*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Dear Alice,
This is an issue I can see at least two sides to.
I can see why crystallographers sometimes annoy
biochemists. Crystallography can be extremely challenging technically, but
it can be intellectually easy at the project-design stage: pick something
hot, grow a crystal, and ask for $$. Coming up with ideas and designing
experiments that are worthwhile and fundable is, I think, much more
difficult in the wet lab even if completing the work is easier. I suspect
my own forays into the wet lab would have been harder to fund if I hadn't
tacked a crystal onto them. Perhaps what some of these study sections are
wanting is evidence of hard thought about the biochemical problem that
would justify why limited funds should be spent on one structure instead of
another? I'd like to think that at least.
My problem now is how to be creative, well-read, interdisciplinary,
rigorous and highly productive all at once with only one poor little brain
attached to a rather pooped neck.
Phoebe
At 05:04 PM 3/23/2006, you wrote:
*** 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
**********************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoebe A. Rice
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
The University of Chicago
phone 773 834 1723
fax 773 702 0439
http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia06064.html
