Read on Twitter
I find if you do it right, tech dev IS basic research, with the added benefit that at the end, not only do you understand something fundamental, you also have a useful new tool.
Most of my research follows (or tries to follow) this pattern. https://twitter.com/HenriquesLab/status/1359239739673636864
Most of my research follows (or tries to follow) this pattern. https://twitter.com/HenriquesLab/status/1359239739673636864
For me, instant SIM was mostly interesting because it addresses a fundamental question about image formation:
Can you form an all-optical image that is sharper than the diffraction limit?
Yes!
(Although not really instantaneously ;-) https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.2687
Can you form an all-optical image that is sharper than the diffraction limit?
Yes!
(Although not really instantaneously ;-) https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.2687
eSPIM (and Snouty) answer a question I wrestled for a while:
Does imaging a tilted plane fundamentally require you to sacrifice resolution?
No!
(Although there will probably be a simpler way to do it someday)
https://andrewgyork.github.io/high_na_single_objective_lightsheet/
Does imaging a tilted plane fundamentally require you to sacrifice resolution?
No!
(Although there will probably be a simpler way to do it someday)
https://andrewgyork.github.io/high_na_single_objective_lightsheet/
I asked hundreds of physicists over the course of five years:
Can you form an image based on "stimulated emission contrast"?
Answers were shockingly divided, for such a simple, fundamental question, so we finally tried the measurement.
https://andrewgyork.github.io/stimulated_emission_imaging/
Can you form an image based on "stimulated emission contrast"?
Answers were shockingly divided, for such a simple, fundamental question, so we finally tried the measurement.
https://andrewgyork.github.io/stimulated_emission_imaging/
Many times as a grad student, I encountered different measurements of the same underlying truth, with different tradeoffs.
Is there some principled way to merge complementary measurements into a single consistent belief?
Yes! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986040/
Is there some principled way to merge complementary measurements into a single consistent belief?
Yes! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986040/
Every one of these questions was fundamental and curiosity-driven, and every one of them lead to concrete technical advances.
Every time you use a diSPIM, or a Yokogawa SoRa, or an iSIM, or a Snoutscope, that beautiful tech was born from playful basic research.
Every time you use a diSPIM, or a Yokogawa SoRa, or an iSIM, or a Snoutscope, that beautiful tech was born from playful basic research.
I actually see the opposite of @HenriquesLab's colleague's point:
Tech dev forces a degree of clarity and honesty that's incredibly beneficial to basic science. I don't suffer over p-values or reproducibility, because if I answer my scientific questions wrong, YOU CAN TELL.
Tech dev forces a degree of clarity and honesty that's incredibly beneficial to basic science. I don't suffer over p-values or reproducibility, because if I answer my scientific questions wrong, YOU CAN TELL.
Similarly, I don't have to speculate about impact factor and citation. Are people using my inventions? Are other inventors incorporating and remixing my ideas into theirs? Great, I had impact.
"Is my research important?" gets replaced with "is my research useful?"
"Is my research important?" gets replaced with "is my research useful?"
