[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ccp4bb]: Re: [SUMMARY]: Problems with PDB entry 1muo
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Dear colleague,
If I properly understood your message, you propose to keep the statu quo
to avoid a worse situation, with more data kept secret or even
unpublished, due to a fear of loosing whatever "advantage" the authors
may wish to hold.
I'm afraid I'm also missing the point of your argument. Perhaps you mean
that a stronger policy about the release of the data may induce some
people to "delay" a publication, and hence the data, until they can
publish in a "competitive journal" or win a "patent". The second
possibility would be a way of transforming their advantage in money,
which has nothing to do with science. The first is far more interesting:
if you were right, I think that it would result in a good thing for
science, since it would increase the average quality of the papers.
I accept that changes not addressing the roots of the problem have to
assume a compromise. But I can't agree with you in that the current
situation is an acceptable compromise: if we do nothing, then people
keeping their results secret (at least the most relevant ones) has a
clear advantage over researchers who make their results, and data,
publicly available. The latter will count on the results and data of
people like them, the former will be able to integrate this information
with their own, secret results.
On the other hand, I think that some people actually exaggerates the
risk of loosing the advantage after the publication and release of
data: usually, at the time you get your paper accepted your own results
have evolved, and you have had the time to plan further research. The
others will be in such position only after knowing about your
publication and your data. One exception, and not a negligeable one, is
that of people working in countries were the resources devoted to
science are not comparable to the "big ones". But still, I think also
people in this situation, which I know pretty well, would benefit from a
fairer system.
Also, if I interpret correctly, you say that "publication influences the
current research immediately" even if the actual data is not made
public. I'm sorry, but to my understanding science implies critical
assesment of our own as well as others' results. And, how can you
critically read a paper without the relevant data? I'm talking about
all the relevant data: you're right, something should be done for all
kind of data (even if I think materials should also be shared, at least
to a point, they are a different thing: if you are given all the data,
you can always reconstruct a plasmid, for instance). But let's go step
by step (this is a compromise).
Best wishes,
Miguel
Chris Prodromou <Chris.Prodromou@icr.ac.uk>, 25/04/2003:
> Dear researcher,
> I'm sorry that you missed the point! The current situation I feel is a
> compromise. Researchers can publish so that everyone gets the current
> crystallographic structures (be it in print) while the authors are able
> to take advantage of their own work. The publication influences the
> current research immediately. Researchers wishing access to coordinates
> can always approach the authors and assuming there is no conflict of
> interest I would hope that they would be released (THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN
> MY POLICY). The point is that if an author wishes to take advantage of
> his work then it is so simple to delay publication (however they chose)
> without risk that they will be beaten to publication.
>
> The situation is far better then it is for getting hold of other
> research material like plasmids, strains etc. These are rarely deposited
> anywhere and getting them can be very difficult if they can be got at
> all. I see no mention of this issue? If the feeling is so strong on this
> matter can I suggest you do something about this too?
>
> The point is that we all depend on the good will of others for
> materials. Researchers should be allowed to feel they could publish
> earlier then they might otherwise do so because of a fear they will lose
> THEIR advantage. We all work in a competitive environment. It is in fact
> common practice to delay publication if a patent is pending. Basically
> what I?m trying to say is that the current situation is a compromise and
> moving to an extreme will certainly see some researchers delaying their
> publication to maintain their competitive advantage.
>
> While I agree that most authors will chose to publish in the best
> journals some may not either because their structure is not that topical
> enough or the structure does not explain the biochemical role of the
> protein and so would not warrant a good publication anyway (Its my
> policy to explain the function of a protein not just to obtain
> structures so I will continue publishing in the best journals). So
> assuming a small percentage of structures are delayed from being
> released and some will also end in journals with out a release policy,
> as I?m sure is the current situation although I have not checked as
> such. Would this be better then the current circumstances?
>
> Best wishes
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> Dr C. Prodromou
> Structural Biology,
> Institute of Cancer Research,
> 237 Fulham Road,
> London SW3 6JB
>
> Tel: 0044 (20)71535449 (office)
> Tel: 0044 (20)71536073 (Lab)
> Fax: 0044 (20)71535457
> Fax
~~~~~~~~~
--
Miguel Ortiz Lombardía
email: mol@ysbl.york.ac.uk
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mol1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw