"],"search_terms":["core","services","reward","bioinformaticians","chang"],"title":"Core Services: Reward Bioinformaticians","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}