On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 18:17 +0100, Gerard Bricogne wrote:
> it would be of the greatest value to that
> investigator to be able to double-check how reliable some features of
> that
> structure (especially its ligands) actually are.
Certainly, one could argue here that the current PDB policy that
requires the deposition of the processed data already provides that
option. I must add though that I find it disturbingly easy to
manipulate the Fo's to produce any ligand anywhere and generate a fake
dataset that is essentially impossible to detect as such. It is only a
matter of time until someone under pressure does this, in all
likelihood, this might have already happened. True, diffraction images
can also be ultimately manipulated, but that requires much higher level
of sophistication, and the hope is that individuals capable of such feat
have better things to do with their skills.
It seems to me that the cost of storage is so cheap these days that even
if reducing the chances of another retraction disaster is the only
benefit, it is worth it. There are many other reasons why the benefits
of image deposition outweigh the costs, which reminds me of an old joke:
- Colonel, why your cannons did not fire?
- General, there were five reasons. First, we had no gunpowder,
second...
- This one is enough!
Cheers,
Ed.
--
Oh, suddenly throwing a giraffe into a volcano to make water is crazy?
Julian, King of Lemurs
|