kristoff@GENBANK.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) (07/03/90)
Usage of BIOSCI Newsgroups 11/1/89 - 7/1/90 inclusive ranked in order of number of messages posted per day BBOARD NAME Messages Posted Messages per day ----------- ---------------- ---------------- BIONAUTS 125 2.23 (started 5/7/90) BIONEWS 306 1.26 BIO-SOFTWARE 214 0.88 EMPLOYMENT 142 0.58 BIO-JOURNALS 104 0.43 METHODS-AND-REAGENTS 101 0.42 HUMAN-GENOME-PROGRAM 69 0.40 (started 1/10/90) GENBANK-BB 79 0.33 SCIENCE-RESOURCES 64 0.26 BIO-MATRIX 39 0.16 BIO-CONVERSION 36 0.15 POPULATION-BIOLOGY 34 0.14 MOLECULAR-EVOLUTION 29 0.12 PROTEIN-ANALYSIS 20 0.08 AGROFORESTRY 15 0.06 AGEING 14 0.06 RESEARCH-NEWS 13 0.05 EMBL-DATABANK 10 0.04 BIOTECH 10 0.04 GENOMIC-ORGANIZATION 7 0.03 PIR 3 0.01 SWISS-PROT 1 0.004 Totals: 1435 5.91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Before considering the new statistics, first a short note about the development of BIOSCI. BIOSCI grew out of a merger of three organizations: SEQNET run by Michael Ashburner and Martin Bishop at Cambridge in the U.K., the BIONET newsgroups managed by yours truly at the old BIONET National Computer Resource for Molecular Biology here at IntelliGenetics, and BIOTECH run by Deba Patnaik at the University of Maryland. The retention (solely for technological reasons) of the "bionet" name in the USENET distribution of the BIOSCI newsgroups still reflects BIOSCI's origins. In addition to the groups mentioned above, extremely important contributions were also made by Mats Sundvall in Sweden, Rob Harper and Juhani Tenhunen in Finland, Niall O'Reilly in Ireland, and Royd Whittington in the U.K. BIOSCI now has four major distribution sites at the SERC laboratory in the U.K., the Biomedical Research Center at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, the University College Dublin in Ireland, and at GenBank/IntelliGenetics in Mountain View, California. BIOSCI messages are distributed literally to all parts of the globe. Speaking personally, I still am gratified that the above group was able to set aside potential national differences and implement a working system across several different networks, software systems, and hardware platforms. While these considerations have meant that some awkwardness remains in the system (e.g., bounced mail problems at times), the fact persists that the system has worked successfully and has brought people together far more quickly than would have occurred if we had waited for the uniform adoption of more sophisticated technology. BIOSCI's goal was and still is to facilitate bio-scientific communication by providing a bridge across the various network barriers that exist around the world. The recent BIONEWS readership survey demonstrated once again how important this still is. I discovered that many scientists in one country were not able to reach me directly due to network snafus, but *were* able to establish contact by relaying messages through one of the addresses established at their BIOSCI distribution center. This same distribution mechanism allows, for example, scientists in several Pacific Rim countries (e.g., Japan, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand, and Korea) to communicate easily with their counterparts in Europe and the U.S. by posting a single electronic message. Although BIOSCI is still in its infancy, the above statistics show that good progress is being made. As more biologists become "network-literate" we expect that the growth in use of this facility will continue at a dramatic rate. Here are some statistics from past years. From 12/86 - 11/87 the three separate organizations (BIONET, SEQNET, and BIOTECH) posted 551, 51, and 41 messages respectively. The next year BIOSCI was formed, and from 12/87 - 11/88 a total of 956 messages were posted to the newsgroups. Unfortunately, during the strained times in 1989 during the shutdown of BIONET and the rush to establish and open the GenBank On-line Service, I blush to admit that I did not collect BIOSCI usage statistics before the BIONET computer went down. Daily usage was up substantially over 1988 though, but took a significant hit in the last third of 1989 when BIONET went down and all of its users (> 900 labs) lost access to the network. In the 8 month period reported above, it is nice to see that the momentum has resumed and that we are now up to 1435 total postings which, if annualized, is over twice the 1988 rate. Among the established groups, BIONEWS (bionet.general) continues to be the most widely used newsgroup. In the recent readership survey (results being processed now) I received 579 responses from all parts of the globe. These responses will be filtered for duplicates and tabulated by country. Final results will be made public soon after compilation. The new group BIONAUTS (which is a database of user addresses at IRLEARN) is currently atop the list, but this may be due to the initial flurry of database entries on that new group. In general the trend remains that the "practical" newsgroups such as EMPLOYMENT (bionet.jobs) and METHODS-AND-REAGENTS (bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts), etc., top the list while (unfortunately) groups dedicated solely to scientific discussion bring up the middle to lower part. Note, however, that the scientific content on the METHODS newsgroup has been improving dramatically over the last couple of years to the point where it is not uncommon for people from many labs to discuss the merits of various experimental protocols. I am still a bit disappointed, however, that the discussion of ideas has still not taken off on the other newsgroups with only a few exceptions. I continue to believe that one can "talk science" openly without compromising one's "priority" in publishing results. The one surprising finding, however, is that the newsgroups for three of the four major sequence databanks are so underutilized (note, however, that EMBL has posted many messages on BIO-SOFTWARE concerning their file server offerings, so the impression in that instance is incorrect.). Can it truly be the case that the protein databases have nothing to announce to their users? Have their users nothing to say or ask about the databases? It is also a bit sad to see that the BIOTECH bulletin board which was one of the three groups that merged to form BIOSCI has fallen into virtual total neglect since the departure of Deba Patnaik from UMDC some time ago. At one time BIOTECH was posting almost as many messages as BIONET-NEWS and SEQNET, but after Deba's departure this group has essentially died. We tried to convert it to a BIOSCI forum for the discussion of biotechnology issues, but so far without success. Time for some Housecleaning? ---------------------------- The majority of the newsgroups in the list above have obviously justified their existence. However it is probably time to do some housecleaning among the more inactive groups. Based on the above results I would like to propose the idea of shutting down all newsgroups in the list from RESEARCH-NEWS on down except for those devoted to the databanks. We might also consider merging the two protein databanks newsgroups into the PROTEIN-ANALYSIS newsgroup. I will await contact from those two organizations before initiating any further steps on PIR and SWISS-PROT. RESEARCH-NEWS originated from a BIONET newsgroup which was designed as a place for users to post their research interests and strike up collaborations. Although previously very active, this fell into disuse after the BIONET Resource was shut down, but BIONAUTS has replaced its function to some extent. Thus it does not seem that this newsgroup is needed any longer. BIOTECH still seems to be useful as a possible forum for biotechnology, but practically I can not see this occurring unless someone steps forward to volunteer as a moderator to get the newsgroup rolling again. On USENET this group still resides in the sci.bio.technology domain instead of with the other bionet.* groups, so we would also need to resolve this issue if there is still interest in keeping this group as part of BIOSCI. The GENOMIC-ORGANIZATION newsgroup was going to get a new lease on life earlier this year, but the moderators (some prominent people in the Genome community) were not able to take on the job due to relocations and other issues. This group could serve a useful purpose, but could also be let go in favor of the HUMAN-GENOME-PROGRAM newsgroup. We would like to get our readers feedback on these issues. Feel free to either reply directly to BIONEWS or to me personally and I will pass your comments on to the other BIOSCI managers. My thanks once again to all of you who participated in the BIONEWS readership survey and who have shown your support by actively using the newsgroups during BIOSCI's first two and a half years. Sincerely, David Kristofferson, Ph.D. GenBank On-line Service Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net