{"id":264,"date":"2010-05-17T21:14:12","date_gmt":"2010-05-17T10:14:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/?p=264"},"modified":"2010-05-17T21:14:46","modified_gmt":"2010-05-17T10:14:46","slug":"264","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/2010\/05\/17\/264\/","title":{"rendered":"On defecting"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Jenny has a <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/ue19877e8\/2010\/05\/14\/in-which-i-defect\">new shiny<\/a>. It&#8217;s a device for imaging chemiluminescence&#8211;a standard procedure in any lab that works with proteins. The traditional way of doing this is on film, but it seems a lot quicker, safer and environmentally-friendlier to do it with one of the imaging gizmos.<\/p>\n<p>Except&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>Except I&#8217;m a little bit worried. I was reading a paper just now, trying to figure out how to summarize it for our Faculty Dailies, and came across this figure:<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"Pixels\" src=\"http:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/rpg\/pixels.jpg\" width=\"628\" height=\"196\" style=\"\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Now I have no idea how this image was obtained (the Methods section mentions neither film nor fancy-schmancy new devices), but either way that is one butt-ugly blot (BUB for short). I am worried that it <em>is<\/em> obtained with a FSND, because you really have to be a bit of an imbecile to get that level of pixellation when digitizing a blot by scanning a film. I wouldn&#8217;t ever want to publish something that looked like that&#8211;accusations of over-processing aside, it simply looks <em>wrong<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Are we likely to see more BUBs as FSNDs gain in popularity? Is a whole way of life and aesthetic pleasure at stake here? Say it ain&#8217;t so, Jenny. <\/p>\n<p>Say it ain&#8217;t so.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jenny has a new shiny. It&#8217;s a device for imaging chemiluminescence&#8211;a standard procedure in any lab that works with proteins. The traditional way of doing this is on film, but it seems a lot quicker, safer and environmentally-friendlier to do it with one of the imaging gizmos. Except&#8230; Except I&#8217;m a little bit worried. I [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[71,32],"tags":[72,73,74,75],"class_list":["post-264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rants","category-science","tag-bub","tag-butt-ugly-blots","tag-fsnd","tag-fuck-ugly-blots"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/264","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=264"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/264\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=264"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=264"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rg-d.com\/BioLOG\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=264"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}