Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!apple!bionet!bcm!merlin.bcm.tmc.edu
From: steffen@merlin.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen)
Newsgroups: bionet.general
Subject: Re: What/who is bionet
Message-ID: <1952@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 90 14:58:26 GMT
References: <26EF7F5C.17114@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <11731@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Lines: 52
Nntp-Posting-Host: merlin.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <11731@pucc.Princeton.EDU> UNASMITH@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>
>Perhaps the bionet newsgroups are ready for a discussion of what they
>(we) are, and their purpose.  I hope so, since I'd like to talk about
>these issues...Bionet ... continues to be a vehicle for polite
>requests for help... I think it is fair to say that the bionet
>newsgroups could become much more than they are now... Any comments?

  I, for one, enthusiastically encourage such discussions.  Perhaps
someday the bionet newsgroups will become so busy that such
discussions will become an annoyance, but in my opinion that is far
from true at present.  Further, I think that > 80% of the readership
of these groups are computer enthusiasts.  That is, I think the
readership (or at least those who post) is not broad based nor is it
representative of the biological community.  This has a couple of
consequences:
1) The potential usefulness of the groups is limited by the absence of
a critical mass of expert opinion.
2) Thus, it is in the interest of those of us who use these groups to
discuss how to make them so easy to use that anyone can use them and
so useful that this critical mass will be FORCED to take part, just
for professional survival.
3) Being that most of us are computer enthusiasts, we are the people
who would be most interested in thinking about the problem.

  These was a mini-discussion (micro-discussion?) of some of these
issues on bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts a few weeks back.  One issue
raised there is that access to the groups still is a bit too
user-hostile to make joining by the people whose expertese is in
biology not computers.  A second was how one should best respond to
questions so as to minimize noise (noise?) while maximizing
information flow.  The consensus reached is that for many questions,
the appropriate approach was:
1) Post the question, requesting response by email.
2) The questioner should collect, summarize and post the response for
general edification.
This seems to work rather well.

  An area of difficulty which remains for me is access to collections
of data; both deliberate collections, such as Dr. Richard Roberts
restriction enzyme database (for the helpful among you, you don't need
to post or send me instructions, I know how to do this, its just
rather clumsy and I have to look it up how to do it every time and
frequently I just don't bother) as well as past issues of messages.
It would be better yet if the past issues could be edited and
summarized by someone and made available in a very trivial way.

  As David Kristofferson would/will be quick to point out, all of
these desiderata cost money that the government is loath to provide.


-David Steffen-