This era can rightly be called, the era of "Transcriptome". After the succesful stories of RNA-seq and Microarrays, single cell RNA is a hot line.
As I always belived, if one has funds, one can go for a reasonable research. Same is true here. Since the scRNA-seq cost is really high, and several PIs cannot afford.
The question is: If someone performs scRNA-seq, but the results are contrasting to what was expected. What are the possible ways to value the wasted cost?
Noor Bahadar
Unexpected outcomes might be the true answer. Science is not always what we expect and most discoveries come from wired thoughts (jumping genes as an example). Regarding your question, you may need to use different methods to validate the results.
Rejecting hypotheses should be valued more in professional science. It indicates one's expectations are not supported by the data. As our tools get ever more (ideally) sophisticated and accurate, we should actually hope to discover the various flaws in our scientific models. These are not costs to doing good science, but benefits. Aren't we all truth seekers (cough cough)?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity