*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
I don't think the structural genomics programmes have shown crystallography up as too easy, but rather as not all that informative when divorced from a mechanistic and/or biological context. Perutz and co didn't invent protein crystallography to find out what proteins looked like, but to find out how they worked. Without those driving functional questions, protein crystallography, be it low or high throughput, is an elaborate and expensive exercise in stamp collecting. Ah well - another lesson in making friends and influencing people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Laurence H. Pearl Section of Structural Biology, Institute of Cancer Research Chester Beatty Laboratories, 237 Fulham Road, London SW3 6JB, UK Phone +44-(0)20 7153 5422 : Secretary +44-(0)20 7153 5443 : FAX +44-(0)20 7153 5457 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Live Simply and do Serious Things .. " - Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> "Moody, Dr P.C.E." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/24/06 5:20 PM >>> *** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk *** We put the blame on Structural Genomics for overselling the ease of crystallography. Peter Peter Moody Department of Biochemistry Henry Wellcome Building University of Leicester LE1 9HN 0116 229 7097 ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Alice Vrielink Sent: Thu 23/03/2006 23:04 To: '[email protected]' Subject: [ccp4bb]: Crystallography Grants and Funding Issues - A Survey *** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk *** Dear crystallography colleagues, As a member of the crystallographic community, I am somewhat alarmed by the negative comments from granting agencies such as the NIH regarding crystallographic proposals as related to me by several friends and colleagues. As such, I am working to compile information about review comments to discern whether these are isolated incidents, or a growing trend among crystallography investigators seeking grant funding. At the heart of the issue is the concern that in recent NIH grant reviewing cycles, the crystallography grants exhibited substantial inconsistencies in the manner in which they were reviewed. After speaking with program directors at NIH there is a recognition of a potential problem related to how crystallography is being viewed in the life sciences community. The primary issue is that the crystallographic community has "out-successed" our science and that solving a crystal structure is easy and technically trivial. Indeed, when this day comes, we should abolish the ccp4bb and comparable forums altogether. Specifically, a number of PIs have voiced concerns to me about the fact that their structural work is labeled "non-intellectual", "not innovative", "standard" and "mundane" to use the exact words of the reviewers. Basically, despite a track record of solid publications in good journals and easy access to PDB coordinates for the community, these crystallographers were regarded as little more than technicians of molecular biolgy and enzymology collaborators who provide the "innovative component" of the biochemical work. In essence, the reviewers de-emphasize the importance of the crystallographic aspects of collaborative projects. Furthermore, there have also been concerns about what is expected of crystallographers who are involved in collaborations with biochemists. A number of colleagues have shared stories about the fact that they are expected to provide details of the non-structural experiments in their applications despite the fact that these are not part of the specific aims of their project, rather they are technical aspects of the work that are to be carried out by collaborators. Interestingly, reviews of some biochemical grants were assessed positively if it was simply stated that a crystal structure will be determined, yet no details on how this will be done were given. To assess whether there is more widespread concern about this effect on the crystallographic community, I am asking individuals to share their thoughts and personal experiences regarding how structural grant applications are being reviewed. My thought is that if the issue is more widespread it needs to be drawn to the attention of the NIH in order to find a mechanism to ensure that people receive a consistent and fair review of their applications. I invite you therefore to email me your experiences. If it becomes apparent that this problem is more prevelant within the community I will summarize the issues, and bring it to the attention of the NIH. I will, of course, keep your individual identities confidential in this process. Regards Alice Vrielink -- ********************************************************************************** Alice Vrielink Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry University of California, Santa Cruz Office Phone: (831) 459 5126 1156 High Street Lab Phone: (831) 459 3929 Santa Cruz, CA Fax: (831) 459-3139 95064 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/vrielink "Proper education is not inculcation. Apart from developing skills and imparting a core of indispensable information, education is a process of widening experience, of fostering a spirit of inquiry, and thereby of creating the basis for disciplined judgement" M. I. Finley **********************************************************************************
