My (limited) experience of the Diffraction Methods GRC suggests that the most valuable part of these meetings is when people get together outside the talks - so independent of the session chairs (apart from the people that they invite) and of any instructions given to speakers.
Just my two ha’porth Harry > On 30 Jan 2023, at 11:54, Frank von Delft <frank.vonde...@cmd.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > > 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/ ######################################################################## 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/
