How about the Petabox:
 http://www.capricorn-tech.com/ 
"Capricorn Technologies was founded in 2004 and provides petabyte-class storage 
solutions for organizations worldwide. Capricorn's PetaBox technology grew out 
of a search for high density, low cost, low power storage systems for the 
world's largest data collections"

http://www.archive.org/web/petabox.php 
"Internet Archives spins off PetaBox production to newly-formed Capricorn 
Technologies."
"Capricorn replicates the Internet Archive's successful deployment of the 
PetaBox for major academic institutions, digital preservationists, government 
agencies, HPC and major research sites, medical imaging providers, digital 
image repositories, storage outsourcing sites, and other enterprises around the 
globe."

Most importantly, in terms of funding for it: 
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=121377
"Well, the Internet Archive is now officially a library according to the State 
of California! It turns out that to receive a particular kind of federal 
funding, you have to have your state sign off that you are a library. With a 
minimum amount of back and forth (including their saying "we have not evaluated 
something like the Internet Archive before") we were given the approval" 


My two cents addition to the suggestions made by others include something like 
a fee-based service for structural biology labs who solve protein structures to 
send their data/information to a company for a confidential review (of course 
such a company would need to be certified, like the ISO? and accepted by the 
user community). This would be similar to stories that I have heard of labs in 
some countries contracting out their paper writing (don't know how true that 
is!). A fee-based service would eliminate the problem of reviewers having to 
review all the experimental information presented in the structure and will 
also relieve the journals from additional pressure to check each and every 
structure before deposition. Also, with the numerous journals now publishing 
protein crystal structures, it may not be practical for all the journals to 
implement standardised policies for validation by the journal or the reviewer). 
Maybe this could be an arm of the PDB. As long as it is a fee based
verification service maybe it can be implemented without placing additional 
burden on existing staff (including graduate students/postdocs in individual 
labs having to supervise the maintenance of data archives). Considering the 
amount of money labs are spending on paying journals for publishing papers, 
colorful artwork, etc., it might be well worth spending say 
$1000-$2000/structure to get it validated instead of just spending that on 
printing fancy pictures. With the potential cost savings that labs are getting 
with the advent on high-throughput methods for expression, purification, 
crystallization, data collection, and structure determination, it shouldn't be 
too much to ask.

Regards,
Debanu.
--
Debanu Das,
Scientist, JCSG.
SSRL, Menlo Park, CA.

-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Diana Tomchick
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:15 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Depositing raw data

Providing a centralized archive of raw data for crystallographic images would 
be a great asset to everyone, but most especially to the original investigator.

I'm reminded of a conversation held with one of my postdoctoral mentors back in 
the mid 1990's. She was gazing at the rows of reel-to- reel tapes on the top 
shelf in our office, and lamenting that the data on most of these tapes was now 
unrecoverable due to the limited life span of magnetic tapes. This prompted her 
to encourage her students to deposit structure factors along with coordinates 
to the PDB (at a time when this was not yet required by any journal or granting 
agency), "so that our group will always have access to them, in case our backup 
schemes fail." I think she would have asked us to deposit our original images 
for the same reason, if it had been possible.

Most archivists will tell you that the best way to back up data is to make 
several copies and to store those copies in several different locations. This 
holds true for scientific data, printed material, photos, bank records, etc.

Diana

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana R. Tomchick
Associate Professor
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Department of Biochemistry
5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
Rm. ND10.214B   
Dallas, TX 75390-8816, U.S.A.   
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
214-645-6383 (phone)
214-645-6353 (fax)

Reply via email to