Every discipline has has its superheros. In programming culture I have heard of Ninjas and Rock-stars. Could we say the same for bioinformatics? Would you hire a "bioinformatics Ninja or rock-star?"
The question is ambiguously phrased, but I think you're referring to the phenomenon in software development where a small proportion of coders are an order of magnitude more productive than the average. I call them master developers; if they were ninjas you'd never see them ;-). I've worked with a few people like that in more traditional software development environments (I'm not one of them), and they are a fantastic asset to any project. As bioinformatics is primarily a programming and analytical job I'd expect that similarly skilled people would exist: I've seen a few from afar but never worked with one. I'd recommend hiring one but you'd have to have the processes in place to make sure things are working out well for them and the group they're in.
The key property of master developers to keep in mind is that they're crazy fast; they can often finish implementing stuff while you are still defining the specs and you may not get what you expect. It's like going to an architect and telling them you're interested in somewhere new to live. You come back the next day and he's built you a yacht. Then you spend the next two weeks arguing whether a yacht is a house or not. So you need to provide very clear specs up front or a lot of time is wasted.
Bioinformatics development is a more collaborative and iterative environment than most software development, and the master developers I've worked with have tended to be head-down coders, which makes the above spec phase more important. The better and clearer the specs, the faster the implementation too. It can actually be a problem keeping them busy with enough worthwhile tasks to keep them interested in the job.
To get the most out of a developer like that you also want to offload the more rote tasks (tech support, user manuals) to other more junior developers who work with them. This is both to get understudies in place to support the code if they leave (and developers like that tend to move a lot) and to keep the master developer focused on stuff where their productivity is highest. Depending on their style the code can be cryptic or just so voluminous that group code reviews (though painful) are important to keep everyone clear on what is being done. Putting a support team around them also avoid the "beware man in a room" phenomenon (Dynamics of Software Development (Microsoft Press, 1995)), where a coder in isolation can run into problems by not communicating with the team.
So yes I'd certainly recommend hiring a master developer with the right skills on a bioinformatics project where there was enough high level work and the right people to properly define the work and support the results.
But I'd never call them a ninja or a rock star.
It really depends a lot on what you mean by that question:
But much more important is this question:
Of course! Rock Star because it is new and miles to go in future with the help of all orchestra of sciences.
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
version 2.3.6
Thanks you understood my question, The idea is not to promote the so called ninjas' it just that i have read lots of argurments for and against such terms or approaches.