"Mitchell Isaacs" <misaacs at spam_me_not.student.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
:"Dr. Artem Evdokimov" <eudokima at mail.ncifcrf.gov> wrote in message
:news:3B460E6D.B06E0342 at mail.ncifcrf.gov...:> I am glad to hear that not everyone has succumbed to the mindless hype
:> of 'crystallomics' 'proteomics' 'hedgehogenomics' and other '-omics'.
:>:> It seems that the gene-jockeys are trying to get into the field of
:> proteins... Good luck. Proteins are *not* nearly as nice and fluffy as
:> nucleic acids, not at all, no siree. The funding will dry up when these
:> people will start rediscovering facts first noted ca 1920-ies. Meanwhile
:> people who have real experience in protein purification are already
:> worth more than their weight in gold. Whoppee.
:What you will find is that the people who have the experience and background
:in protein research have the best technology, knowledge & platform to base
:their proteomic studies. Those from a genomics background will struggle.
::Sure, you may call proteomics "just biochemistry". But then, genomics is
:also "just biochemistry". The introduction of the word "proteomics" of
:course does not introduce any new amazing technology. But it does give a
:good focus and grasp of high-throughput analysis of proteins leading towards
:biological discovery. Proteomics has the potential to deliver much more
:information than genomics - but is much more difficult. Proteomics is also
:made much easier by the work already done in genomics.
::If proteomics is all just a hype, then why are there so many large,
:successful, high-profile companies pouring support and money into it?
Because that's what large ans successful companies always do -
pour money into hype.
:Large
:& successful companies are usually large and successful for a good reason.
Probably for a reason of "vision" and superiority of their products?
One word here - Microsoft.
- Dima
