On 17 Aug 2007, at 20:51, William Scott wrote:
To follow the legal analogy, does the letter of Gros et al. proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the structure in question is indeed a
fabrication? As you said, it is a compelling case.
No, I said it "appears" (to me) to be "a compelling case", but I
have only heard one side of it. Have you heard the other?
Thats the problem Bill. I have not heard the other side. I am waiting
to hear the other side.
So far this side has not answered the first and main question: 'can
we have the images please'.
Tassos
PS I dont like single metrics of quality as in the . I did not like
the table with 'quality' versus journal,
I liked even less the Structural Genomics table. As for the
statistics I am not an expert.
From what I read in the ActaD paper from Iowa, is that this is
rather a 'quality metric' of the crystal !
Not of the structure ! If B is 143, and solvent content 78%, yes the
quality metric will be bad,
but at the same time you did your best, the structure is the best
that you could get.
So, the message is that Nature, Cell, Science, SPINE and BCSG deal
with difficult structures,
and not that they produce 'bad' ones.
