By Steve Oliver
ESI Special Topics,
September 2004
Citing URL - http://www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2004/september-04-SteveOliver.html
|
Steve Oliver answers a few questions about this month's
new hot paper in the field of Multidisciplinary.
From
•>>September 2004
Field:
Multidisciplinary
Article Title: Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist
Authors: King, RD;Whelan, KE;Jones, FM;Reiser, PGK;Bryant, CH;Muggleton, SH;Kell,
DB;Oliver, SG
Journal: NATURE
Volume: 427
Page: 247-252
Year: JAN 15 2004
* Univ Manchester, Sch Biol Sci, 2-205 Stopford Bldg, Manchester M13 9PT, Lancs, England.
* Univ Manchester, Sch Biol Sci, Manchester M13 9PT, Lancs, England.
* Univ Wales, Dept Comp Sci, Aberystwyth SY23 3DB, Dyfed, Wales.
* Robert Gordon Univ, Sch Comp, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, Scotland.
* Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Dept Comp, London SW7 2AZ, England.
* UMIST, Dept Chem, Manchester M60 1QD, Lancs, England.
|
|
| • This paper has
also been named the Fast Breaking Paper in Multidisciplinary for
October
2004.
|
|
| •This paper has
also been named the New Hot Paper in Computer Science for
November
2005.
|
|
Why
do you think your paper is highly cited?
|

“We have designed a system in which a computer designs scientific experiments, instructs a
robot
to carry out those experiments, and records the results.”
|
|
I think it has captured people's imaginations and led them to
question what is truly creative in the scientific process. It has
also raised questions as to how principal investigators really treat
their students and post-docs., whether as collaborators in the
scientific process or if, they instead, use them as "discovery
robots."
Does
it describe a new discovery or new methodology that's useful to
others?
It's a new methodology that automates the process of scientific
discovery, within a well-defined domain, thereby freeing
researchers' time for doing genuinely creative things.
Could
you summarize the significance of your paper in layman's terms?
Scientific research is a complex activity, but often the path to
a scientific discovery is clear, even if the nature of that
discovery is not. We have designed a system in which a computer
designs scientific experiments, instructs a robot to carry out those
experiments, and records the results. The computer then compares the
results with its existing hypothesis, revises the hypothesis, if
necessary, and designs the next round of experiments to test it.
How
did you become involved in this research?
Ross King (a computer scientist at Aberystwyth) and I were trying
to use machine learning methods to construct biological systems
directly from experimental data. We reasoned that it should be
possible to get the computer to design and execute the experiments
as well. So, together with Stephen Muggleton (a computer scientist
who invented inductive logic programming) and Douglas Kell (a
microbiologist and analytical scientist, then at Aberystwyth) we set
out to design and build a robot scientist. Click here to see robot scientist.
Stephen G. Oliver, FMedSci
Professor of Genomics
School of Biological Sciences
University of Manchester
Manchester, UK
|
ESI Special Topics,
September 2004
Citing URL - http://www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2004/september-04-SteveOliver.html
|
|
|