Read on Twitter
Thank you @BlkInMicroscopy for pointing me to this IMPORTANT paper: https://elifesciences.org/articles/55133
Ok, I want to quote nearly EVERY line in this article, but I'll just try and pick a few favs. The timing is good to see this as I'm giving a lecture on Rigor & Reproducibility in Microscopy for @berkeleyMCB incoming grads tonight.
99% of Development Biology papers contain microscopy data!! https://elifesciences.org/articles/55133
and yet: "On average just 138 words (7% of the total text in the materials and methods section) was used to describe the details of image acquisition, which seems low given the extent of the imaging results reported, ..."
and not just for LM also EM @eml_ucb "..but we did look at sample preparation for electron microscopy (EM) images because minor differences [...] can result in major differences in tissue ultrastructure [...] only 4 of the 14 papers with EM images included sufficient detail ..."
I'm almost done! Last quote I swear: Second, it is puzzling that authors devote a substantial effort to document other experimental techniques, but fail to do so for the basics of imaging. We do not have a good explanation for this, but it is worth noting that while formal .../n
...training in biochemistry, genetics, and molecular and cellular biology is mandatory in most undergraduate and graduate biomedical programs, microscopy and imaging are rarely part of the curriculum."
