Amateur Hackers of Astronomy

eaglemoon writes "I have often wondered if Hackers and the Hacker culture is unique to software or can it be extended to other domains? This article in the NY Review of Books examines how amateurs are performing as well as professionals in the field of astronomy. The clash between the Baconian view of science and the Cartesian perspective is very interesting to reflect on and should be compared with community based software development and the traditional cathedrals built by firms." And it's from Freeman Dyson, always worth reading.

Comments

Re:One line in the review especially caught my eye

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I think it is naive to believe that politics and legality will have much effect on curbing the amateur genetic engineers. It is no more difficult than building your own computer, or building a decent telescope, and it gets easier every day, as used equipment from all the gene companies here in Silicon Valley is making its way into the local surplus market.

Well, not quite. You can build a very good computer for under $1,000, and I believe a very good telescope for about the same amount. Having recently been involved in setting up a cell bio lab on a shoestring (by the standards of the field) budget, I'd say you're not going to be doing any reliable work of the sort you're talking about without a $50,000 investment or so. Which isn't out of range of the enthusiastic amateur experimenter, certainly -- I know at least a few people who've spent that much on computer goodies -- but it takes a little more planning and forethought than a computer or a telescope does.

And, of course, there's the knowledge issue. Genetic engineering, or any other kind of serious molecular biology, is hard -- we're not going to be seeing Gene Splicing In A Nutshell on the shelves any time soon. As a Comp. Bio. student, one of the few in the program with a serious background in both CS and biology, I see the problems that the students (and, for that matter, the professors) who are strictly from the CS side have in understanding the biology. These are smart, hard-working people, but the fact is it takes years of experience to really "get" molecular biology in any useful fashion.

(Note that I'm not denigrating CS -- a bio PhD and a CS PhD are about equally well-educated, IMO. But at the amateur level, it's a hell of a lot easier to get started hacking code than hacking genes.)

In the long run, I think you're right. The knowledge and the equipment are out there, and will become steadily more available, and a generation or two down the line we will almost certainly see teenagers pounding out real viruses in their parents' basements (and won't that be fun) -- hopefully, those same teenagers, once they're grown up a bit, will be the ones who go on to make real and lasting contributions to biology and medicine, just like teenage hackers often grow up to be the best programmers and CS researchers. But right now we're at the "mainframe" stage of biology, where the genome -- like the computer a couple of generations ago -- is a rather arcane piece of machinery with high barriers to entry.

"Professional" is misleading anyway

[shrikel]

How many people reading slashdot are more than capable programmers -- without being professional programmers, meaning that they are paid to do it?

The more I learn in my field, the more I realize I don't know anything. Even our "world experts" don't know much. It's just that they (generally) know exactly what it is that they don't know. And they know at least some ways to use what they DO know.

It scares me a little. I mean, growing up, I always perceived science as being this big field where enormous amounts of knowledge float around, and anything that we need to know is already known by somebody and we just have to ask about it. Since then, I've come to realize that we're surrounded by hackers. Those who are "experts" are considered experts because they know enough to DO some things with their knowledge, and creatively put pieces together to form new ideas and new ways of doing things.

Being a professional doesn't mean somebody actually knows anything. It's entirely immaterial.