Where: American Statistical Association (ASA) Biopharmaceutical Section (BIOP), European Federation of Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry (EFSPI)
Who: Currently more than 40 statisticians from more than 30 organizations
What: Engineer packages and promote best practices
What you will learn here
Understand the basic structure of an R package
Create your own R
Learn about & apply professional development workflow
Learn & apply fundamentals of quality control for R
Get crash-course in version control and modern collaboration techniques on GitHub.com
Learn how to make an R available to others
Do we still need to learn this - AI can do it?
In the past, carpenters exclusively used saw, hand drill, and hammer
For a long time now, we have power tools, like electric saws and drills
And we have had computer aided design (CAD) software for decades
We have even 3D printers, which can produce furniture directly
Nevertheless, carpenters still start their apprenticeship by learning how to use a saw and hammer, and build furniture by hand
In the same way, we still need to learn the basics of good software engineering, even though AI tools can help us later to execute the work faster and more efficiently
What do we mean by GSWEP4R*?
Applying concept of “Good XYZ Practice” to SWE with R
Improve quality and longevity of R code/packages
Not a universal standard; we share our perspectives
Collection of best practices
Do not reinvent the wheel: learn from the community
Why care about GSWEP4R?
R is one of the most successful statistical programming languages
R is a powerful yet complex ecosystem
Core component: R packages
Mature user & contributor community
Where deeper understanding is crucial, even to just assess quality
Motivation for this workshop/ what would you like to learn 🧠
A couple of advance questions
For someone with no prior background in programming, approximately how long would it take to reach a competent amateur level — several months or several years?
Depends on the fluency level and how intensive your learning program is. You can compare it to learning a foreign language:
A 6 months intensive course, 30 hours per week, can get you to a daily conversational level quickly.
If you only spend 1 hour per week, it will take you several years to reach the same level, or you might never reach it at all.
But if you knew already a (similar) programming language, you could reach the competent amateur level much faster.
A couple of advance questions (cont’d)
Although people often say that AI can now generate most of the code, which aspects of R should a beginner focus on to become genuinely comfortable and proficient with the language?
I would recommend to focus on the basic R programming concepts first, including:
Read / Eval / Print Loop (REPL)
Vectors, lists, and data frames
Functions
Control flow
And then dive deeper into the R package ecosystem relevant to your work.
A couple of advance questions (cont’d)
In the age of foundation models, what capabilities or roles do you think will remain uniquely important for human biomedical researchers?
Personally I think AI systems are still far away from artificial general intelligence (AGI) and true “understanding” or “reasoning” and even “learning”. Therefore, researchers still need to:
truly understand the basic concepts of their field
communicate with other disciplines and stakeholders
strategically plan and intuitively innovate their research
A couple of advance questions (cont’d)
For early-career biomedical researchers who hope to work globally in computational genomics and translational medicine, which skills and research experiences should they prioritize over the next few years?
I am not an expert in that field in particular, but I hope the previous remarks are helpful as a start.
A couple of advance questions (cont’d)
How do industry and academia differ in their use of AI and bioinformatics tools?
For bioinformatics tools I am not an expert. Otherwise I have the impression that industry is starting to use AI tools quickly, while academia can be slower and more cautious.
A couple of advance questions (cont’d)
Expert prior elicitation methods such as SHELF were originally developed largely in fields such as clinical trials. Do you think these methods can also work effectively in areas such as consumer research or marketing, where expert judgment may be more uncertain and the available data are often noisier? When applying these methods to a different domain, how much of the elicitation process or methodological framework would need to be redesigned?
I think many methods developed for clinical trials can be applied to experiments in other areas (that is e.g. my experience when I worked at Google). However, the business is quite different and there are less rigorous regulations outside of clinical trials. Therefore, the level of rigor being used is typically lower. On the other hand, there is more freedom to try out new methods in these other domains.
License information
Creators (initial authors): Daniel Sabanés Bové , Friedrich Pahlke , Kevin Kunzmann , Andrew Bean , Doug Kelkhoff , Philippe Boileau , Audrey Yeo Te-ying , Alessandro Gasparini
In the Seoul 2026 version, changes were done by: Daniel Sabanés Bové
Important: to use this work you must provide the name of the creators (initial authors), a link to the material, a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.