GOLUB@BIONET-20.ARPA (04/10/88)
From: ELLIS E. GOLUB <GOLUB@BIONET-20.ARPA>
I protest the cancellation of the Brookhaven database by
BIONET. This was a short sighted, penny wise-pound foolish
decision which will have a long term, negative impact on BIONET.
Protein structure-function analysis is among the most active
areas of research in molecular biology computing, and the
Brookhaven database is the raw material on which much of this
research depends. By this decision, BIONET is abrogating its
leadership position as a molecular biology computing resource,
and the focus of protein structural analysis will be driven
elsewhere. If BIONET insists on using user demand as the sole
criterion for resource allocation, it must inevitably move away
from the cutting edge of science to a trailing position.
The apparent lack of user interest in the Brookhaven
database partially resulted from the fact that software for
accessing it has only recently become available on BIONET. By
then, the database was already stale, and had lost some of its
usefulness. The upcoming hardware changes at BIONET would have
greatly facilitated the implementation of sophisticated graphics
software which is normally used for looking at three dimensional
protein structure. When the hardware gets here, BIONET users
will have nothing to look at.
I urge other concerned BIONET subscribers to join me in
protesting this decision. As a main thrust of molecular biology
computing shifts towards protein structure analysis, we must not
allow BIONET to fall behind.
Ellis Golub
Biochemistry Department
University of Pennsylvania
School of Dental Medicine
(215) 898-4629
GOLUB@BIONET-20.ARPA
GOLUB@PENNDRLN
-------CMATHEWS.KRAMER@BIONET-20.ARPA (04/11/88)
From: Jack Kramer <CMATHEWS.KRAMER@BIONET-20.ARPA> seconded -------
KRISTOFFERSON@BIONET-20.ARPA (04/12/88)
From: David Kristofferson <Kristofferson@BIONET-20.ARPA> Ellis et al., I am glad to see that some people have some strong feelings about this issue but please allow me to explain the facts a bit more clearly. We do not have $8,500 in our budget to spend on this database without sacrificing something else and protesting is not going to make this money appear. I have already suggested several alternate funding mechanisms which were unfortunately rejected by Brookhaven due to DOE regulations. Brookhaven, unlike the nucleic acid and protein sequence databases, depends for a large amount of their funding on the sale of tapes, and they are understandably worried about providing unlimited on-line access. This is the main reason why their fees are over an order of magnitude higher than that charged by the other databases. I will detail below some of the proposals that BIONET put forward to Brookhaven. However, if there are enough BIONET users who want to actually put up some money (!) we could raise the $8,500 and provide the database once again. The fee per user would obviously depend upon the number of interested users. Alternatively we will have to wait for a later budget year and request funds for this database. Since it costs $267 for a tape of the database, we suggested to Tom Koetzle at Brookhaven that BIONET put the database in a restricted-access directory, collect the money from interested BIONET users who would be granted access to the directory, and pass the money on to Brookhaven. Since Brookhaven would save the costs of producing and mailing multiple tapes we suggested originally that a discount be given to BIONET users. (Obviously when usage reached the $8,500 per year level this scheme could be changed, but currently I have had less than half a dozen users express interest in this database on BIONET.) Because of some DOE regulations (which I do not understand clearly), this suggestion was rejected by Brookhaven. HOWEVER, I was told that there is nothing "illegal" about having individuals purchase tapes from Brookhaven, send those tapes to us and have us mount them on our machine for use by the purchaser!!! The only way that this differs from BIONET's original proposal is that the user submits the money directly to Brookhaven and the tape gets mailed twice!!! I'd be happy to take further suggestions, comments, etc., on this issue. As I said above if enough users contact me and are willing to put up the funds we may be able to restore access to the database soon. Otherwise we will have to wait for another fiscal year or hope that Brookhaven reconsiders the suggestions that BIONET made above. I must admit that I don't appreciate some of the language in the protest note. The staff at BIONET puts in a LOT (note that "lot" is capitalized!) of time trying to run this resource for the community, and we do not make decisions like this without discussing all of the ramifications. This decision was NOT made hastily. A number of contacts were made with Brookhaven and alternative solutions were explored. Some BIONET users do not understand the magnitude of effort required to keep a Resource of this size running successfully. Users also sometimes lose sight of the fact that the array of services that they can access without limit for a mere $400 per year (unlimited use of software, databases, and worldwide electronic communications) has to be the best deal available in molecular biology computing. This sometimes gives rise to the perception that BIONET can provide unlimited access to *anything* of interest. Unfortunately, superhuman though the BIONET staff may be, there are limits to what even we can do, both in terms of money and human resources. Sincerely, David Kristofferson, Ph.D. BIONET Resource Manager kristofferson@bionet-20.arpa -------