I think the key is that the questions asks "is a waste of money". In a straightened funding time it may just be that storing the raw images in addition to the processed data doesn't float to the top of the list of "things that must be done whatever else happens in science".
Something can be desirable but just not come above a funding barrier. Susan Prof. Susan M. Lea tel: +44 1865 275181 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Professor of Chemical Pathology & Co-Director of the James Martin Vaccine Design Institute Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, Oxford OX1 3RE UK Tutorial Fellow @ Brasenose College, Oxford OX1 4AJ ________________________________________ From: CCP4 bulletin board [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Jacob Keller [j-kell...@fsm.northwestern.edu] Sent: 27 October 2011 17:30 To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] raw data deposition One thing that the poll is useful for is something I find surprising: ~40% when I checked found storing images a waste of time. So, I guess this might be useful for finding the "silent [significant] minority." Why not have those folks chime in about why they think this is useless, even to store images of solved datasets? JPK On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Gerard Bricogne <g...@globalphasing.com> wrote: > Dear Ed, > > I am really puzzled by this initiative. It assumes that there is a > pre-formed "collective opinion" out there, independent from and unaffected > by the exchanges of views that have taken place on this BB, that would be > worth more than the conclusions we might reach by pursuing these exchanges. > > The thread you are obviously deciding to dissociate yourself from was > initiated in response to a suggestion that views on this topic would > usefully be aired publicly on this BB rather than posted off-list to Tom > Terwilliger, who immediately agreed that this was a good idea and has been > very supportive of this discussion. > > Shouldn't we continue to try and put our heads together to reach a > consensus, rather than collect opinions that may be little more than prior > prejudices? > > What shall we gain by such a vote? I may be misunderstanding what you > have in mind, of course :-) . > > > With best wishes, > > Gerard. > > -- > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:08:24PM -0400, Ed Pozharski wrote: >> I am curious as to what the collective opinion on the raw data >> deposition actually is across the cross-section of the macromolecular >> crystallography community subscribed to the bb. So, if you have a >> second and a formed opinion on the idea of the depositions of the raw >> data, please vote here >> >> http://tinyurl.com/3qlwwsh >> >> I'll post the results as soon as they look settled. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ed. >> >> -- >> "Hurry up before we all come back to our senses!" >> Julian, King of Lemurs > > -- > > =============================================================== > * * > * Gerard Bricogne g...@globalphasing.com * > * * > * Global Phasing Ltd. * > * Sheraton House, Castle Park Tel: +44-(0)1223-353033 * > * Cambridge CB3 0AX, UK Fax: +44-(0)1223-366889 * > * * > =============================================================== > -- ******************************************* Jacob Pearson Keller Northwestern University Medical Scientist Training Program email: j-kell...@northwestern.edu *******************************************
