There have been excellent examples given for cases in which the original data would have been very valuable for discussion and understanding. However, it has always been my understanding that scientists are required to keep the original data on which their conclusions are based. It is also my understanding that (in the US) from this logical requirement there is a legal requirement for scientists to keep their original research data on file. This presumably is imposed by the granting agancies, although I have to admit that I have actually never read this rule in writing anywhere.
The question is not 'should it be kept', the question is 'how long should it be kept'. It is self-evident that all data are kept for at least 5 years (about the time it takes to get a student to graduate). Should it be 10 years? Should it be 15-20 years? In practice, I think the answer is that when everyone who can remember doing the project has gone (PI retires), then the data are no longer useful because nobody can remember what?they are?for.?I would reluctantly type rm -f * in that case. In addition to this discussion one would have to consider 'should ALL data be preserved'? We all know that it usually?takes more than one diffraction experiment to get a structure. Is it OK to discard the data sets (images) that were not used? My somewhat arbitrary answer is "ALL data should be preserved". It is like your lab notebook - do you preserve data on unsuccessful cloning and expression? Yes, you do because you never know what you can learn from this. And also, your unsuccessful ! experiments together with?the successful ones form the record how you?came to an answer/conclusion.?There are recent questions in literature and on this bb that could be answered if we had the "next best data set". ? Mark? -----Original Message----- From: Garib Murshudov <ga...@ysbl.york.ac.uk> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Sent: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:41 am Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] images Dear all? ? Before going into and trying to find a technical solution to the problem it would be good if decide if we need images. As far as I know if we face with a problem to solve and we know that it is necessary to solve then we find technical solution to the problem (either from other fields or we find our own solution with some elements of reinvention of new MX wheels).? ? Do we need images to store? What kind of information we can extract from images that we cannot from amplitudes, intensities (even unmerged)? Does anybody have a convincing argument for favour of images?? ? regards? Garib? ? ? On 18 Mar 2009, at 16:32, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:? ? > Actually the radiologists who manage CT and PET scans of brains do > have? > a solution, called DICOM, see http://medical.nema.org/. If we work? > together as a community we should be able to do as well as the? > rocket scientists and the brain surgeons' radiologists, perhaps even? > better. -- Herbert? >? > =====================================================? > Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science? > Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121? > Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769? >? > +1-631-244-3035? > y...@dowling.edu? > =====================================================? >? > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Jacob Keller wrote:? >? >> Apparently it DOES take a rocket scientist to solve this problem. >> Maybe >> the brain surgeons also have a solution?? >>? >> JPK? >>? >> *******************************************? >> Jacob Pearson Keller? >> Northwestern University? >> Medical Scientist Training Program? >> Dallos Laboratory? >> F. Searle 1-240? >> 2240 Campus Drive? >> Evanston IL 60208? >> lab: 847.491.2438? >> cel: 773.608.9185? >> email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu? >> *******************************************? >>? >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Klaas Decanniere" >> <klaas.decanni...@vub.ac.be>> >? >> To: <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>? >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:36 AM? >> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] images? >>? >>? >>> Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:? >>> Other sciences have struggled with this and seem to have found an >>> >>> answer.? >>> Have e.g. a look at http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/fits.html? >>> kind regards,? >>> Klaas? >>>>? >>>> This is a good time to start a major crystallogrpahic image? >>>> archiving effort. Money may well be available now that will not be? >>>> avialable six month from now, and we have good, if not perfect,? >>>> solutions available for many, if not all, of the technical issues? >>>> involved. Is it really wise to let this opportunity pass us by?? >>>>>> The deposition of images would be possible providing some >>>>>> >>>>>> consistent? >>>>>> imagecif format was agreed.? >>>>>> This would of course be of great use to developers for certain? >>>>>> pathological cases, but not I suspect much value to the user? >>>>>> community - I down load structure factors all the time for test? >>>>>> purposes but I probably would not bother to go through the data? >>>>>> processing, and unless there were extensive notes associated with? >>>>>> each set of images I suspect it would be hard to reproduce >>>>>> >>>>>> sensible? >>>>>> results.? >>? >?
