Hi, this is the obligatory first post where I tell you that I am a postdoctoral fellow and I have done this and that and that I like this and that. (Hint: you can just read my profile). But what does that mean really, that because I have published x number of papers or worked in X’s lab, you should listen to me? Obviously not.
What I really want to tell you is what this blog will not be about. It will not be a Twitter-like experience where I will just post my whimsical thoughts about randomness. It will not be a soapbox for me to spout unsubstantiated opinions that you can easily get in the op-ed of any major newspaper. It will not be a way for me to tell you what to think, or what the “next big thing” in science is. It will not be a therapy session for me to take out, in text, frustrations I cannot verbalize in real life, forcing you, the reader to solve my problems for me.
I really want to try to have a conversation on this blog. I really want you to read the blog and have a thoughtful response and discussion-an online “Aristotelian dialectic” if you will. Back in the day when I was a teenager and the internet was just a 2600 baud modem and some sysop running a BBS, we talked with one another by leaving messages and working through ideas together-slowly. I want to get back to that sense of thoughtfulness. I may fail, we shall see-at least we will be having a conversation about my failure.
Technical aspects of neuroscience move at light speed. I may cover some of those and may ask you to think about the implications of technique. But I assume my readers are well versed from other sources in technique, and do not really need yet another blog about “are in vivo preps better than slice culture” or “is the hippocampus old hat in neuroscience?” You probably talk about that every day. No, there are slower problems in neuroscience, older problems-problems that do not make the front page of the Cell/Neuron/Science monopoly on our thought process in the field.
These problems are no less important, and deserve a clear discussion. I will try to cover them in this blog-I will try to illustrate how these problems dictate the application of flashy technique and the direction of neuroscience.
I will write what I am passionate about. I leave it up to you to decide how you feel and where applicable, do further research.
Welcome to the club!
I’m not a neuroscientist, and haven’t even played one on TV, so my part in the conversation may be a bit neandertal.
I can’t even spell ‘neuroscientist’. Oh heck, I just did.
Welcome to Nature Network. I look forward to reading your future posts, though I have to admit that when I was a teenager, email and faxes had not been invented, so we were reduced to the phone or writing words on paper and posting them to each other.
Maxine – huh, that nothing. When I was young we used to talk to each other!
But did you eat gravel, Brian?
Don’t let her get to you, Brian. Hang on, I’ll just get my hand-axe.
2600 baud modem and some sysop running a BBS
Eh?
Hope you get around to defining that at some point!
Part of my thesis project was neurovirology/neuroscience. I always had far more questions than answers about the whole business, so I am looking forward to reading about your experiences!
Welcome to NN!
An apology:
Michael, as you specifically said you did not intend to resort to ‘whimsical thoughts about randomness’, I must apologize for the Nature Network old lags. We are serious, dedicated, interested people, honestly. It’s just that NN commentary has a tradition of jolly banter. Oh, and it’s Friday.
So, sorry. We’ll try to do better in future.
Yes, I agree, I am responsible for starting the jokey nature of this comment thread, and helping to continue it, so apologies for my part in it. I appreciate the principle that you want this blog to indulge in more serious discussion.
Best wishes
Maxine.
Anna, I think it means a dial-up modem, by the way. I remember my mother bringing one home from work when I was a teenager. There was great excitement. It was a huge trunk (aka very large suitcase), extremely heavy computer in a metal case that she had bought home in the book (aka trunk!) of the car, and a massive telephone handest. We heaved all this out, plugged in the computer, set up the phone “bed”, dialed (circular dial with holes in it for different numbers). It did not work the first day or even the second, but when it did, it seemed like magic.
I love the posts guys! Be as whimsical as you would like (I will just try to stray from that on the ,ahem, formal posts.) Thanks for the nice and warm welcome.
And I will not exclude non-neuro people. I think the questions I will bring up can be applied to many sciences.
Finally, sorry about lack of definition. A BBS is a Bulletin Board System (I included the wiki for both of these). And a sysop is short for system operator Oh, and 2600 baud is a type of dial up modem used in the early 90’s.