Dear Adrian,
thank you - this is most helpful in assessing why we do or don't need to
deposit the raw data.
However:
> And let me say that, as this bb hardly reaches ALL practicing MM
> crystallographers, but only those with an interest in techniques, the
> results AND discussion are heavily skewed in favor of storage.
Fair enough. I am afraid we need another survey to settle this (oh,
no!). But given the variety of questions that are asked on this bb it
is my expectation that the subset is quite representative. I also
thought that "protein crystallographer" implies interest in techniques.
If those with interest in techniques are nowadays a minority... well,
let's just say it explains a lot.
> So - looking at my own navel - why would one, did I, not write until
> now? There is in the bb a loud active (and my guess) minority whose
> opinions are already formed, so responding seems pointless. It won't
> change anything and will just lead to opprobrium pouring down on my
> head. That's one reason.
I can't, of course, pretend to be the spokesperson of the loud minority
(but it's surely true that I am occasionally loud and obnoxious). To
summarize my personal feelings about the issue you raise, let me quote
Voltaire:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
your right to say it."
> But let me say - and I voted 'no' as should be blindingly obvious -
> two more things.
> 1) this is not a matter of science, but science (internal) policy, and
> so the majority actually SHOULD count.
Agreed with the caveat that majority could be wrong.
> 2) I agree with Susan. In a time of limited funding, is this the most
> important use of money?
This is an important point, but I suspect that a) most of the task can
be accomplished within existing framework (thus no extra personnel
costs) and b) the extra storage is really, really cheap these days -
even if I store all the data we collect, it is probably still less than
dewar shipping costs.
> But enough of the nattering nabobs of negativism! As such frame
> information is so valuable for future development efforts, I think all
> it would require would be an email to a local crystallographer working
> on an impossible problem, and I am sure it would be forthcoming. For
> s/w development purposes, I can't believe that even a small fraction
> of the terabytes of frame data off the pilots is needed...
IMHO, this is not about developers getting data to work with (I am sure
they already have plenty). It's about extending the retro-processing
concept pioneered by PDB-REDO to the integration/scaling. And yes, it
is about preventing wishful overinterpretation. While this is not about
raw data processing, will correcting someone fitting an alpha helix
with multiple di-EG molecules change the course of history? Of course
not. It won't even change the main finding of that paper. But I always
believed in getting the best structure possible under the circumstances
(and, of course, failed to live up to that standard).
But I digress, as usual. Once again - thank you, I think it's very
important that these issues are discussed. If the raw data deposition
is made mandatory (which I support), I'd like you to at least see my
reasoning, if not bring you over to the dark side.
Cheers,
Ed.
--
"I'd jump in myself, if I weren't so good at whistling."
Julian, King of Lemurs
