Hi, everybody, hi, Nukri and Pavel ! I fully agree with Pavel that, if the speakers are not exceptional, if they are (as usually) concentrated on their specific and narrow problems, cross-discipline meetings make us lost quite fast, they are annoying and useless. Richard Feynmann had the same experience, according to his books :-)
At such meetings, people need to have a common point. However, it may be a point different from the SUBJECT of the research. This may be common TOOLS. And this indeed may lead to new ideas and results, maybe great ones. There is a many-years positive experience of such meetings in Pushchino in 80ths (both of you know this place; for other readers of this post - this was indeed a great place !). Closer to our community, as I remember, Paul Adams and John Spence organized such kind of meetings about 20 years ago in US. I guess I know practical results from both these groups of meetings. Some Crystallographic Computing Schools also try to act a little bit "around the tools". Why do not we think specifically in THIS direction (which is actually what Nukri said, right? and somehow not so far from the previous GRC?) ? This is hard but feasible. But indeed hard :-( Best regards to everybody, and many thanks to James for raising the problem ! Sacha Urzhumtsev ----- Le 30 Jan 23, à 2:38, Nukri Sanishvili <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Pavel, > Your description of the current status is exactly correct. And that's exactly > what I am proposing to change or, more accurately, try to change. By seeking > out and bringing together people who do complementary and collaborative work, > so they can set an example for others. > This, of course, isn't meant in place of more narrowly defined topical > meetings > and conferences but to be in addition to those. > James asked the community if we had new ideas and this is a new-ish approach I > was suggesting. > Don't get me wrong - I myself will happily continue my efforts in more > narrowly > defined meetings. > Best wishes, > Nukri > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 6:44 PM Pavel Afonine < [ mailto:[email protected] | > [email protected] ] > wrote: >> Nukri, >> IMO, the idea of cross-discipline meetings is great conceptually, at least >> for >> reasons you pointed out, but utopical in practice. When we attend our >> field-specific meetings we meet colleagues we know, we talk to collaborators >> from the past or find new ones, we have things in common that we can talk >> about >> to forge something new, we meet authors of papers we were excited to read, >> and >> so on, and so on. >> I once attended a meeting of some chemistry society, well, which is not too >> far >> from what we are doing, really, as interpreting atomic models is essentially >> putting your chemistry knowledge into production. And, at that meeting I felt >> like I'm alone in a dark forest. >> Now, I imagine, if you bring two (or more) groups of people to your meeting >> from >> two different domains, well, I guess you will end up having two bubbles of >> people clustered by their field of interest. >> Same disclaimer goes here as yours -- no offence to any one, just thinking >> out >> loud... >> All the best! >> Pavel >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 6:09 AM Nukri Sanishvili < [ >> mailto:[email protected] | >> [email protected] ] > wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> This meeting has indeed been one of the best ones by its format, content, >>> and >>> atmosphere. Many thanks to all the organizers and attendees of the past. >>> Nevertheless, it is not surprising that it was cancelled, given the trends >>> in >>> structural biology research. Straightforward evolutionary pressure to adapt >>> or >>> else... >>> Throughout my career I was always amazed (dare I say, annoyed?) how >>> scientists >>> from different fields, or even the same field but different methods, speak >>> different languages. How little they understand each other, become >>> entrenched >>> in their own methods and how much of the collaboration/cooperation >>> opportunities are wasted. >>> IMO, having a conference on "Complementary Methods in Structural Biology" >>> with >>> the emphasis on complementarity and not on individual methods, would be a >>> great >>> benefit in the long run. Hopefully it would give good examples to young >>> researchers to help them develop a collaborative mindset. >>> If I offended anyone, it was not intentional, I promise, and apologize in >>> advance. >>> Best wishes to all and best of luck to all who continue the effort for the >>> benefit of the whole community. >>> Nukri >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 4:11 PM James Holton < [ mailto:[email protected] | >>> [email protected] ] > wrote: >>>> I want to thank everyone who attended the 2022 Gordon Research >>>> Conference and Gordon Research Seminar on Diffraction Methods in >>>> Structural Biology, as well as all those who contributed to these great >>>> gatherings in the past. It was an outstanding meeting if I do say so >>>> myself. Not just because it had been so long without in-person >>>> interaction, not just because we had zero covid cases (which I see as no >>>> small feat of Mind over Virus), but because of this amazing community. >>>> It is rare in this world to have such a strong spirit of collaboration, >>>> camaraderie and openness in undertakings as high-impact as this. >>>> Surmounting the barriers to atomic-detail imaging of biological systems >>>> has never been more exciting and more relevant. I am proud to be a part >>>> of it, and honored to have served as Chair. >>>> It is therefore with heavy heart that I report to this community that I >>>> was the last Chair of the Diffraction Methods GRC. >>>> The GRC Conference Evaluation Committee >>>> ( [ https://www.grc.org/about/conference-evaluation-committee/ | >>>> https://www.grc.org/about/conference-evaluation-committee/ ] ) voted this >>>> year to discontinue the Diffraction Methods GRC and GRS. This ends a >>>> 46-year tradition that I feel played a vital, and vibrant role in the >>>> work of the people who answer questions on this BB. The reason given >>>> was insufficient attendance. All other metrics, such as evaluation >>>> surveys and demographics were very strong. I have tried to appeal, but >>>> I'm told the vote was unanimous and final. I understand that like so >>>> many conference organizing bodies the GRC is having to make tough >>>> financial decisions. I must say I disagree with this one, but it was not >>>> my decision to make. >>>> Many of the past and elected Chairs have been gathering and discussing >>>> how to replace the Diffraction Methods GRC/GRS going forward. Many great >>>> ideas, advice and perspectives have been provided, but that is a select >>>> group. I feel it is now time to open up this discussion to the broader >>>> community of structural methods developers and practitioners. There are >>>> some important questions to ask: >>>> * How do we define this community? >>>> Yes, many of us do cryoEM too, but is that one methods meeting? >>>> or two? >>>> * Does this community need a new diffraction methods meeting? >>>> As in one meeting or zero? >>>> * Should we merge with an existing meeting? >>>> It would make logistics easier, but a typical GRC has 22 hours >>>> of in-depth presentations over 5 days. The GRS is 7 hours over 2 days. >>>> As Chair, I found that was not nearly enough. >>>> * Where do you think structural methods are going? >>>> I think I know, but I may be biased. >>>> * Should the name change? >>>> From 1976 to 2000, it was "Diffraction Methods in Molecular >>>> Biology". The word "diffraction", BTW, comes from the Latin for >>>> "shattering of rays", and originally used to describe the iridescence of >>>> bird feathers. That's spectroscopy! >>>> How about: >>>> "Structural Methods for the Departing of Rays" >>>> I'm sure there are many more questions, and better suggestions. I look >>>> forward to enlightening discussions! GRCs have always been about >>>> discussion, and I hope to keep that tradition alive in this community. >>>> -James Holton >>>> MAD Scientist >>>> ######################################################################## >>>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: >>>> [ https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 | >>>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 ] >>>> This message was issued to members of [ http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB | >>>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB ] , a mailing list hosted by [ >>>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/ | www.jiscmail.ac.uk ] , terms & conditions are >>>> available at [ https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ | >>>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ ] >>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: >>> [ https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 | >>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 ] > To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: > [ https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 | > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 ] ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
