The first perspective on page 213 comes from Jeff Vierstra and John Stamatoyannopoulos of the University of Washington. Using massively parallel sequencing technology, this group generated large sets of DNase I fragments, which represent a fraction of chromatin that can be linked by regulatory factors. Their research team was the first to be able to systematically derive genome-wide information about transcription factor (TF) binding, in a process called digital genomic fingerprinting. Genome-wide data on TF occupancy are essential for deriving the architecture of different regulatory regions and for understanding the networks that regulate transcription. The authors describe the key elements of the technique, discuss pitfalls, and mention the need for improvement, but overall, they highlight the potential of the method to provide insight into complex TF networks. “Challenged by an author who asks me: `What more should you do?`, challenged to defend our claim, we refer to the relevant facts we have, which Toulmin calls our data (D). It may be necessary to determine the accuracy of these facts in preliminary reasoning. But their acceptance by the challenger, directly or indirectly, does not necessarily end the defense. (David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij, Introduction to Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essais in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Springer, 2006) In the Toulmin argumentation model, data is the evidence or specific information that supports a claim. It is no secret that the Prime Minister and I have had a strong disagreement on this narrow issue, but we do not disagree on the need to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and we do not disagree on the importance of mitigating the destabilizing activities that Iran might take.
My disagreement in principle with the producers is that I didn`t want to constantly growl in a lady`s ear, there`s not much aesthetic satisfaction in it. The second perspective was written by Myong-Hee Sung, Songjoon Baek and Gordon Hager, researchers at the US National Cancer Institute who study nuclear receptors to understand how chromatin organization regulates gene expression. They draw attention to the limitations of genomic fingerprinting and warn that due to the short duration of stay of many TFs on DNA, some fingerprints cannot be distinguished from DNA cutting distortions; they argue that this data should therefore not be used for the rejection of transcription networks. Scientists looking at the same data may disagree profoundly in their interpretation of that data. Advances in scientific knowledge will benefit from these differences of opinion, and at Nature Methods we see our role as editors not only in works that present new progress and compensate for differences, but also in relation to the opinions of divergent colleagues. They had a bit of disagreement about the color of the bedroom, but they found a compromise. While some Democratic candidates disagree on how quickly universal health care can be achieved, I don`t think there is as much disagreement that this is a Democratic Party goal. There is no disagreement between us, but we have been slow to judge and investigate individuals. The theory shows significant inconsistencies with the data. “A reasoned analysis often distinguishes between three types of data: first, second, and third order data. Top-notch data is the recipient`s beliefs; Second-order data are statements from the source, and third-order data are the opinions of others, as cited by the source. .