Looking through the results and discussing it briefly with others, I would say that there is nothing particularly surprising from my experience in the bioinformatics field. The survey reflects what I see today. What is notable is that many bioinformaticists in the survey have commented that they see the future of bioinformatics moving toward more integration with other fields and more cross-disciplinary needs, as illustrated by this comment by one (and many others):

“bioinformatics will be incorporated into cross-disciplinary work by scientists that will learn to use computational tools and insights as a commonplace part of their experiments, part in silico, part wet bench”

I would agree, though of course I could well be wrong , with that and along with that will come the need less for ‘bioinformaticists’ and more for biologists trained in bioinformatics. A quick look of some of the analysis is also not particularly surprising, BLAST is by far and away the most cited application of use (lots of alignment and phylogeny stuff there too) as can be seen by the chart (left ) on the results analysis site. Asked which web application/site they use most, it’s an interest mixture between utility sites Google Docs (hmm, maybe there’s something I should look at there , Gmail, Twitter, WordPress and biological resources like NCBI, UCSC Genome Browser, Ensembl, BLAST, Connotea and PubMed. I think the questions here might have been designed better. Those are two entirely different categories and I would love to see the results (of course for the resources if that was more explicitly asked. Perhaps next survey (btw, that those 5 biological resources made the it in the graph is no surprise to me).

It will be interesting to go through this data in some more detail!