>>11401001If your domain is biostats/"fake" bioinformatics ("I'll just through this data into that standard pipeline and use photoshop to decide what the results mean"), go for ivy. If your domain is mathematical biology, "real" bioinformatics ("I have some cool data/phenomenon I'm interested in, let's see if I can model/qualify/quantify/explore it with computers"), computational biology, etc., go for the lab that's offering the cool research regardless of how well known the school, or even the lab or the prof, assuming your goal is to keep to academia.
This is because nobody currently established really knows what these domains are or how to use them, which also means that the lab you'll be at will turn into an established lab in no small part due to your work, if you do well. The few labs that participate in these domains are, in turn, not yet established labs.
Available positions and openness of funding agencies to grant requests will be highly dependent on what you published during that time and how impactful it was, which in turn depends highly on how interesting the project is.
Conversely, you don't benefit much from the resources of established labs because there's little that's really established yet in these domains (doing proteomics? Get a PEAKSDB license. Doing anything else? plenty of free online and offline tools let you get state of the art results right away. After the processing step, the rest is fertile, mostly untrodden land). The name of the prof you would be under is not at all, at this point, a function of how well established they are, and a poor project will have negative consequences on future funding and positions opportunity.
>>11401049No. It's all white people in here. At least "real" bioinformatics.
>>newBioinformatics itself is not new, but it's usually an "add-on" to a wetlab. It being considered its own thing is new, and that has deep impact on
its dynamics (what a good lab is or isn't, what a good prof is, future prospect...)
