Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!shelby!apple!usc!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!mbcl!goldman
From: goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.news
Subject: Re: TIME WELL SPENT
Message-ID: <82.27286039@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Date: 26 Oct 90 20:11:35 GMT
References: <9010211837.AA21273@genbank.bio.net>
Lines: 49

In article <9010211837.AA21273@genbank.bio.net>, DANJ@jhuhyg.bitnet (DAN) writes:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> 
> 
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> Hi,
> 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 theref
> ore available.  Since then I've thought of a few better arguments but his initi
> al reaction was to say the least - unimpressed.  This brings me to my question
> to all my fellow netters out there - What do we say to those who are unitiated
> in the world of electronic communication and lack the grand vision (ie BIO-MATR
> IX type stuff) that many netters seem to have?  How do we impress upon those ho
> stile elements of bio-society that computer nets have value and that the time s
> pent learning how to use them is indeed time well spent?
> 
  Dan,  I would argue that in the strictly scientific world, you learn about
fixes to programs, many of which are posted here.  You want to find out if
there's a bug in the FASTA routine in GCG?  Post it here.  Find out how to
use the GenBank FASTA server?  Post it here.  The reason for this is the
same reason that it makes sense to talk to colleagues anywhere.  He wouldn't
consider it wrong if you wandered down the hall and talked to another graduate
student about a problem you were having.  Why is it wrong to wander across
to Australia and ask someone there?  

In fact, in some ways NEWS and electronic mail are better than colleagues at 
the end of the hall or the telephone line.  With electronic
messaging, the people you want to communicate will definitely get your 
message.  And - though he doesn't realise it - the activation barrier is
MUCH LOWER to replying to electronic mail.  (Witness this reply.)  I don't
think I'm alone in finding electronic mail a MUCH lower activation barrier
to reply to than phones or paper mail.  Because with phones, you may end up
playing telephone tag, and with mail, you have to write an envelope (even if
you have a wordprocessing program to do the letter).  And you have to find a
postage stamp and post the bloody thing.

	that's my 2 cents.

			Adrian Goldman
			Assistant Professor, Rutgers University
			(goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu)

but then I'm a crystallographer, and crystallographers have tended to be
at the forefront in computing in biology....

If I have a crystallographic problem (I'm an
x-ray crystallographer) then I can phone my friend at Northwestern, but, like
as not, we'll end up playing telephone tag.