Um, I have thought about entering this thread at least a dozen times. I've started several comments and stopped all of them.
First, I am with the silent majority who doesn't think this data storage is a good idea (or not a good enough idea) but who hasn't responded till now. 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. At least that's what I think. 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. 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. 2) I agree with Susan. In a time of limited funding, is this the most important use of money? This point was made in a news-and views I recently read but cannot find despite an hour of searching - we as a species are not good at judging the opportunity costs implicit in choices. There are plenty implicit in this choice, would it not, for instance, be MUCH more useful to finally get the modellers to release their source code? 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... Adrian Goldman Sent from my iPad On 27 Oct 2011, at 21:17, Ed Pozharski <epozh...@umaryland.edu> wrote: > Dear Garib, > > I am afraid clarification is in order. > > Firstly, the results are available here > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahe0ET6Vsx-kdHh4cjdLZGZrSEpUOG9kV2hkb3ZXNHc > > Click Form->Show summary to see the pie chart. This is so you don't > need to vote again to see the results (and please, don't vote more than > once anyway!). In my past experience, the results get more or less > final in a day or two or once the number of responses reaches ~300. > > Secondly, it was not my intent to provide a "democracy-based argument". > Majority is often wrong. > > Thirdly, it was not my intent to bias the results by carefully crafting > misleading/confusing options. Just disregard the part past "No". Or > provide you own reasons using the "Other" - I personally find that > category the most interesting. > > Fourthly, my intent was to separate the discussion of "how to do it" > from "should we do it". I disagree with Garib somewhat that this is > purely scientific question, and perhaps it is open to some opinion. The > proposed changes will affect everyone (albeit in minor way), and my > ultimate intent is not to impose democracy but rather, as Jacob pointed > out, to potentially give voice to the silent faction. Garib is right > that we should approach the question scientifically, but it's important > to know if the issue is at all controversial. (In a strange way, the > smaller the minority is on either side the more important it seems to me > personally that every effort is made to assure that its position is well > understood). > > Hope this clarifies things, > > Ed. > > On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 18:05 +0100, Garib N Murshudov wrote: >> >> >> I never thought that science should be done democratically. (Note, I >> voted to see results. Otherwise results are invisible). It would be >> unimaginable to decide by majority vote that a particular equation or >> theory is valid (e.g. relativity theory). I thought that storing data >> is a scientific question and should be tackled scientifically. You >> provide evidence, proof or proof of principle. >> The most important question is repeatability of the experiment. >> Question is: how far should we go? I know that there is at least one >> case of overmerged data in the pdb. This particular question could be >> solved (only partially) if you deposit unmerged data, with images it >> is solved completely. Overmerging means averaging structures, thus >> losing differences between them (biologically important or not). >> Overmerging could be over translation (superlattice), rotation (higher >> space group) or both. >> >> >> Has anybody ever done systematic analysis of pdb (even better data >> sets collected on one of the synchrotrons) to see the seriousness of >> the problem? I suspect the problem is much more serious than it is >> perceived. >> >> Before you provide sufficient evidence everybody will have their >> opinion. >> >> >> Garib >> >> >> >> On 27 Oct 2011, at 17:08, Ed Pozharski wrote: >> >>> I am curious as to what the collective opinion on the raw data >>> deposition actually is across the cross-section of the >>> macromolecular >>> crystallography community subscribed to the bb. So, if you have a >>> second and a formed opinion on the idea of the depositions of the >>> raw >>> data, please vote here >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/3qlwwsh >>> >>> I'll post the results as soon as they look settled. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Ed. >>> >>> -- >>> "Hurry up before we all come back to our senses!" >>> Julian, King of Lemurs >>> >> >> Garib N Murshudov >> Structural Studies Division >> MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology >> Hills Road >> Cambridge >> CB2 0QH UK >> Email: ga...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk >> Web http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Edwin Pozharski, PhD, Assistant Professor > University of Maryland, Baltimore > ---------------------------------------------- > When the Way is forgotten duty and justice appear; > Then knowledge and wisdom are born along with hypocrisy. > When harmonious relationships dissolve then respect and devotion arise; > When a nation falls to chaos then loyalty and patriotism are born. > ------------------------------ / Lao Tse / >
