Hidden in the Middle: Culture, Value and Reward in Bioinformatics

Awareness and Predictors of the Use of Bioinformatics in Genome Research in Saudi Arabia

Background

With the advances in genomics research, many countries still need more bioinformatics skills. This study aimed to assess the levels of awareness of bioinformatics and predictors of its use in genomics research among scientists in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

In a cross-sectional survey, 309 scientists of different biological and biomedical specialties were subjected to a previously validated e-questionnaire to collect data on (1) Knowledge about bioinformatics programming languages and tools, (2) Attitude toward acceptance of bioinformatics resources in genome-related research, and (3) The pattern of information-seeking to online bioinformatics resources. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the predictors of using bioinformatics in research. Significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

More than one-half (248, 56.4%) of all scientists reported a lack of bioinformatics knowledge. Most participants had a neutral attitude toward bioinformatics (295, 95.4%). The barriers facing acceptance of bioinformatics tools reported were; lack of training (210, 67.9%), insufficient support (180, 58.2%), and complexity of software (138, 44.6%). The limited experience was reported in; having one or more bioinformatics tools (98, 31.7%), using a supercomputer in their research inside (44, 14.2%) and outside Saudi Arabia (55, 17.8%), the need for developing a program to solve a biological problem (129, 41.7%), working in one or more fields of bioinformatics (93, 30.1%), using web applications (112, 36.2%), and using programming languages (102, 33.0%). Significant predictors of conducting genomics research were; younger scientists (p=0.039), Ph.D. education (p=0.003), more than five years of experience (p<0.05), previous training (p<0.001), and higher bioinformatics knowledge scores (p<0.001).

Conclusion

The study revealed a short knowledge, a neutral attitude, a lack of resources, and limited use of bioinformatics resources in genomics research. Education and training during each education level and during the job is recommended. Cloud-based resources may help scientists do research using publicly available Omics data. Further studies are necessary to evaluate collaboration among bioinformatics software developers and biologists.

Systems biology–the transformative approach to integrate sciences across disciplines

Life science is the study of living organisms, including bacteria, plants, and animals. Given the importance of biology, chemistry, and bioinformatics, we anticipate that this chapter may contribute to a better understanding of the interdisciplinary connections in life science. Research in applied biological sciences has changed the paradigm of basic and applied research. Biology is the study of life and living organisms, whereas science is a dynamic subject that as a result of constant research, new fields are constantly emerging. Some fields come and go, whereas others develop into new, well-recognized entities. Chemistry is the study of composition of matter and its properties, how the substances merge or separate and also how substances interact with energy. Advances in biology and chemistry provide another means to understand the biological system using many interdisciplinary approaches. Bioinformatics is a multidisciplinary or rather transdisciplinary field that encourages the use of computer tools and methodologies for qualitative and quantitative analysis. There are many instances where two fields, biology and chemistry have intersection. In this chapter, we explain how current knowledge in biology, chemistry, and bioinformatics, as well as its various interdisciplinary domains are merged into life sciences and its applications in biological research.

The roles of code in biology

The way in which computer code is perceived and used in biological research has been a source of some controversy and confusion, and has resulted in sub-optimal outcomes related to reproducibility, scalability and productivity. We suggest that the confusion is due in part to a misunderstanding of the function of code when applied to the life sciences. Code has many roles, and in this paper we present a three-dimensional taxonomy to classify those roles and map them specifically to the life sciences. We identify a "sweet spot" in the taxonomy-a convergence where bioinformaticians should concentrate their efforts in order to derive the most value from the time they spend using code. We suggest the use of the "inverse Conway maneuver" to shape a research team so as to allow dedicated software engineers to interface with researchers working in this "sweet spot." We conclude that in order to address current issues in the use of software in life science research such as reproducibility and scalability, the field must reevaluate its relationship with software engineering, and adapt its research structures to overcome current issues in bioinformatics such as reproducibility, scalability and productivity.

Bioinformatics: indispensable, yet hidden in plain sight?

Background

Bioinformatics has multitudinous identities, organisational alignments and disciplinary links. This variety allows bioinformaticians and bioinformatic work to contribute to much (if not most) of life science research in profound ways. The multitude of bioinformatic work also translates into a multitude of credit-distribution arrangements, apparently dismissing that work.

Results

We report on the epistemic and social arrangements that characterise the relationship between bioinformatics and life science. We describe, in sociological terms, the character, power and future of bioinformatic work. The character of bioinformatic work is such that its cultural, institutional and technical structures allow for it to be black-boxed easily. The result is that bioinformatic expertise and contributions travel easily and quickly, yet remain largely uncredited. The power of bioinformatic work is shaped by its dependency on life science work, which combined with the black-boxed character of bioinformatic expertise further contributes to situating bioinformatics on the periphery of the life sciences. Finally, the imagined futures of bioinformatic work suggest that bioinformatics will become ever more indispensable without necessarily becoming more visible, forcing bioinformaticians into difficult professional and career choices.

Conclusions

Bioinformatic expertise and labour is epistemically central but often institutionally peripheral. In part, this is a result of the ways in which the character, power distribution and potential futures of bioinformatics are constituted. However, alternative paths can be imagined.

Generations of interdisciplinarity in bioinformatics

Bioinformatics, a specialism propelled into relevance by the Human Genome Project and the subsequent -omic turn in the life science, is an interdisciplinary field of research. Qualitative work on the disciplinary identities of bioinformaticians has revealed the tensions involved in work in this "borderland." As part of our ongoing work on the emergence of bioinformatics, between 2010 and 2011, we conducted a survey of United Kingdom-based academic bioinformaticians. Building on insights drawn from our fieldwork over the past decade, we present results from this survey relevant to a discussion of disciplinary generation and stabilization. Not only is there evidence of an attitudinal divide between the different disciplinary cultures that make up bioinformatics, but there are distinctions between the forerunners, founders and the followers; as inter/disciplines mature, they face challenges that are both inter-disciplinary and inter-generational in nature.