Archive for February, 2009
Taubman Medical Library (aka the Health Sciences Libraries) has gotten in a new book called, Introduction to Molecular Biology, Genomics and Proteomics for Biomedical Engineers. Yeah, I thought you’d be excited.
The call number is: QH 506 .N665 2009. Here’s the link in Mirlyn (our online catalog, for those of you who didn’t already know that).
Some stuff it talks about:
- Review of basic cell anatomy and physiology
- Introduction to physical biochemistry and biochemical systems modeling
- The basis of genetic inheritance
- Nucleic acids and their functions
- A review of proteins
- The genetic basis for certain inheritable diseases : genomic medicine
- And so much more…
Hello. John Conyers re-introduced H.R. 801 – The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act. Please…do we need to have this discussion again? The Alliance for Taxpaer Access has a great summary on their site. I said in my previous post that Paul Courant’s blog entry on this topic is a good read, and it is.
For all of you who believe you have the right to the information that your tax dollars are paying for, please write to your representative…I’m talking to you NLPers out there too. I’ve written to my representative (again…although a different one this go-around).
I can’t believe we’ve had to revisit this topic. Come on already. Life’s too short.
A fascinating discussion has begun regarding the Google settlement to digitize mass volumes of books. As you know, I’ve already stepped onto my soapbox MANY times in regards to this issue. Robert Darnton published an essay on the topic which has received much press, but I believe that Paul Courant’s response is even more impressive. Let’s face it, Google’s settlement is not ideal. However, without fundamental policy put into place, how else are we supposed to cope? Information should be free for all, but idealism is not reality.
I constantly argue with my cubemate about the “evil empire”. Google, Microsoft, Intel?… Take your pick! Each is flawed. But isn’t trying to do something, better than doing nothing, especially when the system is so egregiously flawed? We want to consume information. We need to consume information (think broad NLP implications here). We should have access to information. My 2 cents. Again.
In a fundamental change in the peer review process, Journal of Biology announced that authors can opt out of re-review after their initial submission if reviewers have suggested revisions. The full editorial describes the process. I agree. Let’s start innovating the process or at least try…