[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ccp4bb]: "No CA" Petition
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Gerard DVD Kleywegt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The petition (to be sent to RCSB and IUCr) for the abolishment of CA-only
> models can still be signed on the web page:
>
> http://xray.bmc.uu.se/cgi-bin/gerard/no_ca_petition.pl
Gerard,
I can't sign the petition for the following reason (and there's no
online "CA OK" campaign, so here it is!).
The CA-only question seems an arbitrary subset of a bigger issue. What
people object to (as I interpret it) is the deposition of a minimum of
data to give other scientists the lowest quantity of information
possible, thus preserving some perceived advantage for the depositer.
This is not limited to some impertinent CA-only depositions, but also to
those who never deposit Fobs, or those who fail to include the
interesting parts of the structure (uncommon modifications/substrates)
in the coordinate file, despite the fact they are shown in figures in a
publication.
I would assert that CA-only models are not necessarily bad, because
there are results for which they are the most practical respresentation
of the data available.
What we have to ensure is that the data being deposited in the PDB
represent the data described in the publication in full. This disclosure
is the 'cost' of publication, and all who publish should share this cost
proportionally.
The difficult question is how the disclosure of data is enforced. Is it
the PDB's job?, the journals' job?, IUCr?, referees?, funding bodies?
Blanket banning of particular types of information from the PDB sounds
too much like a step backwards rather than forwards.
Cheers,
Charlie
--
Dr Charles S. Bond University of Dundee Tel: +44-1382-348325
Honorary Lecturer Dow St, Dundee Fax: +44-1382-345764
BBSRC David Phillips Fellow DD1 5EH, Scotland C.S.Bond@dundee.ac.uk
School of Life Sciences http://stein.bioch.dundee.ac.uk/~charlie