Anonymity, the Web, and whether people still use the term "the Web" in conversation

/
My Wikipedia username used to be a fiction. I changed it recently: it was time to cease being anonymous in that forum.* I didn't do it because of other Wikipedia users. If anything, I've always been a bit worried about the prospect that today's editor, blindingly-furious with me for my edits to their favorite page but completely incapable of actually communicating with anyone about it, will be tomorrow's supervisor. Academics can be tricky that way. By that same token, however, I changed my Wikipedia name so people begin to see my name attached to their favorite subjects.

I spend a fair amount of time writing about microbiology, whether it's online or for some kind of eventual peer-reviewed research**. The chances still seem pretty slim that academics will ever take Wikipedia seriously (and that's fine! It's just an encyclopedia, right?). Many of these researchers are unfortunately intent on citing Wikipedia in their articles. It's still pretty neat to think that the first words someone may read after googling the name of some bacterial species may be mine. Er, partially mine.

Maybe that whole shared-content aspect is the real stumbling block. Academics love the peer review process because it lets People Who Know What They're Doing evaluate People Who Are Doing Something Similar Yet Different. The process works just fine when it's partially anonymous; most people are kind in their everyday interactions but have a license to be critical when their identity is hidden. Pseudo-anonymity doesn't provide the same kind of protective shroud. It's really more of a dissociation effect in which a distinct aspect of one's personality is brought to the forefront.

I'm certainly not an expert in the field of anonymity. It doesn't matter because this is a place where I can write about things I may know very little about. I can do that more easily because my Real Name doesn't have to be responsible for it.  


*Not this one, though! If you're reading this, you already know who I am. It's the internet equivalent of wearing a false mustache.***

**That's all online now, too. I've done much more writing under a pseudonym than under my Real Name if you don't count classwork.

***The meatspace equivalent of wearing a false mustache on the internet is probably something like "breathing" or "eating lunch" or "sinking into a creative morass."
/
Today's paper is: 

The shortest-possible summary: Mycobacteria like M. tuberculosis have cell walls but they have nice, thick lipid membranes, too. All these layers add up to protection from antimicrobial compounds: the bacteria won't get killed if antimicrobials can't even get inside them.

/
Today, I read the following paper: 

This one is really just about a fairly simple method to assay protein-protein interactions. It's an advertisement: the method was developed commercially by ChromoTek Gmbh and is sold as a kit. The basic idea is that proteins are expressed in Baby Hamster Kidney* cells as GFP and RFP fusions. The GFP-fusion baits also have LacI, so they'll end up bound to lac in the nucleus no matter what happens. The RFP-fusion preys should just float around the cell unless they interact with the baits, at which point they'll also be present at the same spot as the GFP. The process is reversible, so an interaction can be observed in real-time as it is disrupted, i.e. by some variety of specific protein binding inhibitor.

I probably won't use this method much myself, but it's quite simple and looks like it could be convenient for screening potentially therapeutic small molecules or peptides. It would be nice to see a paper published about the method's applications by groups other than ChromoTek employees.


*There's something about the word "baby" that makes it difficult to take seriously. This is an established cell line and has been in use since the 60's.