Jeremy Delahanty - Revision history

Jonny: Undo revision 447 by Jonny (talk)

2022-10-26T21:07:17Z

Undo revision 447 by Jonny (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 26 October 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Participant		{{Participant
	\|Timezone=America/~~Argentina/Buenos Aires~~ (~~GMT−03~~:00/~~GMT−03~~:00)		\|Timezone=America/Los Angeles (GMT−08:00/GMT−07:00)
	\|Affiliation=~~Minerva University~~		\|Affiliation=Salk Institute
	~~\|Projects=Abstract Poetry~~
	\|Table Assignment=Table 3		\|Table Assignment=Table 3
	}}		}}

Jonny at 20:27, 26 October 2022

2022-10-26T20:27:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 26 October 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Participant		{{Participant
	\|Timezone=America/~~Los Angeles~~ (~~GMT−08~~:00/~~GMT−07~~:00)		\|Timezone=America/Argentina/Buenos Aires (GMT−03:00/GMT−03:00)
	\|Affiliation=~~Salk Institute~~		\|Affiliation=Minerva University
			\|Projects=Abstract Poetry
			\|Table Assignment=Table 3
	}}		}}
	{{Workshop Submission		{{Workshop Submission

Jonny at 07:12, 21 October 2022

2022-10-21T07:12:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, 21 October 2022
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I have also tried introducing Git, data standards like neurodata without borders, and experimental frameworks like Autopilot for distributed behavior experiments but was often met with either apathy or, more commonly, a reluctance to adopt different practices because it would require investing a fair amount of extra time into something that is not sufficiently incentivized or supported. Many best practices when it comes to scientific infrastructure are currently somewhat hard to adopt and therefore require some additional effort from people who are often overworked, underpaid, and spread too thin. Further, not everyone finds this that interesting and are therefore even less likely to engage in discussions of communal tool building and knowledge management.		I have also tried introducing Git, data standards like neurodata without borders, and experimental frameworks like Autopilot for distributed behavior experiments but was often met with either apathy or, more commonly, a reluctance to adopt different practices because it would require investing a fair amount of extra time into something that is not sufficiently incentivized or supported. Many best practices when it comes to scientific infrastructure are currently somewhat hard to adopt and therefore require some additional effort from people who are often overworked, underpaid, and spread too thin. Further, not everyone finds this that interesting and are therefore even less likely to engage in discussions of communal tool building and knowledge management.
			\|Organizer Topics=Research Data, Social Systems, Reproducibility, Incentive Systems
	}}		}}

Jonny: Created page with "{{Participant |Timezone=America/Los Angeles (GMT−08:00/GMT−07:00) |Affiliation=Salk Institute }} {{Workshop Submission |Interest=The complexity of science in scope, scale, and depth is ever increasing. Unfortunately, many of our tools (at least in neuroscience) fail to enable communally built infrastructure and knowledge. Tools that do exist rarely interact with one another in ways that are easy to adopt and oftentimes labs that would benefit greatly from adopting sy..."

2022-10-20T04:29:24Z

Created page with "{{Participant |Timezone=America/Los Angeles (GMT−08:00/GMT−07:00) |Affiliation=Salk Institute }} {{Workshop Submission |Interest=The complexity of science in scope, scale, and depth is ever increasing. Unfortunately, many of our tools (at least in neuroscience) fail to enable communally built infrastructure and knowledge. Tools that do exist rarely interact with one another in ways that are easy to adopt and oftentimes labs that would benefit greatly from adopting sy..."

New page

{{Participant
|Timezone=America/Los Angeles (GMT−08:00/GMT−07:00)
|Affiliation=Salk Institute
}}
{{Workshop Submission
|Interest=The complexity of science in scope, scale, and depth is ever increasing. Unfortunately, many of our tools (at least in neuroscience) fail to enable communally built infrastructure and knowledge. Tools that do exist rarely interact with one another in ways that are easy to adopt and oftentimes labs that would benefit greatly from adopting systems created by others lack the incentives or trust to use them. While there are many tool makers pushing these frontiers forward and making common ground with practitioners gathering data, there are still many gaps between them. As a result, teams rely upon systems that, while they certainly get the job done, are hard to reproduce, difficult to understand, and often require custom libraries for cleaning and sharing information that are created or maintained by those without sufficient support or access to training. My goal in participating in this workshop is to discuss with other tool builders these kinds of issues and contribute to actionable plans for helping make science easier for everyone. It is not possible for one person, team, institution, or even funding agency to fix the dearth of shared infrastructure that is plaguing science. The opportunity to meet people who are enthusiastic about making a community focused on building frameworks and ecosystems of interoperable tools from data collection to analysis and sharing is both exciting and also something that is so important it is difficult to place into words!
|Frame=Tool-builder
|Materials=I have conducted research as an undergraduate and as a technician for about 8 years now primarily studying the sensations of itch and pain in rodents. Much of these studies were quite simple behavioral studies using tools that were similarly simple and often fail to capture the full behavioral outputs of the subjects being studied.

I have worked on building a library that unites a 2-photon microscope with an Arduino and a machine vision camera into a (somewhat) coherent system for gathering neural data and behavior from rodent subjects. You can check it out here: https://github.com/Tyelab/bruker_control

I've also worked on a couple other small projects for the Tye Lab at the Salk Institute related to helping make some things somewhat more efficient in different workflows or more flexible to run on various machines that can be seen in that organizations repositories. Most of them have gone unused.

I have also tried introducing Git, data standards like neurodata without borders, and experimental frameworks like Autopilot for distributed behavior experiments but was often met with either apathy or, more commonly, a reluctance to adopt different practices because it would require investing a fair amount of extra time into something that is not sufficiently incentivized or supported. Many best practices when it comes to scientific infrastructure are currently somewhat hard to adopt and therefore require some additional effort from people who are often overworked, underpaid, and spread too thin. Further, not everyone finds this that interesting and are therefore even less likely to engage in discussions of communal tool building and knowledge management.
}}