Whether cross-pollination happens depends on the session chairs, and the
remit they're given, and the instructions given to the speakers: if
early on everybody sets the tone, to inform as much as advertise, then
it could be a rip-roaringly interesting meeting.
At least, I've never encountered a method that was beyond my or any of
my students' comprehension, at least at some high level, provided we
were allowed to ask questions about it.
Frank
On 30/01/2023 10:40, Gerard Kleywegt wrote:
Hi all,
I'm a big believer in cross-pollination between disciplines. I think
there could be room for a multidisciplinary methods meeting (MMM)
provided the right topics are chosen. If these are things that concern
NMR-ists, X-ray-ans and cryo-EM-ers equally you might get the right
mix of people in the room and exchange of ideas and experiences with
it. For example, all three use Maximum Likelihood (ML) methods. All
three are or possibly will be interested in applying Machine Learning
(errrr, ML) methods (e.g., in cryo-EM these have already been used for
automatic particle picking and map improvement). And they all need to
worry about validating models based on predicted models.
Having said that, I think there is also a need for specialised,
method-specific meetings, but the two types of meeting are not
mutually exclusive.
My 2 öre,
--Gerard
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023, Alexandre Ourjoumtsev wrote:
Hi, everybody, hi, Nukri and Pavel !
I fully agree with Pavel that, if the speakers are not exceptional,
if they are (as usually) concentrated on their specific and narrow
problems, cross-discipline meetings make us lost quite fast, they are
annoying and useless. Richard Feynmann had the same experience,
according to his books :-)
At such meetings, people need to have a common point. However, it may
be a point different from the SUBJECT of the research. This may be
common TOOLS. And this indeed may lead to new ideas and results,
maybe great ones.
There is a many-years positive experience of such meetings in
Pushchino in 80ths (both of you know this place; for other readers of
this post - this was indeed a great place !). Closer to our
community, as I remember, Paul Adams and John Spence organized such
kind of meetings about 20 years ago in US. I guess I know practical
results from both these groups of meetings. Some Crystallographic
Computing Schools also try to act a little bit "around the tools".
Why do not we think specifically in THIS direction (which is actually
what Nukri said, right? and somehow not so far from the previous GRC?) ?
This is hard but feasible. But indeed hard :-(
Best regards to everybody,
and many thanks to James for raising the problem !
Sacha Urzhumtsev
----- Le 30 Jan 23, à 2:38, Nukri Sanishvili <sannu...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
Hi Pavel,
Your description of the current status is exactly correct. And
that's exactly
what I am proposing to change or, more accurately, try to change. By
seeking
out and bringing together people who do complementary and
collaborative work,
so they can set an example for others.
This, of course, isn't meant in place of more narrowly defined
topical meetings
and conferences but to be in addition to those.
James asked the community if we had new ideas and this is a new-ish
approach I
was suggesting.
Don't get me wrong - I myself will happily continue my efforts in
more narrowly
defined meetings.
Best wishes,
Nukri
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 6:44 PM Pavel Afonine < [
mailto:pafon...@gmail.com |
pafon...@gmail.com ] > wrote:
Nukri,
IMO, the idea of cross-discipline meetings is great conceptually,
at least for
reasons you pointed out, but utopical in practice. When we attend our
field-specific meetings we meet colleagues we know, we talk to
collaborators
from the past or find new ones, we have things in common that we
can talk about
to forge something new, we meet authors of papers we were excited
to read, and
so on, and so on.
I once attended a meeting of some chemistry society, well, which is
not too far
from what we are doing, really, as interpreting atomic models is
essentially
putting your chemistry knowledge into production. And, at that
meeting I felt
like I'm alone in a dark forest.
Now, I imagine, if you bring two (or more) groups of people to your
meeting from
two different domains, well, I guess you will end up having two
bubbles of
people clustered by their field of interest.
Same disclaimer goes here as yours -- no offence to any one, just
thinking out
loud...
All the best!
Pavel
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 6:09 AM Nukri Sanishvili < [
mailto:sannu...@gmail.com |
sannu...@gmail.com ] > wrote:
Hi James,
This meeting has indeed been one of the best ones by its format,
content, and
atmosphere. Many thanks to all the organizers and attendees of the
past.
Nevertheless, it is not surprising that it was cancelled, given
the trends in
structural biology research. Straightforward evolutionary pressure
to adapt or
else...
Throughout my career I was always amazed (dare I say, annoyed?)
how scientists
from different fields, or even the same field but different
methods, speak
different languages. How little they understand each other, become
entrenched
in their own methods and how much of the collaboration/cooperation
opportunities are wasted.
IMO, having a conference on "Complementary Methods in Structural
Biology" with
the emphasis on complementarity and not on individual methods,
would be a great
benefit in the long run. Hopefully it would give good examples to
young
researchers to help them develop a collaborative mindset.
If I offended anyone, it was not intentional, I promise, and
apologize in
advance.
Best wishes to all and best of luck to all who continue the effort
for the
benefit of the whole community.
Nukri
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 4:11 PM James Holton < [
mailto:jmhol...@lbl.gov |
jmhol...@lbl.gov ] > wrote:
I want to thank everyone who attended the 2022 Gordon Research
Conference and Gordon Research Seminar on Diffraction Methods in
Structural Biology, as well as all those who contributed to these
great
gatherings in the past. It was an outstanding meeting if I do say so
myself. Not just because it had been so long without in-person
interaction, not just because we had zero covid cases (which I
see as no
small feat of Mind over Virus), but because of this amazing
community.
It is rare in this world to have such a strong spirit of
collaboration,
camaraderie and openness in undertakings as high-impact as this.
Surmounting the barriers to atomic-detail imaging of biological
systems
has never been more exciting and more relevant. I am proud to be
a part
of it, and honored to have served as Chair.
It is therefore with heavy heart that I report to this community
that I
was the last Chair of the Diffraction Methods GRC.
The GRC Conference Evaluation Committee
( [ https://www.grc.org/about/conference-evaluation-committee/ |
https://www.grc.org/about/conference-evaluation-committee/ ] )
voted this
year to discontinue the Diffraction Methods GRC and GRS. This ends a
46-year tradition that I feel played a vital, and vibrant role in
the
work of the people who answer questions on this BB. The reason given
was insufficient attendance. All other metrics, such as evaluation
surveys and demographics were very strong. I have tried to
appeal, but
I'm told the vote was unanimous and final. I understand that like so
many conference organizing bodies the GRC is having to make tough
financial decisions. I must say I disagree with this one, but it
was not
my decision to make.
Many of the past and elected Chairs have been gathering and
discussing
how to replace the Diffraction Methods GRC/GRS going forward.
Many great
ideas, advice and perspectives have been provided, but that is a
select
group. I feel it is now time to open up this discussion to the
broader
community of structural methods developers and practitioners.
There are
some important questions to ask:
* How do we define this community?
Yes, many of us do cryoEM too, but is that one methods meeting?
or two?
* Does this community need a new diffraction methods meeting?
As in one meeting or zero?
* Should we merge with an existing meeting?
It would make logistics easier, but a typical GRC has 22 hours
of in-depth presentations over 5 days. The GRS is 7 hours over 2
days.
As Chair, I found that was not nearly enough.
* Where do you think structural methods are going?
I think I know, but I may be biased.
* Should the name change?
From 1976 to 2000, it was "Diffraction Methods in Molecular
Biology". The word "diffraction", BTW, comes from the Latin for
"shattering of rays", and originally used to describe the
iridescence of
bird feathers. That's spectroscopy!
How about:
"Structural Methods for the Departing of Rays"
I'm sure there are many more questions, and better suggestions. I
look
forward to enlightening discussions! GRCs have always been about
discussion, and I hope to keep that tradition alive in this
community.
-James Holton
MAD Scientist
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
[ https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 |
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 ]
This message was issued to members of [
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB |
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB ] , a mailing list hosted by [
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/ | www.jiscmail.ac.uk ] , terms &
conditions are
available at [ https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ |
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ ]
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
[ https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 |
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 ]
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
[ https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 |
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 ]
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a
mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are
available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
Best wishes,
--Gerard
******************************************************************
Gerard J. Kleywegt
http://xray.bmc.uu.se/gerard mailto:ger...@xray.bmc.uu.se
******************************************************************
The opinions in this message are fictional. Any similarity
to actual opinions, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
******************************************************************
Little known gastromathematical curiosity: let "z" be the
radius and "a" the thickness of a pizza. Then the volume
of that pizza is equal to pi*z*z*a !
******************************************************************
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a
mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are
available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
