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 <pafon...@gmail.com> 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 <sannu...@gmail.com> > 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 <jmhol...@lbl.gov> 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/) 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 >>> >>> 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/ >>> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: >> 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/
