I don't know why you are assuming it is standard, expected or necessary to have genome sequencing equipment on the ship. There's no doubt that they've brought it back to land and are working to identify it now.
Do you accept or deny the desirability of on-ship genome sequencing equipment?
Nobody knows the sum total of all observations made by mankind. If one can effectively sequence immediately, one can quickly how novel the genome is, and if its not novel, if its a novel lifestage.
On the way to land the specimen (if alive) may die, or (if dead) be consumed and rot on the way to land.
If the species or closest known artificially sustainable life-form can be identified on-ship, probability to keep it alive can be increased.
I don't doubt they are working to identify it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they already did (perhaps on-ship). What disturbs me is major popular science platforms are pro-actively feeding mysticism and trolls by staying mute on the most obvious next logical step.
I do not at all assume it is standard: I assume the number of nation-state actors investing resources in exploring the deep sea ecology (to this depth) constitutes a very small list. So by no means can any of this research be taken for granted and assumed standard. The mere activity of this type of research is already non-standard.
Genome sequencing equipment has been highly miniaturized and become a lot more affordable. So yes, I do expect a wet-lab on this vessel to actually have genome sequencing equipment. If not, I think the researchers have a right to lament it publically.
Having sequencing equipment on ship is undesireable.
There are practically no scenarios where the effort of making such equipment seaworthy is worth doing, compared to putting samples on ice and waiting until back in port to test.
If something was absolutely urgent it could be transferred to a helicopter. But I can't imagine any scenario that this ship would need that for.
Even if you were able to start sequencing immediately, standard sequencing alone takes on the order of a day. And then depending on your computational methods, could take another few hours.
Remember that it's not just the sequencer, you also need extraction, so you need to add a centrifuge, a vortex, a pipetting station, a PCR machine, a -20 C freezer, a spectrophotometer and a whole lot of reagents, additional personnel, and probably tons of other things I'm forgetting.
Also I doubt most instruments are specced to be able to handle ship sway on the open sea.
It's a statement worth downvoting because it's laden with assumptions, as well as seemingly being a naive, sensational, and combative posturing effort that seems designed to provoke others by questioning the rationality or competency of whoever's in charge of the vessel rather than contribute positively to discussion of the result. Your subsequent responses also seem defensive, and none of these are tonal qualities worth rewarding.
Likewise, mystery is something sorely lacking in everyday life, and it's a shitty move to cast aspersions toward publications on the basis that you don't like it. If anything, we should do more to cultivate curiosity and mysticism.
That's my impression anyway, but I'm someone who'd admit to never having been on a research vessel, or part of any budgeting, logistics, or formal research process, and your comments are exactly what I'd expect myself to say if I was 19 again and just as arrogant as I was then. Perhaps none of these were your intention, and perhaps you have no malicious intent, I'm not accusing you of that, but that's kind of how it comes across.
DoctorOetker|2 years ago
Nobody knows the sum total of all observations made by mankind. If one can effectively sequence immediately, one can quickly how novel the genome is, and if its not novel, if its a novel lifestage.
On the way to land the specimen (if alive) may die, or (if dead) be consumed and rot on the way to land.
If the species or closest known artificially sustainable life-form can be identified on-ship, probability to keep it alive can be increased.
I don't doubt they are working to identify it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they already did (perhaps on-ship). What disturbs me is major popular science platforms are pro-actively feeding mysticism and trolls by staying mute on the most obvious next logical step.
I do not at all assume it is standard: I assume the number of nation-state actors investing resources in exploring the deep sea ecology (to this depth) constitutes a very small list. So by no means can any of this research be taken for granted and assumed standard. The mere activity of this type of research is already non-standard.
Genome sequencing equipment has been highly miniaturized and become a lot more affordable. So yes, I do expect a wet-lab on this vessel to actually have genome sequencing equipment. If not, I think the researchers have a right to lament it publically.
primax|2 years ago
There are practically no scenarios where the effort of making such equipment seaworthy is worth doing, compared to putting samples on ice and waiting until back in port to test.
If something was absolutely urgent it could be transferred to a helicopter. But I can't imagine any scenario that this ship would need that for.
aydyn|2 years ago
Remember that it's not just the sequencer, you also need extraction, so you need to add a centrifuge, a vortex, a pipetting station, a PCR machine, a -20 C freezer, a spectrophotometer and a whole lot of reagents, additional personnel, and probably tons of other things I'm forgetting.
Also I doubt most instruments are specced to be able to handle ship sway on the open sea.
It really just isn't practical.
brailsafe|2 years ago
Likewise, mystery is something sorely lacking in everyday life, and it's a shitty move to cast aspersions toward publications on the basis that you don't like it. If anything, we should do more to cultivate curiosity and mysticism.
That's my impression anyway, but I'm someone who'd admit to never having been on a research vessel, or part of any budgeting, logistics, or formal research process, and your comments are exactly what I'd expect myself to say if I was 19 again and just as arrogant as I was then. Perhaps none of these were your intention, and perhaps you have no malicious intent, I'm not accusing you of that, but that's kind of how it comes across.
dlor|2 years ago
j16sdiz|2 years ago
And no, sequencing alone won't tell you what that specimen is .