> I couldn't have gotten out of there fast enough for the way saner land of tech companies.
You know you have a problem when tech companies seem saner in comparison.
> I couldn't have gotten out of there fast enough for the way saner land of tech companies.
You know you have a problem when tech companies seem saner in comparison.
In many cases scientists are required to submit data to journals when they publish. However, data is a funny term! Using genomics data, there are many levels of data that you'll encounter - everything from raw image files (many gene sequencers are actually automated digital cameras, taking pictures of florescent markers attached to the DNA strands) to intermediate sequence files to formatted pieces of selected data. Then, there's the whole toolchain used to go from sample to formatted final analysis? What's required to be submitted? How long should it be kept? Who checks all this to make sure it's not NES roms or Shakespeare instead of the right data?
Finally, there's the big questio: how can we be sure that the data captured in the intermediate or final steps of analysis actually originates from the raw data? Should scientists store the raw data (TBs and TB), intermediates (GBs and GBs), or final analysis (MBs). For how long?
To answer your question about meaningful long term research - I've personally seen grad students' careers effectively ruined due to shitty data storage hygiene.