-----Original Message----- From: Kantardjieff, Katherine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 4:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dale Tronrud Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
Since my name appeared in this email exchange, I thought I should respond. Let me say that the US National Committee for Crystallography and the ACA prepared and released a policy document on education and training in crystallography that attempts to exactly address the issues raised on this bulletin board. I spoke about this document and its contents at the ACA meeting in Honolulu, as well as in the IUCr Teaching Commission newsletter last fall, and referred to it again at the ACA meeting in Salt Lake City. The document makes recommendations regarding training and education of individuals in both the physical and the life sciences, at university or post-graduate, whether they require working knowledge or will become a practitioner/expert. The document also addresses undergraduate and K-12 education. Until crystallography is raised back to the level of a science, and its inherent difficulties are acknowledged and respected (no more snide remarks, no more attitudes that what we do is push button, with the black box analogy to 1D proton NMR), we will continue to see what has been the topic of this passionate discussion on the CCP4 bulletin board. We have younger colleagues applying for jobs telling us that to call themselves crystallographers in their CV is tantamount to a death sentence. Unfortunately, even prestigious societies like the ACS, in their revised draft on undergraduate education in chemistry, now do not even give cursory attention to diffraction. There is NO mention of it at all. ASBMB guidelines also say nothing. Similar problems exist in geology, where the education emphasis has shifted strongly towards the environment and ecology. The USNC/Cr policy document was originally to be distributed by the National Academies, but it is now available for download at http://faculty.fullerton.edu/kkantardjieff/stuff/USNCCr_policies.pdf. For those interested in the ACS draft guidelines, I provide a copy of this for download as well at http://faculty.fullerton.edu/kkantardjieff/stuff/acs_draftguidelines.pdf . ASBMB guidelines may be found at http://www.asbmb.org/asbmb/site.nsf/web/BDDA55D0DC3132DF85256CD3006ECED4 /$FILE/Curriculum_fnl_02.pdf Onwards, KAK -----Original Message----- From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:39 PM To: 'Dale Tronrud' Cc: Kantardjieff, Katherine Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools > training has fallen behind and many people are solving structures that have never had formal or even informal instruction. YES! FINALLY SOMEONE who gets to the core of the issue. I cc: this to Katherine Kantardjieff on the US Natl Acad Committee to the IUCr. She is looking for fellows to support your/my/her assessment. > We can't even get reviewers to look at "Table 1"! ;-) > arrangements with some near-by friendly crystallographer for > assistance Uhhh....that would finally overwork only a small group of people with exceptional reputation - who else would you send your top hot nature structure data to? Not many friendly dinosaurs are left in this competitive world. I still think that careful reviewer selecting and pairing IS the journal editors' duty. THEY make money THEY should be held responsible for failure in the review process. <---- this statement finally terminates my chance of publishing in nature ever again. Best wishes, BR
