DAY@OCELOT.RUTGERS.EDU (Peter Day) (04/25/91)
To Arabidopsis Newsgroup Readers
In a recent email to Chris Somerville I added a note to say
that I was disappointed in the kind of exchanges we have on the
Arabidopsis information network. He suggested that I write a
piece for the start of the new system. Here goes.
Since I signed on last December there have been few items of
substance. Among them were the minutes of the Joint Informatics
Task Force meeting in November, Delaney's note on lamda DNA
preparations in December, and the email address list in March.
This is not to say that the more than 70 other exchanges I have
read were not useful or interesting but to me most were either
not of general interest or lacked that element that makes you say
to a colleague "if you didn't read that yet you should".
I must admit that I had hoped to see more in the way of
discussions, arguments, useful gadgetry, comments on new methods
and equipment, preprints of short accepted papers, or abstracts
of longer ones, brief reports on seminars and meetings, notices
of forthcoming ones, grant opportunities, trial balloons, and
some plain crazy ideas - all of course relevant to people inter-
ested in Arabidopsis.
To risk preaching to the converted let me report that at the
meeting in Raleigh, NC last month on Plant Breeding in the Nine-
ties, Dick Flavell stressed the important role that Arabidopsis
will play in plant breeding. You will know what he was driving
at - the value of a model system for isolating genes of economic
interest and seeing how to regulate, integrate, and manipulate
them and then doing it with other plant systems. I believe the
news group network provides an important way to accelerate all of
this. Some people will be afraid of having their ideas pirated.
However, unlike a casual conversation, the ideas we float in this
medium are recorded for all to see. I daresay that if proof of
priority were required this is it.
I remember many years ago learning the easy way to make up
70% ethanol from 95%, which is much cheaper than 100%, by taking
70 ml and adding 25 ml of water to a final volume of 95 ml. Our
students have many other simple tricks of the trade and ideas to
learn, can we not share them more openly here?
The recent burst of exchanges about tetraploidy is a good
sign. It will be to everyone's benefit if we continue to respond
to queries by writing to the network and not just the person
raising the question.
Peter Day, Rutgers.
April 25, 1991kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) (04/26/91)
> Since I signed on last December there have been few items of > substance. Among them were the minutes of the Joint Informatics > Task Force meeting in November, Delaney's note on lamda DNA > preparations in December, and the email address list in March. > This is not to say that the more than 70 other exchanges I have > read were not useful or interesting but to me most were either > not of general interest or lacked that element that makes you say > to a colleague "if you didn't read that yet you should". Having been working for almost five years now in organizing BIOSCI and in promoting the use of electronic newsgroups among biologists (in addition to my many other duties), this has always been a common problem. We can provide the technology for scientists to use, but, just like a telephone, if you don't pick it up and talk, it won't do you any good. Also note that any of these newsgroups can be converted to a moderated (read "reviewed") journal at no cost if someone volunteers to form an editorial board. > I must admit that I had hoped to see more in the way of > discussions, arguments, useful gadgetry, comments on new methods > and equipment, preprints of short accepted papers, or abstracts > of longer ones, brief reports on seminars and meetings, notices > of forthcoming ones, grant opportunities, trial balloons, and > I think that you will find the following item from the METHODS newsgroup inspiring. These newsgroups *do* work once people get over their initial inertia. The old rule also holds that if you never give anything, your chances of receiving are also diminished. The following example shows that scientists *can* be generous despite all of the concerns about "priority." This example also illustrates in a small way that science through the help of the networks brings the world closer together. Sincerely, David Kristofferson, Ph.D. GenBank Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From dadler@milton.u.washington.edu (David Adler) Tue Oct 30 09:42:49 1990 Path: bionet!lhc!nih-csl!uunet!wuarchive!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!dadler From: dadler@milton.u.washington.edu (David Adler) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts Subject: Re: TIME WELL SPENT Message-ID: <10230@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: 30 Oct 90 17:42:49 GMT References: <9010211852.AA21803@genbank.bio.net> Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 48 Sender:dadler@milton.washington.edu Dan Jacobson writes: My adviser recently questioned the value of my being invoved in such things as the BIONET. Somewhat stunned I stammered something about the value of being in contact with hundreds (thousands?) of other bio-scientists and the help therefore available. ... I was just about to write a thank you to bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts readers/participants when I read this message, so I will role my thank you and comments into one. About a week and half ago I ran out of the restriction enzyme, MaeII, that I needed to complete an important series of experiments. The enzyme is very expensive and only available from Boehringer. Being conservative I had only ordered what I thought would be enough and thus got caught short by 100 or so units. The day after I ordered it I was told that this enzyme was now on indefinite backorder. I called everyone I knew at BM but was told there was none available. A bit frantic, and I must say skeptical, I posted a message to bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts relaying my desperate need and asking for assistance. Within 8 hours I received two replies, the first was a phone call from someone at the Univ. of Chicago who thought they had some in their freezer, but turned out not the case. The second was e-mail from Nigel Brown, at the Univ. of Birmingham, U.K., who did not have any but gave me the name and phone number of the person in Germany who originally determined the enzyme's specificity. In addition Nigel educated me on the concept of exclusive production licenses. I then called Rudi Schmitt, Nigel's lead, at the Univ of Regensberg and asked about the MaeII supply situation. He explained that now he also gets his supply from Boehringer and that the enzyme is very dificult to purify thus the high price and possible production problems. He said that he would call the BM labs in Penzberg and see if he could russle up some enzyme. Two days later I received a FAX from B. Frey of BM-Penzberg that they have a small amount in the freezer and would supply me with what I needed to complete my current experiments. The enzyme is now being shipped. I wanted to thank, Nigel Smith, Rudi Shmitt, and B. Frey at BM-Penzberg and most important the network without which I either would never have gotten the enzyme or spent a lot more time and money tracking it down. This single network success easily has justified the time I spend on the network not to mention all the various pertinent information exchange that goes on daily. I also believe that this computer network is still in its infancy and it is only through broadening participation that it will fulfill the potential of rapid and efficient exchange of scientific information. Prejudice and fear is often the result of ignorance and so education is likely what is needed to respond to Dan's situation. As an aside it is most curious that this situation is at Johns Hopkins, home of major genetic databases, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man and the new Genome Data Base. Maybe Dan's mentor needs to have a conversation with Victor McKusick, he may be just down the hall.