***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***


On Thursday 23 Mar 2006 23:55, Mischa Machius wrote:
> ***  For details on how to be removed from this list visit the  ***
> ***          CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk         ***
>
>
> Dear Alice,
>
> Having been involved in quite a number of projects that feature both
> crystallography and functional studies, I must say that the
> perception that crystallography is trivial is not only widespread but
> - I am afraid to say - quite correct. Indeed, for the majority of
> structure projects, there is nothing fundamentally difficult beyond
> obtaining crystals. Crystallography is usually straightforward. That
> is not to say that it is easy or that it doesn't require highly
> specialized expertise, but it is straightforward nevertheless, just
> like climbing Mt. Everest is straightforward. 

Crystallography is straightforward???!!!
Why don't you ask to the hundreds of students and even postdocs
daily banging their heads with apparently magical sets of reflection data,
collected who knows in which way, and ready to be fed in equally magical 
computer programs, hoping that their Rfree will eventually go down.

I think the tragic mistake here is that from time to time some articles, 
written by experts in methods, appear in the literature, claiming that such 
and such software is completely automatic, or that such and such procedure 
can be used for a whole range of structures and data. In the end, let's be 
frank, results presented in journals tend to be biased towards optimism. The 
truth is that crystallography is still the hard bit nobody wants to deal 
with, apart from very few "experts" in methods. And their methods generally 
never work in a fully automated way; there is always the need for some 
"human" intervention.

I think a good crystallographer is still a very valuable asset of any biology 
laboratory. Science is not only made up of "fundamental" theories, but mostly 
of less fundamental applications. I don't see any reason why a funding body 
should deny money to a project only because it has an applicative character.

J

-- 
Dr James Foadi PhD
York Structural Biology Laboratory (YSBL)
Department of Chemistry
University of York
Heslington
York YO10 5YW
UK

Reply via email to