BIOSCI not in Science ... :-(
kristoff at NET.BIO.NET
Tue Apr 20 11:35:17 EST 1993
> >"I regret to say that we are not able to publish it. Space
> >restrictions limit the number of letters we can publish and so we must
> >reject many fine contributions."
> >The letter that I mailed in was brief, with one paragraph mentioning
> >some of the uses of BIOSCI and a second giving our e-mail address to
> >contact for further information. Unfortunately, Science is once again
> >going to leave biologists in the dark about BIOSCI.
> So Dave,
> what do you recommend the bionet community do now?
> Should we bombard Science with mail telling them we are not happy
> about this?
> Should we all cancel our Science subscription? :-)
I wouldn't advocate the latter but I *do* think if Science received
several letters indicating (1) that many biologists are not aware of
network resources such as BIOSCI; (2) how useful BIOSCI/gopher/WAIS
etc. has been to their own research, and (3) urging Science to do a
story on these free resources that are available to biologists, then
we might finally get someplace. My singlehanded effort this time and
previous joint efforts by Dan Davison, Don Gilbert, Rob Harper, and
yours truly have not been successful. Science is doing the biology
community a disservice by withholding this information from biologists
at large. Surely if they can do a story for physicists, they can help
the biology community which seems to publish many more articles in
their journal. I am not asking just for an article on BIOSCI. I
think that all of the currently available major resources should be
described and people like Dan Davidson, Don Gilbert, Rob Harper, and
Dan Jacobson, et al., should be recognized.
I am not advocating that people "bombard" Science with outraged
complaints, but I do think that it is time for many reasoned letters
to be sent in asking them to help us in our educational effort. Why
not send them directly to Dr. Koshland?
kristoff at net.bio.net
More information about the Bioforum