...
> However, you also raise the question of future trends. Yes, I do expect that
> in future the user interfaces will be friendly menus as in your favourite
> Macintosh package(s), but in sequence analysis I would always stress
> the importance of knowing what you are doing and of having a choice of
> methods available. If the package is too simple, it becomes useless for
> all but the most basic tasks.
>> Biologists have to learn to use computing as a tool, not just for sequence
> analysis but also for the growing variety of network services. Avoiding these
> possibilities because they are initially a little difficult is like reading
> a tabloid newspaper instead of a broadsheet. It may be easier, but you
> miss a lot of important information.
> Peter Rice, EMBL | Post: Computer Group
This isn't going to answer anybody's question on what hardware/software to
buy or obtain, but what I'm wondering is:
How long before there is a *complete* gene analysis service offered
(commercial or otherwise)?
Right now you can farm out vast sequencing projects to be done for you
by a company. Why not let another company run the data through all
available analyses (i mean the gene finding, gene comparison, protein
struc prediction, non-interactive stuff for starts). If a hit to
the databank is found, then things like phylogen analysis could
be included. The researcher deciphers the results. Too far fetched?
Peter's point of knowing what you are doing is valid. How many biologists
have the time to become knowledgable on all software?
===============================================================================
John Kuzio kuzio at molbiol.ox.ac.uk
============| this .sig was created using the .sig mutation engine |=*=========
