Re: 2 groups exist

["L. Cranswick" <L.M.D.Cranswick@dl.ac.uk>]

Sasha wrote:
> I completely agree with the opinion by Tassos. These 2 (or more) groups
> exist. However, the advantage of mathematics is that is it the same common
> language for very many applications. The same for informatics, algorithms
> etc. And I see how people from one of these group lack an experience and
> the knowledges already available in the complementary group. And this makes
> me warry a lot.
> 	We are always speaking about too much specialisation in science. But why
> do we push it even in such small things ? Why do we want to make more and
> more narrow sub-sub-sub-sciences ? Should we learn more from the people
> next door to our ? I remind you that this is the goal of conferences - to
> share your knowledge.

Given there would be a lot of talks that could go into
specialised small molecule/protien sessions, trying to dilute 
things to cater for everyone could be counterproductive?
Just presenting a decent spread of small molecule or
protein topics in a single session would still be difficult.

Having separate sessions would not stop people attending
the alternatives if they were interested - as opposed to 
forcing people to sit through 3 out of 5 talks they may 
not consider relevant - that could have had more "targetted"
specialised contributions that were on "on topic" for
the sub-area of interest.

Lachlan.

-- 
Lachlan M. D. Cranswick

Collaborative Computational Project No 14 (CCP14)
    for Single Crystal and Powder Diffraction
Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington, WA4 4AD U.K
Tel: +44-1925-603703  Fax: +44-1925-603124
E-mail: l.cranswick@dl.ac.uk  Ext: 3703  Room C14
                           http://www.ccp14.ac.uk