Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!princeton!phoenix!unasmith From: unasmith@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Una Smith) Newsgroups: bionet.software Subject: Re: Re easy vs powerful OS - Message-ID: <7334@idunno.Princeton.EDU> Date: 19 Mar 91 23:34:08 GMT References: <9103191019.AA06674@genbank.bio.net> Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU Organization: Princeton University Lines: 97 Bill Pearson: >>People learn to use what they need. Cary O'Donnell: >If only that statement were true! Most users' experience is to the contrary, >and surely what sparked the whole debate off. The point is that DESPITE the >high level of ability in one area, many biologists find the use of computers >a difficult task. In my experience, both views are accurate. Some highly regarded scientists seem incapable of doing anything more than writing grant proposals on MACs or PCs. Occasionally, students have this problem too, but only rarely. I have introduced many, many scientists (faculty and students) to computers, and seen most of them quickly grasp these tools, becoming highly competent, efficient computer users. In my experience, scientists are capable of absorbing almost effortlessly everything they need to know to do the things they want with computers. When scientists (and others) fail to learn in this fashion, I generally get the impression that they don't really care to learn. They may make a stab at learning, but only because they see other scientists getting excited about computers, and they think that computers are something they too should know how to use. Computers are not the only modern tool that many scientists think they have to use; molecular techniques are another tool that some researchers feel compelled to learn to use, whether they need it or not. The ratio of computer support to need-for-support seems to vary with the proportion of the faculty who use computers. In other words, when researchers are stuck on the low end of the computer resource curve, thus needing the most support, they have the most trouble convincing their colleagues and administrators that computers (and computer technicians) are needed. It's a sad situation: the more you need relative to what you have, the less you get. Departments on the low end of the computer resource curve tend to perceive computers as hard to use, and not worth the investment needed to significantly improve computer resources; they tend to lock themselves into a vicious cycle, and do not advance up the resource curve unless the university administration steps in. Departments on the high end of the curve are astonishingly adept at staying there. I should explain how I came by my opinions. I worked as a computer consultant at Princeton University for 4 years, 1983-87, during which time most departments went from the very bottom to well up the computer resource curve, thanks to a very strong committment by the University President and Trustees. Then, for 2 years, I worked for the Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution (a branch of the Smithsonian Institution located in Panama). During this time, individual faculty members and graduate students in the Princeton department continued to make significant contributions to the computer resources of the entire department, and the department began to demand that the university supply it with even more resources, instead of being forced to take them by the university. Meanwhile, the Smithsonian realized that a growing number of visiting researchers either brought their own computers with them, or required that the Smithsonian provide them with computers during their stay. Suddenly, over the course of a two year period, virtually every permanent employee was given a PC, and computer laboratories were set up for the use of visitors in every facility. The process was extremely educational for everyone concerned. As is often the case, the Smithsonian staff initially saw no need to provide computer resources to visiting students, nor to hire computer support personnel. But once the students at one facility managed to assemble a computer laboratory, and began to use the laboratory to analyze their data as they collected it, it became obvious that they did indeed need computer resources. Once computers were available, the many visiting scientists quickly showed just how useful computers can be, and the computer literacy and sophistication of the Smithsonian staff and administration grew by leaps and bounds. The willingness of the Smithsonian to consider hiring computer support personnel increased only with increasing computer literacy. The rate of change has been truely dramatic, and I believe that the quality and quantity of research has also increased significantly. I am now a graduate student at Duke University, where the Life Science departments are still stuck at the bottom of the computer resource curve. A recent accreditation inspection of the University gave generally high marks, but singled out computing as a severe deficit. There are many signs that the University administration recognizes the problems, but the University has not yet seen fit to invest any significant financial resources to improve computing at Duke, apparently hoping that the individual departments will find their own solutions. How bad is the situation here? I'll just point out that I find it either convenient or necessary to use a computer at Princeton to participate in this discussion. - Una