Recently, on another post, the use of "old school" methods was mentioned. Many of us in poorer labs use these because they are inexpensive. Myself I have reached back to the 1950s for some procedures. I am curious how widespread this is and how reviewers react to it. Any thoughts?
That really depends. Like northern blot, and counting cell number, they're always acceptable even in the future. However, like EMSA, this method is no longer acceptable because we have ChIP that directly demonstrates protein and DNA binding.
In my opinion, it is not about new or old, it is about whether a certain method and experimental design explain the problem directly and appropriately.
I certainly like the idea that design and validity of methodology outrank the new and shiny. One of the things I wish for is some big encyclopedia or web site of these older methods, Right now it can be a real chore to look them up and some of them use language or descriptors that require some detective work to figure out what they mean.
I hope this kind of websites are already there, if not we must make one....Wayne...its a good idea
Kits are handy, but old-school methods make you stop and think about what you're doing, which is important. The other problem is consistency and reproducibility. It's worth aliquotting reagents in large batches, so you create your own "kit" that you know will work consistently. And remember - almost all the kits on the market are simply old-school methods in a slick package.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cell Biology
- Methods