[R] Is R good for not-professional-statistician, un-mathematical clinical researchers?

Tomas Aragon aragon at berkeley.edu
Fri Aug 20 19:29:37 CEST 2004

--- Patrick Burns <pburns at pburns.seanet.com> wrote:

> I definitely agree that focussing on what R does better than
> other options is the right approach.  One thing that Tomas
> does not mention is graphics.  Two possible selling points along
> this line are:
> *)  R is good for understanding your data with graphics.
> *)  R is good for producing graphics for publication.
> This discussion reminds me of something my wife says: classes
> are for learning what people don't want to do -- if someone is
> happy to do something, they don't need a class to force them to
> do it.
> Patrick Burns
> Burns Statistics
> patrick at burns-stat.com
> +44 (0)20 8525 0696
> http://www.burns-stat.com
> (home of S Poetry and "A Guide for the Unwilling S User")
Thanks! I agree. I have a web page demonstrating plotting West Nile
virus infections in California at


Tomas Aragon, MD, DrPH, Director
Center for Infectious Disease Preparedness
UC Berkeley School of Public Health
1918 University Ave., 4th Fl., MC-7350
Berkeley, CA 94720-7350

More information about the R-help mailing list