Replies

Results

• Deepak Singh

  15 May 2007 | 14:14

  Timo,

  Someone with expertise in high performance computing and in general about how to leverage computing for science would be perfect

  As someone (perhaps Pedro) mentioned somewhere, the Freebase folk would be a great addition.

  Last but not the least someone who knows anything and everything about biosimulation (the Berhard Palsson type).

• Pedro Beltrao

  15 May 2007 | 17:03

  If you take suggestions from outsiders ;) I would suggests someone from the biological standards fields (Kitano went last year so maybe Nicolas Le Novère) to pair up with semantic web people (Freebase or maybe someone working in Google Base).

• Pierre Lindenbaum

  15 May 2007 | 19:32

  ++(someone from freebase)

  someone from the NCBI/pubmed to discuss about the structured/semantic abstracts (http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus/2007/05/making_names_and_descriptions.html)

  Scott McLoud was invited last year but he’s someone I’d like to meet: his books about comics are just great. David Macaulay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Macaulay) has also done a great job about teaching the History of architecture with his drawings.

  Pedro Beltrao and Deepack Singh. Hum ? Oh ? Too late :-)

• Timo Hannay

  15 May 2007 | 22:37

  Thanks, guys.

  There will be plenty of computing people there, including scientific computing. (Not only is the event going to be held at Google, but there’s O’Reilly’s influence too.) There should be at least a couple of Freebase folks. Biosimulation? I’ll have to think if we’ve got proper coverage there.

  We’ve dropped a note to Nicolas, I believe, so someone just needs to encourage him to come. ;)

  Scott isn’t coming this year, but his talk last year was a real gem, so I certainly hope we can get him back in future. David M sounds really interesting — if anyone has his contact details, please send them to me at the address above. (Don’t post them here, obviously. ;)

• Deepak Singh

  15 May 2007 | 23:48

  One should ask the Google folk to give a talk on “Using MapReduce for scientific applications” :-)

  On the biosimulation front, in addition to Palsson, some of the original Physiome sciences team (I forget the names), Thomas Patterson (Entelos), or someone from GeneStruct (their founder passed away a couple of years ago) come to mind.

• Thomas Lemberger

  16 May 2007 | 10:26

  Somebody from the BlueBrain project (http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/). It is one of the most ambitious biological simulation project I know about.

• Bora Zivkovic

  16 May 2007 | 12:54

  Bill Hooker (http://www.sennoma.net/ )
  Anton Zuiker (http://blogtogether.org/ )
  Jacqueline Floyd (http://www.elementlist.com/element/blog/index.html )
  Jonathan Eisen (http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/ )

• Duncan Hull

  16 May 2007 | 18:18

  Maybe I’ve misunderstood the Foo camp philosophy, but this invite-only ethos seems a bit anti-science. Personally, I’d like to see it opened up more to widen participation. It would also be better if the results of foo camp discussions were published somehow to make them available to a wider audience. Regular science conferences are not invite-only, what makes foo different?

• Andrew Walkingshaw

  16 May 2007 | 18:36

  I’ve been looking around to see who’s coming on the condensed-matter side of things, but without much luck – we don’t really seem to be on the scientific blogosphere, or maybe I’m just looking in the wrong places! I wonder why the life scientists (and organic chemists) have taken to the blogs quite so avidly compared to us lot…

• Timo Hannay

  16 May 2007 | 22:13

  Thanks for all the names. I’ve made a list and we’ll decide in the next week or two how many more we can squeeze in. (Not everyone mentioned, for sure, but a few of them I hope.)

  Deepak, I’ll pass on your MapReduce request to Google.

  Duncan, I think you probably do misunderstand the Foo Camp format. It’s not a normal scientific conference and trying to capture the huge number of parallel discussions would be impossible as well as counter-productive. (Part of the point is to allow people to share ideas without feeling as if they’re on the record the whole time.) The most valuable output comes in the form of the new ideas and collaborations that attendees take away with them. I’d like to see if we can do more this year to disseminate information outside the event, but the reality is that anything we do will be a pale imitation of what’s actually going on. I’d also like to allow anyone to attend, but the location only holds 200 people, and arguably the format suffers too once you get much above that number. So right now, the best way we can open it up is to do things like we’re doing now. But if somebody were to hold a Science Bar Camp then I would consider that a great idea. Anyway, in the spirit of openness, would you like to attend SciFoo?

  Andrew, sorry, I have no idea how many condensed-matter people will be there — I’m a mere neurophysiologist. But if there’s anyone you think we shouldn’t miss (even if they don’t have a blog ;) then please let me know. Thanks.

Results