Difference between revisions of "Team:Michigan Software/Description"
m |
m |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
<div> | <div> | ||
| − | <p | + | <p><h3>Background</h3><p> |
| − | <p>Two years ago the Michigan Biology Software team began development of Protocat 1.0. Like many innovative ideas, Protocat began because of a problem. *Studies* have estimated that only 10-25% of published scientific results are reproducible. A 2014 survey conducted by the Michigan Biosoft Team confirmed that the repeatability problem exists in synthetic biology, with every scientist surveyed reporting prior struggles with replicating protocols. The majority of these scientists indicate unclear language and missing steps are the greatest contributors to the irreproducibility of synthetic biology protocols. A *second study* conducted by last years designed team helped to confirm the sentiments of the first study. These issues are what Protocat has been designed to solve.</p> | + | <p class="p-font">Two years ago the Michigan Biology Software team began development of Protocat 1.0. Like many innovative ideas, Protocat began because of a problem. *Studies* have estimated that only 10-25% of published scientific results are reproducible. A 2014 survey conducted by the Michigan Biosoft Team confirmed that the repeatability problem exists in synthetic biology, with every scientist surveyed reporting prior struggles with replicating protocols. The majority of these scientists indicate unclear language and missing steps are the greatest contributors to the irreproducibility of synthetic biology protocols. A *second study* conducted by last years designed team helped to confirm the sentiments of the first study. These issues are what Protocat has been designed to solve.</p> |
<br> | <br> | ||
Revision as of 15:11, 16 August 2016
Background
Two years ago the Michigan Biology Software team began development of Protocat 1.0. Like many innovative ideas, Protocat began because of a problem. *Studies* have estimated that only 10-25% of published scientific results are reproducible. A 2014 survey conducted by the Michigan Biosoft Team confirmed that the repeatability problem exists in synthetic biology, with every scientist surveyed reporting prior struggles with replicating protocols. The majority of these scientists indicate unclear language and missing steps are the greatest contributors to the irreproducibility of synthetic biology protocols. A *second study* conducted by last years designed team helped to confirm the sentiments of the first study. These issues are what Protocat has been designed to solve.
Solution
Every respondent indicated that they would use a database to browse and download protocols, with over 85% indicating that they would upload and maintain their own protocols if such a site existed. ProtoCat 3.0 is a free database of crowd sourced protocols designed to make existing protocols more repeatable and enable more accurate computational models of biological systems. We believe this can most efficiently be accomplished with a commitment to open source protocols and a broader more active community of digital troubleshooters. ProtoCat 3.0 works to establish such a community by giving anyone with an internet connection or smartphone access to a repository of synthetic biology protocols collected from all over the world. Additionally, ProtoCat 3.0 encourages the development of higher quality, more repeatable protocols by allowing users to document trails, rate, review, and edit existing methods, and easily locate related protocols.
Whats new in Protocat 3.0?
Advice on writing your Project Description
We encourage you to put up a lot of information and content on your wiki, but we also encourage you to include summaries as much as possible. If you think of the sections in your project description as the sections in a publication, you should try to be consist, accurate and unambiguous in your achievements.
Judges like to read your wiki and know exactly what you have achieved. This is how you should think about these sections; from the point of view of the judge evaluating you at the end of the year.
References
iGEM teams are encouraged to record references you use during the course of your research. They should be posted somewhere on your wiki so that judges and other visitors can see how you thought about your project and what works inspired you.
Inspiration
See how other teams have described and presented their projects:
