*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
On Dec 24, 2006, at 6:25 AM, William Scott wrote:
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Miguel Ortiz-Lombardia wrote:
The structure factors of only one of
the five structures (1z2r) were deposited. And for this case, EDS
didn't
produce a map because, the server says, its calculated map had an
Rfactor of 0.369 compared to the published 0.28
I was able to pull this in with COOT from EDS and display the map.
It is
frighteningly plausible-looking, including the negative peaks in the
difference Fourier.
It is frightening! We teach our students about self-consistency of
crystallography,
about beautiful, reach in physics, mathematics and chemistry field
of modern science which rest on the shoulders
of giants and which, when correctly used can not produce artifacts...
Is it enough to just self-retract the published results?
In those cases when correct and wrong structures could not be
distinguished, granting
agencies should start investigation, demanding also raw data. To
distinguish between
'correct' and 'massaged' raw data technology is needed. FBI possesses
this technology
according to Henrik Shone case (http://www.meta-religion.com/
Paranormale/Frauds/red_faces_at_bell_labs.htm and more)
and to "24 hours"
I am also sure that many scientists using only 1% of operational
budget granted to some liege lords of science (who knows on what base),
will produce 200% more and 1000% better science
Professor Felix Frolow
Department of Molecular Microbilogy
and Biotechnology
Tel Aviv University, Israel
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: ++972-3640-8723
Fax: ++972-3640-9407
Acta Crystallographica D
Co-editor
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System
at the Tel-Aviv University CC.
