umafuckitt writes:
Early microscopists and electrophysiologists were pathfinders who built their own hardware to perform their experiments. Today, whilst much cutting edge biology still requires the experimenter to develop new equipment, a huge amount of excellent work can be done with off-the-shelf hardware.
The problem, however, is that a lot of this equipment is over-priced for what it is and it's usually closed and so hard to hack. Thus, it may not be surprising that a home-brew hardware revolution is quietly taking place in biology. Rather than building novel equipment, a lot of today's scientists are coming up with much cheaper and more flexible solutions for existing commercial devices. Opensource hardware is a great way of stretching grant money, bringing science into schools, and allowing researchers in poorer countries to do more with their limited budgets. Central to most Opensource hardware projects are easy to use microcontroller packages, such as Arduino, Maple, and Teensy, allowing biologists with no engineering background to re-invent their closed, mass-produced, and expensive hardware. One reason this reinvention has been so effective is because a lot of the equipment still being sold today is based upon older designs that have not been updated in many years.
Here is a selection of some of what's out there now:
(Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Thursday March 27 2014, @10:00PM
I guess the usage of the term is field-specific. The usage I'm familiar with sees "photoreceptor" referring to a cell type, such as retinal rods and cones, and "photopigment [wikipedia.org]" referring to the light-sensitive proteins within them. This is a useful disambiguation for neuroscience. I imagine people who study algae might well refer to chanelrhodopsin as a "photoreceptor." That's certainly what the Wikipedia page seems to imply [wikipedia.org].