I never thought that science should be done democratically. (Note, I voted to see results. Otherwise results are invisible). It would be unimaginable to decide by majority vote that a particular equation or theory is valid (e.g. relativity theory). I thought that storing data is a scientific question and should be tackled scientifically. You provide evidence, proof or proof of principle. The most important question is repeatability of the experiment. Question is: how far should we go? I know that there is at least one case of overmerged data in the pdb. This particular question could be solved (only partially) if you deposit unmerged data, with images it is solved completely. Overmerging means averaging structures, thus losing differences between them (biologically important or not). Overmerging could be over translation (superlattice), rotation (higher space group) or both.
Has anybody ever done systematic analysis of pdb (even better data sets collected on one of the synchrotrons) to see the seriousness of the problem? I suspect the problem is much more serious than it is perceived. Before you provide sufficient evidence everybody will have their opinion. Garib On 27 Oct 2011, at 17:08, 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 Garib N Murshudov Structural Studies Division MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology Hills Road Cambridge CB2 0QH UK Email: ga...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk Web http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk
