Daily Bulletin


The Conversation

  • Written by The Conversation Contributor
image

Big Data is changing the way we do science today. Traditionally, data were collected manually by scientists making measurements, using microscopes or surveys. These data could be analysed by hand or using simple statistical software on a PC.

Big Data has changed all that. These days, tremendous volumes of information are being generated and collected through new technologies, be they large telescope arrays, DNA sequencers or Facebook.

The data is vast, but the kinds of data and the formats they take are also new. Consider the hourly clicks on Facebook, or the daily searches on Google. As a result, Big Data offers scientists the ability to perform powerful analyses and make new discoveries.

The problem is that Big Data hasn’t yet changed the way many researchers ask scientific questions. In biology in particular, where tools like genome sequencing are generating tremendous amounts of data, biologists might not be asking the right kinds of questions that Big Data can answer.

Questions

Asking questions is what scientists do. Biologists ask questions about the living world, such as “how many species are there?” or “what are the evolutionary relationships between rats, bats and primates?”.

The way we ask questions says a lot about the type of information we use. For example, systematists like myself study the diversity and relationship between the many species of creatures throughout evolutionary history.

We have tended to use physical characteristics, like teeth and bones, to classify mammals into taxonomic groups. These shared characteristics allow us to recognise new species and identify existing ones.

Enter Big Data, and cheap DNA sequencing technology. Now systematists have access to new forms of information, such as whole genomes, which have drastically changed the way we do systematics. But it hasn’t changed the way many systematists frame their questions.

Biologists are expecting big things from Big Data, but they are finding out that it initially delivers only so much. Rather than find out what these limitations are and how they can shape our questions, many biologists have responded by gathering more and more data. Put simply: scientists have been lured by size.

Size matters

Quantity is often seen as a benchmark of success. The more you have, the better your study will be.

This thinking stems from the idealistic view of complete datasets with unbiased sampling. Statisticians call this “n = all”, which represents a data set that contains all the information.

If all the data was available, then scientists wouldn’t have the problem of missing or corrupted data. A real world example would be a complete genome sequence.

Having all the data would tell us everything, right? Not exactly.

From 2004 to 2006, J. Craig Venter led an expedition to sample genomes in sea water from the North Atlantic. He concluded he had found 1,800 species.

Not so fast. He did, in fact, find thousands of unique genomes, but to determine whether they are new species will require Venter and his team to compare and diagnose each organism, as well as name them.

So, in answer to the question: “how many species are there in this bucket of water?”, Big Data gave the answer of 1.045 billion base pairs. But 1.045 billion base pairs could mean any number of species.

Size doesn’t matter, it is what we ask of our data that counts.

Wrong questions

Asking impossible questions has been the bane of Big Data across many fields of research. For example, Google Flu Trends, an initiative launched by Google to predict flu epidemics weeks before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), made the mistake of asking a traditionally framed question: “when will the next flu epidemic hit North America?”.

The data analysed were non-traditional, namely the number and frequency of Google search terms. When compared to CDC data, it was discovered that Google Flu Trends missed the 2009 epidemic and over-predicted flu trends by more than double between 2012 and 2013.

In 2013, Google Flu Trends was abandoned as being unable to answer the questions we were asking of it. Some statisticians blamed sampling bias, others blamed the lack of transparency regarding the Google search terms. Another reason could simply be that the question asked was inappropriate given the non-traditional data collected.

Big Data is being misunderstood, and this is limiting our ability to find meaningful answers to our questions. Big Data is not a replacement for traditional methods and questions. Rather, it is a supplement.

Biologists also need to adjust the questions aimed at Big Data. Unlike traditional data, Big Data cannot give a precise answer to a traditionally framed question.

Instead Big Data sends the scientist onto a path to bigger and bigger discoveries. Big and traditional data can be used together can enable biologists to better navigate their way down the path of discovery.

If Venter actually took the next step and examined those sea creatures, we could make a historic discovery. If Google Flu Trends asked “what do the frequency and number of Google search terms tell us?”, then we may make an even bigger discovery.

As we incorporate Big Data into the existing scientific line of enquiry, we also need to accommodate appropriate questions. Until then, biologists are stuck with impossible answers to the wrong questions.

Authors: The Conversation Contributor

Read more http://theconversation.com/size-doesnt-matter-in-big-data-its-what-you-ask-of-it-that-counts-55571

Writers Wanted

How To Find The Right Emergency Plumber Lismore

arrow_forward

Delivery rider deaths highlight need to make streets safer for everyone

arrow_forward

The Conversation
INTERWEBS DIGITAL AGENCY

Politics

Prime Minister Interview with Ben Fordham, 2GB

BEN FORDHAM: Scott Morrison, good morning to you.    PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, Ben. How are you?    FORDHAM: Good. How many days have you got to go?   PRIME MINISTER: I've got another we...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Prime Minister Interview with Kieran Gilbert, Sky News

KIERAN GILBERT: Kieran Gilbert here with you and the Prime Minister joins me. Prime Minister, thanks so much for your time.  PRIME MINISTER: G'day Kieran.  GILBERT: An assumption a vaccine is ...

Daily Bulletin - avatar Daily Bulletin

Did BLM Really Change the US Police Work?

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has proven that the power of the state rests in the hands of the people it governs. Following the death of 46-year-old black American George Floyd in a case of ...

a Guest Writer - avatar a Guest Writer

Business News

Nisbets’ Collab with The Lobby is Showing the Sexy Side of Hospitality Supply

Hospitality supply services might not immediately make you think ‘sexy’. But when a barkeep in a moodily lit bar holds up the perfectly formed juniper gin balloon or catches the light in the edg...

The Atticism - avatar The Atticism

Buy Instagram Followers And Likes Now

Do you like to buy followers on Instagram? Just give a simple Google search on the internet, and there will be an abounding of seeking outcomes full of businesses offering such services. But, th...

News Co - avatar News Co

Cybersecurity data means nothing to business leaders without context

Top business leaders are starting to realise the widespread impact a cyberattack can have on a business. Unfortunately, according to a study by Forrester Consulting commissioned by Tenable, some...

Scott McKinnel, ANZ Country Manager, Tenable - avatar Scott McKinnel, ANZ Country Manager, Tenable



News Co Media Group

Content & Technology Connecting Global Audiences

More Information - Less Opinion