Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bionet!bionet-20.bio.net!Kristofferson From: Kristofferson@BIONET-20.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.general Subject: Re: bionet shutdown Message-ID: <12508526261.16.KRISTOFFERSON@BIONET-20.BIO.NET> Date: 9 Jul 89 05:46:56 GMT References: <8907080438.AA01627@net.bio.net> Sender: daemon@NET.BIO.NET Lines: 49 Due to my direct connection with the BIONET Resource, it is inappropriate for me to be expressing my personal feelings on the outcome of our review in this public forum. However, I do want to state publicly that I feel no rancor towards members of the site team, and I *strongly* deplore in no uncertain terms any attempts to suggest that our site visit was improper. To prevent such uninformed speculations, I will present a few matters of fact as objectively as possible. Members of the site team and I are not at liberty to discuss details of the review, but the decision made appears to follow the letter of the law of DRR regulations, although opinions on the interpretation of these regulations are not unanimous. After seeing how the rules were finally applied in practice during our review we decided that our odds for approval would increase if we withdrew the first application and submitted a new application, since a substantial portion of our in-house research was omitted from the first application and submitted to another agency for reasons that I cannot detail here. However, it is still a requirement under DRR regulations to have an in-house research program. Unfortunately due to budgetary restraints and the demands placed on our staff in running a Resource which has continually increased its available services and grown by 200 labs a year on average for the last five years, it is virtually impossible to do both. Unless one actually tries to run a service the size of BIONET, it is hard to understand the amount of effort involved. As there are few, if any, other molecular biology computing resources the size of BIONET, there are no true "peers" to appreciate this fact. (This response for that matter is being composed on a portable computer via Telenet in Tehachapi, California at the edge of the Mojave Desert while I am supposedly on vacation!) For these reasons trying to continue to force fit a primarily service-oriented organization such as BIONET into the Research Resource mold does not seem appropriate. We are appreciative of the support provided to us during our first five years by the DRR, but the almost dialectical logic has run its course. The bottom line is that the decision was made according to the regulations as explained to the reviewers. In this sense it was "rational" and no other motives should be read into it. If this message still doesn't answer all of your questions, take solace in the fact that it wasn't intended to. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIONET Resource Manager kristoff@net.bio.net -------