Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!bionet!lhc!usenet From: usenet@nlm.nih.gov (usenet news poster) Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.genbank Subject: Re: ANONYMOUS FTP FROM BITNET Keywords: Internet Message-ID: <1990Oct3.195352.5977@nlm.nih.gov> Date: 3 Oct 90 19:53:52 GMT References: <9009290610.AA23614@genbank.bio.net> <1990Sep30.043924.19653@nlm.nih.gov> Reply-To: states@ray.NLM.NIH.GOV (David States) Organization: National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md. Lines: 121 In response to my comment: >> With TCP/IP, the turn around is still interactive rather than hours or >> days as in FASTA-mail. kristoff@genbank.bio.net (David Kristofferson) writes: >[...] However there was one statement made in Mr. States' message >which was less than accurate. > >As many of our readers know, FASTA-MAIL is a GenBank service. As our >readers who have USED THE SERVICE also know, the turnaround on >FASTA-MAIL, while not "interactive," is very fast, on the order of >minutes, not "hours or days." I recently did a demonstration of the >service in Mr. States' back yard at the NIH and got the results of my >search back in about ten minutes. The turn around time for FASTA-MAIL is dependent on both the response time of the server itself and the network handling the electronic mail transactions. My comments were made in the context of a discussion of the latter. As Dave Kristofferson points out, at a site like NIH, where E-mail is handled by INTERNET, the turn around time can be pretty good. There are, however, sites where E-mail processing is handled as a low priority batch process. If you are dependent on one of those sites, you may see a dramatic improvement in E-mail mediated services by getting onto INTERNET. David Kristofferson then goes on to say: >So much for specifics, but now for a more general and much more >important statement about Mr. [sic] States' remark about FASTA-MAIL. > >As I mentioned in a recent posting on BIONEWS, there are many >discussions going on right now in "high places" related to the future >of bio-computing, particularly as it impacts the Genome Project. The >National Center for Biotechnology Information where David works is a >key player in these debates and will be the agency that oversees the >next GenBank contract which will start in 1992. One would hope that, >given NCBI's important role, public statements by its employees should >be very carefully considered and based on fact, not on distortions. >If there is a better way of doing things, then it should be perfectly >possible to demonstrate it by setting up and successfully running a >service. NCBI has already provided us with some fine software such as >IRX and BLAST, so I do not doubt their talents in software >development. However, I sincerely hope that we will evolve into the >future in this fashion **** rather than by attempting to put down >existing systems through the spread of misinformation ****. We appreciate the compliment on our software, but I really don't feel that a comment on the relative technological merits of electronic mail handling should be construed as "putting down an existing organization existing systems through the spread of misinformation". Readers of this news group are quite able to assess response time at their own sites, and the global handling of E-mail is beyond the control of GenBank in any case. >GenBank has unfortunately been an easy target to shoot at because the >first five year contract underestimated the size of the task [...] >One can also still find responsible people quoting outdated GenBank >backlog statistics in print. I did not quote any statistics on the GenBank backlog in my posting (current or previous). >You have my solemn word that if flaws are pointed out we will OPENLY >either attempt to correct them to the best of our ability or step >aside if the system is so structurally flawed that an entirely new >attempt is needed. However you may also rest assured that I will >vigorously respond to any attempt at distortion of the facts. It is >always easy to tear down through distortion, but this is not the kind >of tactic that one would expect from those who are really professional >and who really have better ways of doing things. Their results should >be able to speak for themselves. > >I also suggest that the community pay close attention to any services >offerred and provide their feedback ** before ** decisions are made. > >*** In the end, it will be the users who will be left with the results. *** > >Given the amount of data projected to be generated by the Genome >Project a mistake made now would make the backlog of the initial >GenBank attempt appear miniscule by comparison. Unfortunately the >users are often the last to react because they are not brought in to >the decision loop. I have argued before, and will do so again, that >electronic newsgroups can be a new element in this review process. >Although the decision must ultimately be the responsibility of a >single person or small group, the technology nows exists to easily >sample a wide range of opinion. Why not take advantage of this, >particularly when so much is at stake? Why not utilize the collective >experience residing on the net? Currently we have "developers >meetings" where people are asked to digest a large amount of new >information in the course of a day. Why not do this over the net so >that people can react more intelligently than in a one day jet-lagged >haze? > >After all, scientists are supposed to be progressive, right? ... right? It is apparent that my posting elicited some rather stongly held feelings. I think both Dave and I agree that the biomedical research community is going to face some quite significant information handling challenges in the near future, and that we would all be best served by the rational use of available technology. Electronic mail and networks are clearly a part of this so let's avoid unnecessary personal flames. A lively and open discussion depends on all parties feeling free to post their opinions. >-- > Sincerely, > > Dave Kristofferson > GenBank Manager > > kristoff@genbank.bio.net David J. States, M.D.,Ph.D. Senior Staff Fellow National Center for Biotechnology Information National Library of Medicine states@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov