I'm a bioinformatician, and very much so. I am of the opinion that, through the proper application, computer science can solve all of our medical problems. Unfortunately, I am not the only one with this opinion which leads me to my aggravation with the Age of Technology. With scientific data following a greater-than Moore's-Law growth, so must the programs analyzing and using the data. Which means that, in order to achieve anything significant, one must also be on the edge of an ever-increasing bubble. They must achieve the best the soonest, forcing me to fight for position and prestige with the learned PhD and professional individuals who have had far more experience than I have. Perhaps all of this fighting and knowledge in the Age of Technology will further the goals of a bioinformatician, and that of humankind as a whole, but all I've seen is a lot of back-biting, an overprotection of one's underdeveloped ideas, and, worst of all, a huge degrade in the product in order to ship on time. In my humble opinion, this is the real problem the Age of Technology is facing: When agencies are willing to dish out millions of dollars to the very few who claim to be able to "perform the best" or "get results the quickest" (and rightfully so), what happens to those of us who are concerned about accuracy? About relevance? And about finally creating a product that is not intended just to put us in position to fight for a Nobel Prize, but will actually produce something that will benefit humanity?
Which makes me wonder, if my education is designed to place me on the "outskirts of the bubble," why should we wast a week learning about UML design in a Software Design and Testing class? But that's a topic for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment