Actually no discussion of the details of what analysis, just the general point that the more time, money, and effort poured into proving/disproving methods, the less resources being dedicating towards solving the PR problem of proteomics. That is, "who cares?"
Can you elaborate on this? I'm worried that we are going to continue down the peptide-MS centric path which is not going to continue to serve the field well.
Oh I was just jotting down quotes from the panel and audience! The general context was that the field spends too much time, money, and energy on methods/tech dev for incremental improvement, and not enough time delivering applications and insights.
There was plenty of talk around "WHAT" the future of proteomics might be and how we might do it, but this particular discussion was more "WHO" needs to be served by proteomics but is not currently
I mean, was @proteomicsnews.bsky.social there and his soap box? I’d definitely say this view point has become (was/is) very clear with our guests, especially the non proteomics ones.
I don't think so! There was an ECR event at the same time, I think. Schedule is already pretty packed and we haven't even really opened the conference yet
Most of the leaders in the field can talk about the mechanics of proteomics all night long, but they often stumble badly if the conversation shifts to proteins.
Comments