CCL: Science code manifesto

 Sent to CCL by: Bruce Palfey [brupalf{}umich.edu]
 Actually, the design of experimental equipment *is* usually justified by
 publications. There are many many papers describing - take your pick. NMR and
 infrared and ultraviolet spectrometers. Simple chromatography and HPLC
 technology. Stopped-flow spectrophotometers and fluorimeters. Isothermal
 titration and differential scanning calorimeters. Organic and inorganic
 synthesis has publications describing fancy glassware. Theory being put into
 practice with new devices needs to be described, if the answers the devices
 deliver are to be believed. Some of these publications are old and maybe
 forgotten, but new stuff generally gets explained in a paper when it's
 introduced. Maybe beakers and test-tubes didn't need publications...
 ciao,
 Bruce
 On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:54 PM, "Mihaly Mezei Mihaly.Mezei ~~ mssm.edu"
 <owner-chemistry[]ccl.net> wrote:
 >
 > Sent to CCL by: Mihaly Mezei [Mihaly.Mezei(-)mssm.edu]
 >> Hi! A couple of people have suggested that explaining and providing
 >> details of software code is like providing details of the design of  a
 piece of
 >> equipment used to perform a measurement. I don't think this is
 >> accurate.Experimentalists have to justify and validate the
 >> experimental approach, not the design of the equipment.
 >
 > So, why do we have to justify the design of our equipment (i.e., the source
 code)?
 >
 > Or, conversely, why don't they have to to justify the design of their
 equipment?
 >
 > Mihaly Mezei
 >
 > Department of Structural and Chemical Biology, Mount Sinai School of
 Medicine
 > Voice:  (212) 659-5475   Fax: (212) 849-2456
 > WWW (MSSM home): http://www.mountsinai.org/Find%20A%20Faculty/profile.do?id=0000072500001497192632
 > WWW (Lab home - software, publications): http://inka.mssm.edu/~mezei
 > WWW (Department): http://atlas.physbio.mssm.edu>;
 >
 >
 >