Posting spectra

Jean-Claude Bradley Says:
October 11th, 2007 at 1:32 pm e

http://www.chemspider.com/spectra.aspx
and for example benzaldehyde:
http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.235.html
I think a lot of the errors in the literature are due to poor quality spectra and improper referencing. It is really useful to verify that the TMS peak is indeed exactly at zero and that phasing was done properly. JSpecView used by us and ChemSpider allows people to expand any part of the spectrum and integrate at will, which is very handy for measuring fine splitting patterns, including J constants in H NMR spectra. The problems with JSpecView and the new Java version have been resolved by Robert Lancashire and fixed on ChemSpider.

PMR: I think there are the following subtasks:

  • identify the peaks in the spectrum. This could be done automatically or by a human
  • identify the solvent
  • identify the atom labels in the connection table
  • create a peakList where each peak is linked to one or more atoms.

I haven’t looked at JSpecView for a bit and maybe it does (1). If not I have some code somewhere that could be revitalised that uses second derivatives. (3) should be automatic in the generation of CML. Initially (4) must be done by humans, but there could come a phase where the system calculated the shifts and proposed the result to the humans and they then agreed or disagreed. The humans *may* have implicit knowledge which helps the assignment (e.g. relaxation times).
I am really hoping we can find some errors that the method can help with, especially if they are in clodes access publications (open access is junk science anyway).

Posted in nmr, open notebook science | 3 Comments

WWMM calculation of spectra (proposed)

Jean-Claude Bradley has offered us the spectra that come out of his Open Notebook projects…

  1. Jean-Claude Bradley Says:
    October 11th, 2007 at 1:32 pm ePeter – it is great to see you contributing to open NMR data processing.
    For a source of raw spectra, we have been and will continue to upload NMRs of our starting materials and isolated products to ChemSpider.
  2. http://www.chemspider.com/spectra.aspx
    and for example benzaldehyde:
    http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.235.html
  3. I think a lot of the errors in the literature are due to poor quality spectra and improper referencing. It is really useful to verify that the TMS peak is indeed exactly at zero and that phasing was done properly. JSpecView used by us and ChemSpider allows people to expand any part of the spectrum and integrate at will, which is very handy for measuring fine splitting patterns, including J constants in H NMR spectra. The problems with JSpecView and the new Java version have been resolved by Robert Lancashire and fixed on ChemSpider.

PMR: it would be very nice to make this completely automatic. I’ve been talking with Jim. You will need to have a CML files with 3D coordinates and the spectral peaks linked to the carbon atoms (we’re only doing 13C at this time). Have a look at something from NMRShiftDB. Then it is automatic. If you don’t use CML we have a converter for the spectra (from JCAMP) and you can use JUMBO, CDK or OpenBabel for Mol2CML or whatever. We don’t do 2d-3d conversion and this is a problem for the Blue Obelisk at present.
You have to include the solvent. Christoph may be able to add more ideas.
I don’t know how NMRShiftDB did the assignments – I assume someone put them in by hand at time of submission. I am not sure whether JSpecView allows this assignment yet.
The current plan is for something like:
– human uploads 1 (or more) CMLSpect files (3D coords + assigned spectrum) at random time.
– job is given unique ID. molecule is checked for validity and uniqueness. Molecules that are too floppy or too large are filtered out.
– new “directory” is created with uniqueId and submitter is informed of URI. Format to be determined but something like =http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/nmr/jcb/1/ . Input file is /input.cml
– job is converted to gaussian input /input.gau and added to list of josbs-to-be-submitted
– every morning the submitted jobs are cron’ed into Condor.
– when a job finishes it writes /finshed.atom and /output.cml. (It may also create output.html, output.svg to display the results for that molecule on a y = x graph). The finished.atom (atom=Atom Publishing Protocol) alerts the submitter.
Comments are welcome. Jim and I have to fix it.

Posted in nmr, open issues, open notebook science | 3 Comments

Optimal Calendarship

Alma Swan – well known to Open Access, JISC, RIN, etc communities – has posted:

07:20 11/10/2007, Alma Swan, OptimalScholarship
Creative Commons (CC) is celebrating its 5th birthday. Lawrence Lessig has written to all supporters describing its ‘dramatic’ growth during the last quinquennium and yet acknowledging that as CC works to strengthen the underpinnings of participatory culture ‘others are working equally hard to make sure culture remains proprietary’. Although this way of putting it is rather starkly black and white, and there remains a need for proper protection of creative rights in a number of circumstances, there is no doubt that CC has tapped into the new world view of many people, including creators of works of all kinds, that there is great worth (and satisfaction) in opening up and sharing what they produce, at a personal level as well as for humanity as a whole.
Lawrence asks that people help CC celebrate the past 5 years, and plant the seeds for the next five, by helping to grow the commons in 5 ways:
– use 5 CC-licensed works
– license 5 new works
– spread the word and send CC your story of why you support it
– introduce 5 new people to Creative Commons
– increase your previous gift to CC by 50% to help sustain its operations for 2008
The Calendar-for-Open-Access that I have just produced carries a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA licence (attribution-noncommercial-sharealike). I want as many people as possible to print it out and enjoy it next year. You can find it by following the link on our website.
There has been some demand for professionally printed copies, so I am about to place an order with the printer but I need to know the final numbers. If you would like one, I will mail it to you in a card envelope by airmail. Please let me know by email (aswan AT keyperspectives.co.uk) and I will tell you the final price. The cost will be about US$15, €11 or £7, and it could be less if the print run is big enough. These prices are selling at cost – I’ve built no profit into them – but I’ve rounded up to the nearest dollar/euro/pound for simplicity. The extra cents and pennies will be sent to Creative Commons along with my donation for 2008.

PMR: With luck this blog will reach 5 people who didn’t know very much about CC, so I claim a reasonable amount of CC-karma. And, Alma, please put me down for a calendar. I’ll pay you when we meet.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Open NoteBook Science, Chemspiderman, GIAO and HOSE. We write the final paper

We posted yesterday about our proposed Open NoteBook approach to 13C chemical shifts from experiment and calculation and Chemspiderman has posted very helpful contributions, including offers of help. This is much appreciated and accepted. The main problem we have is HOW to do the open stuff (wiki, blog, etc.) not WHETHER. So welcome aboard. But don’t expect things to happen to order 🙂

  1. ChemSpiderMan Says:
    October 11th, 2007 at 3:04 am ePeter…I support and encourage the ONS. We’re working with Jean-Claude Bradley and helping where we can too.In regards to this work you are aware of the study done to apply computer assisted structure elucidation I believe (http://www.chemspider.com/blog/?p=77). A manuscript has just been submitted to J Nat Prod and is in review.
    We have just had a publication accepted to JCIM “Title: “Towards More Reliable 13C and 1H Chemical Shift Prediction: A Systematic Comparison of Neural Network and Least Squares Regression Based Approaches” Author(s): Williams, Antony; Elyashberg, Mikhail; Blinov, Kirill; Smurnyy, Yegor; Churanova, Tatiana”. This related to me finishing up publications from my time at ACD/Labs.
    A lot of work has been done by ACD/Labs to examine the NMRShiftDB database and validate the quality. You’ve seen us (both ACD/labs and ChemSPider) get very vocal about quality in SUPPORT of NMRShiftDB. A manuscript was submitted this week with Christoph Steinbeck (host of NMRShiftDB) as a co-author “”The Performance Validation of Neural Network Based 13C NMR Prediction Using a Publicly Available Data Source.” Authors: Williams, Antony; Blinov, Kirill; Smurnyy, Yegor; Elyashberg, Mikhail; Churanova, Tatiana; Kvasha, Mikhail; Steinbeck, Christoph; Lefebvre, Brent”
    My intuition is that the HOSE-code approach, neural network approach and LSR approach will outperform the GIAO approach. Certainly these approaches would be much faster I believe. It would be good to compare the outcome of your studies with these other prediction algorithms and if the data is open then it will make for a good study.Will it be possible to download the entire dataset with predicted list of shifts in a standard consumable format such as SDF?
    I think ACD/Labs has done a good job validating the quality of the NMRSHIFTDB database and this has been espoused at Ryan’s blog..the last post is http://acdlabs.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/wolfgang-robien.html
    Either wiki or webpage with form for modifying works for me…no preference.
    Is there a timescale for the work? Good luck!
  2. ChemSpiderMan Says:
    October 11th, 2007 at 3:16 am ePeter…one more comment. Thanks to some very valiant efforts by Bob Lancashire to address Java compatibility issues with JSpecView the applet is now working well (http://www.chemspider.com/news/?p=81). The applet already supports CML from NMRShiftDB so you will likely want to adopt this for spectral viewing? http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=707556As an NMR jock I’d welcome the opportunity to help in the project. Of course, if Christoph’s engaged you’ll likely have all the bases covered :-)

PMR: Christoph is visiting the week after next (Christoph, I shall be here during that period so please visit).
Some comments. Everything here is very useful. The references are important and Nick need to know them. They’d be better on a Wiki than in blog comments so we need to think about that. Wikis: They collate very well but are not spam-free. They don’t easily alert in the same way as blogs. Blogs: They alert very well but are not spam-free. They do not collate well at all. We need a synthesis of the two. Neither are good at managing chemistry.
We are both agreed that NMRShiftDB is a valuable resource and needs growing. (It has been attacked by Robien – see above – primarily on the grounds that he got there first, that he has more spectra and that NMRShiftDB is a waste of tax-payers’ money). We have developed SPECTRa as a toolkit for uploading spectra to a repository and are continuing to develop the technology.
We are using crystalEye as the inspiration for this work. The data are robotically harvested, checked and repurposed into CML. In principle we could do this with NMR. It is fairly easy to scrape NMR spectra off publications and we could have 1 million quite easily. However it is more difficult to get the structure – we have ways of doing this.
Unfortunately this is bitterly opposed by some publishers, who see the re-use of data as undermining their business. What a short-sighted view. I shall write later about how this could be a brand-new business, and one we expect to be in. Some publishers so not even expose their data (sic) to non-paying customers. (Open access papers are no good, as they are “junk science”).
If the publishers actually WANT to expose data they could solve the problem in a year. Get the authors to provide InChIs (yes, organometallics are hard) and spectra as CML. All the tools exist.

“My intuition is that the HOSE-code approach, neural network approach and LSR approach will outperform the GIAO approach. Certainly these approaches would be much faster I believe. It would be good to compare the outcome of your studies with these other prediction algorithms and if the data is open then it will make for a good study.Will it be possible to download the entire dataset with predicted list of shifts in a standard consumable format such as SDF?”

I am a supporter of the HOSE code and NN approach, but I have also been impressed with the GIAO method. The time taken is relatively unimportant. A 20-atom molecule takes a day or so, smaller ones are faster. We can run 100 jobs a day – so 30,000 a month. That’s larger than NMRShiftDB.
We shall expose everything as CML. This is far more useful than SDF – e.g. atoms and peaks have clear structures. We’ll probably use an APP (Atom Publishing Protocol)
The main effort is trying to get more data. Here we won’t outline our strategy or the publishers may try to prevent the work before it starts (Wiley sent lawyers to Shelley Batts for posting a single graph with 10 points, so what would they do for a whole spectrum?).

I have extended George Whitesides’ ideas of writing papers that in doing research one should write the final paper first (and then of course modify it as you go along). So here’s what we will have accomplished (please correct mistakes):

We adapted Rychnovksy’s method of calculating 13C NMR shifts by adding (XXX) basis set and functionals (Henry has done this). We extracted 1234 spectra with predicted 3D geometries for rigid molecules in NMRShiftDB (no acyclic-acyclic bond nodes for heavy atoms). Molecules had < = 21 heavy atoms (<= Cl). These were optimised using Gaussian XXX and the isotropic magnetic tensors calculated using correction for the known solvent. The shift was subtracted from the calculated TMS shift (in the same solvent) and the predicted shift compared with the observed.
Initially the RMS deviation was xxx. This was due to a small number of strucures where there appeared to be gross errors of assignment. These were exposed to the community who agreed that these should be removed. The RMS dropped to yyy. The largest deviations were then due to Y-C-X systems, where a correction was applied (with theoretical backing). The RMS then dropped to zzz. The main outliers then appeared to be from laboratory AAA to whom we wrote and they agreed that their output format introduced systematic errors. They have now corrected this. The RMS was now zzz. The deviations were analysed by standard chemoinformatics methods and were found to correlate with the XC(=Z)Y group which probably has two conformations. A conformational analysis of the system was undertaken for any system with this group and the contributions from different conformers averaged. The RMS now dropped to vvv.
This established a protocol for predicting NMR spectra to 99.3% confidence. We then applied this to spectra published in 2007 in major chemical journals. We found that aa% of spectra appeared to be misassigned, and that bb% of suggested structures were "wrong" – i.e. the reported chemical shifts did not fit the reported spectra values.
We argue that if spectra and compounds were published in CMLSpect in the supplemental data it would be possible for reviewers and editors to check the "correctness" on receipt of the manuscript. We wrote to all major editors. aa% agreed this was a good idea and asked us to help. bb% said they had no plans and the community liked things the way it is. cc% said that if we extracted data they would sue us. dd% failed to reply.
We are submitting this journal to the Journal of Open Chemistry as it has been rejected by J. Wonderful Chem (Toll-access) because the work has been done on the Internet and is therefore junk.

Posted in data, open issues | 5 Comments

We start Open Notebook Science at UCC on calculating NMR

We are starting an experiment on Open Notebook Science. See (Open Notebook Science Using Blogs and Wikis : Nature Precedings, Drexel CoAS E-Learning: Open Notebook Science, Useful Chemistry: Cameron Neylon on Open Notebook Science, Drexel CoAS talks mp3 podcast: Open Notebook Science ACS March07 (JCB)). ONS seems to be the generally agreed term for scientific endeavour where the experiments are rapidly posted in public view, possibly before being exhaustively checked. It takes bravery as it isn’t fun if you goof publicly. And there are publishers who say that they won’t pblish the science as it is already in the public domain.
We’re going to start doing ONS. One of the current problems of closed data is that the chemical literature is often just plain wrong. Sometimes it’s typos, sometimes it’s misassignments of peaks, bad computational parameters and many other causes. The recent controversy over hexacyclinol – where a published structure seems to be “wrong” – has sparked one good development – the realisation that high-quality QM calculations can predict experimental data well enough to show whether the published structure is “correct”. Joe Townsend has been doing this for crystal structures and shown that the approach can be automated and gives very good results.
We’re now starting to do this for NMR spectra. Henry Rzepa has taken Scott Rychnovksy’s methods for calculating 13C spectra and refined the protocol. Christoph Steinbeck has helped us get 20, 000 spectra from NMRShiftDB and Nick Day (of crystalEye fame) has amended the protocls so we can run hundreds of jobs per day on tne CamGrid Condor cluster.
This results will go directly into public view. (Any delay will be technical not lack of will). For each molecule we shall have the observed peakList and the calculated structure and peakList. (We use CML to hold these which makes it enormously easier to manipulate the system and achieve high-throughput). Each structure will have a web page with the data and a graph comparing observed and calculated shifts.
We’d like user comments. We’re not exactly sure what the best format is – a Wiki with entries for each molecule (can we write to that automatically?); a templated web page with a form for modifying it?  Suggestions welcome.
But we hope to show that the philosophy works, that the method works, and that NMRShiftDB has a measurable high-quality. We expect some variation due to experimental error in the spectra, to misassignment, but also to problems in the calculation – where we can contribute improvements.
Nick and Peter

Posted in data, open issues | 7 Comments

What are the shortest and longest known As-As bonds?

How would you find the answer to this question?
How long did it take you?
How sure are you that your answer is correct?
What would you do to check?
Comments welcome.

Posted in data, open issues | 5 Comments

A sad day for ACS

Peter Suber has relayed a message which has been widely posted.

This memo from “ACS Insider” has been sent directly to many librarians and university administrators, and to at least one public listserv, NASW-Freelance from the National Association of Science Writers.  I received  a copy from one of the recipients.  I don’t know anything about the pseudonymous author.

I’ve been an ACS [American Chemical Society] employee for many, many years, but I’ve grown  concerned with the direction of the organization. I’m sending this email to  alert you that ACS has grown increasingly corporate in its structure and focus. Management is much more concerned with getting bonuses and growing their salaries rather than doing what is best for membership. For instance, Madeleine Jacobs now pulling in almost $1 million in salary and bonuses. That’s almost 3X what Alan Leshner makes over at AAAS, and almost double what Drew Gilpin Faust makes to lead Harvard.
I think Madeleine is smart, but I’m not quite sure if she’s in the  same category as Dr. Faust. She doesn’t even have a PhD!
What really concerns me is a move by ACS management to undermine the open-access movement. Rudy Baum has been leading the fight with  several humorous editorials — one in which he referred to open-access in the pages of C&EN as “socialized science.” ACS has also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in membership money to hire a company to lobby against open-access.
What troubles me the most is when ACS management decided to hire Dezenhall Resources to fight open-access. Nature got hold of some internal ACS emails written by Brian Crawford that discussed how Dezenhall could help us undermine open-access. Dezenhall later  created a group called Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and  Medicine (PRISM), which has this silly argument that open-access means “no more peer-review.”
If you’re wondering why ACS is fighting this, it’s because people like Rudy Baum, Brian Crawford and other ACS managers receive bonuses based on how much money the publishing division generates. Hurt the  publishing revenue; you hurt their bonuses.
I’m hoping that sending out this email will get people to force ACS executives to become more transparent in how they act and spend membership money. Not to mention their crazy need for fatter salaries.
It’s time for some change. If you want to check out the sources for  this information, there is a wiki site that has all the articles and documents outlining what I’ve just written.  You can find it here.
Those of inside ACS know that it’s time for things to change. But management won’t alter their behavior. The money is just too good.

PS: Comments

  • The claim that ACS executives “receive bonuses based on how much money the publishing division generates” was also made by Paul Thacker in the Summer 2007 issue of SEJournal.  See my blog comments on it from last week.

PMR: I write this with sadness and concern. I know many members and staff in ACS and visited and spoke to the publishing group 2 years ago at their invitation. I have no idea who the writer is and don’t want to. I am not American, nor a member of ACS, so it’s only partly my business. Except that the ACS is the largest chemical society in the world and has effectively enormous power, not just in the US but also globally. Why does it matter?
A commercial publisher – as Alma Swan argued – has a responsibility to its shareholders. It must make as much money as possible, subject only to legality and, possibly general human morality. But a learned society has a duty to its membership, and more widely to the community. Charters of such societies often require a commitment to national and international concerns, which for chemistry might be education, health, safety, pollution, climate change, etc.
The concern over open access is very serious. Increasingly we look to societies for leadership in difficult issues, such as climate change. The arguments depend in part on factual data, which besides requiring absolute integrity of publication, increasingly also demand open availability. An organisation in conflict with a large portion of its constituency and with what appears to be serious internal turmoil may find it difficult to give global leads when these are required.

Posted in open issues | 2 Comments

Re-use: Price and permission barriers

When scientists read publications they often want to re-use them. What do we mean by “re-use”? Isn’t reading good enough? No. Re-use means that they can take the information in the publication and, while preserving the provenance, use it for other purposes.  Typical Web 2.0 uses are “mashups”, where two sets of data are combined. Each by itself carries a simple message, but together they can often add much more. For example if we have 2 sets of independent observations at a series of geographic locations we can often find marvellous things.
Full re-use is described (and I thought defined) in the BBB declarations. Here is a discussion of the value of “green open access” where the reader (always a human) can read, but not normally re-use the information. In contrast “gold open access” should allow full re-use… Many “open access” publishers provide full BBB compliance, but some do not. I argue this is unacceptable and look to the Open Access community to take the same stance:
var imagebase=’file://C:/Program Files/FeedReader30/’;

16:16 10/10/2007, Peter Suber, Open Access News

Stevan Harnad, On Paid Gold OA, Central Repositories, and “Re-Use” Rights, Open Access Archivangelism, October 9, 2007.  Excerpt:

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 Andrew Albanese, Associate Editor, Library Journal, wrote:

“[J]ust writing to see if you have any thoughts on the UKPMC [UK PubMed Central] statement on re-use…seems a little unnecessary to me. Stating the obvious? Rather than say “copyright still applies,” would it not have been more useful to issue guidelines on, say, how to craft a copyright clause that facilitates open access? Do these broad statements help anyone?”

I agree that the UKPMC re-use statement is unnecessary and stating the obvious….
To begin with, the UKPMC statement is about paid Gold OA, and (for reasons I have adduced many times before) I believe that…paying for Gold OA at this time is unnecessary and a waste of money (until and unless most or all of the institutional money that is currently being spent on subscriptions is released to pay for Gold OA)….Gold OA is far from being either the fastest or surest way to scale up to 100% OA today….The fastest and surest way to provide 100% OA today is for authors to self-archive their (published) articles….
PS: Comment.  I can’t agree.  While the statement focuses on details of gold OA, it says nothing to encourage gold OA in preference to green OA, and when implemented it will do nothing to slow down green OA.  General arguments to prefer green OA are not germane here.  Nor does the agreement state the obvious.  It describes what re-use rights publishers should provide when funders pay for gold OA.  That’s new, beneficial, and important.  From my blog comment on Monday:  “When a funder pays a publisher to make an article OA, the publisher should remove permission barriers as well as price barriers.  But too often publishers have only removed price barriers.  This agreement to remove a key set of permission barriers is an important step forward that will help users get their work done (both human and machine users), help funders get full value for their investment, and help all players live up to the full BBB definition of OA.”
PMR:  I am completely with PeterS. If authors pay for Open Access they should have all permission barriers removed. Unless this happens we see the mess in hybrid journals where authors pay lots of money for poor products, where permission barriers remain. The Open Access community must speak with one mind on this to help make it absolutely clear to funders of “OA” that it is full removal of permission barriers – no halfway.

Posted in open issues | 1 Comment

Video of Paul Miller's talk at Unilever Centre

Nico Adams has very kindly video’ed Paul Miller’s talk here and uploaded the result to Google. The original video is 15 GB so Nico has reduced it to 1 GB using iMovie. You can see the result on his blog:
The Semantic Web of Data
Note that Google reduces it further (to ca 256 MBytes) so the Google replay is rather pixellated. However the download is of higher quality. Paul, if you want the raw video (15GB) contact Nico.
P.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

My talk at Cambridge Network

As I blogged I was invited to speak yesterday at Cambridge Network on “Cambridge ideas that change the world”. I’d originally given a title of “The Semantic Web” and thought I would say something about it that would entertain and inform the audience – who are made up of companies, facilitators, lawyers, authors, university etc. etc. I hadn’t been before, though Jim Downing is a member.
As it drew closer I began to panic. I could say and show some fun things about the SW, but this wasn’t a Cambridge idea, and who was I to be speaking about this. And yes, it might and will change the world, but not through anything to do with me. I sweated over the weekend, not really knowing what to say, in what order, etc. Watched some of the rugby, while tidying the email on my new computer, etc. Read a bit of Nodalities on the SW. More panic. After all this was also about new market opportunities. Diverted by reading blogs, and then came across Peter Suber’s account (Is there a Steve Jobs of journal publishing?) of Alexandre Linhares’, A modest (billion-dollar) proposal.
This was a lifeline. I could reasonably talk about this. And our robots are going to change the world – at least in chemistry. And also bring in the “datument” – a portmanteau of “data+document” that Henry Rzepa and I invented 5-6 years’ ago and whose time has come. So I changed the title to
“Datuments and scientific publishing”
And started frantically preparing my talk. My talks are, as I have mentioned, normally a ski-run of hundreds of possibilities where I don’t know what I’m going to say in detail. But I needed new material, fast. And I could immediately mine the talks which Joe Townsend and Nick Day had given at ACS meetings. So I went to their Powerpoint presentations (and regular readers know what I think about Powerpoint) and found some exciting slides.
We were now less that 24hrs before presentation and it took till 0300 to put some stuff together. I’d resigned myself to using Powerpoint because I didn’t have time to do anything else. As the talk was 10-15 minutes that made some sort of sense, although I still planned to have 2-3 live demos. As we know, the shorter the talk, the harder to prepare it.
A theme had appeared – robots that change the world. We have a good series of robots, and I thought they would make a good storyline. (They did). However it was clear that I would have to forgo the live demos. Too much danger of losing time, etc. The dynamics would have to be provided by simple animation. Even here I had to call on Nick’s services as I am a Powerpoint incompetent. About 20 slides in talk.
20 slides (some with multiple components) for 10-15 minutes is tough going – almost skiing. But they are fairly visual and I can talk fast (which gives the effect of animation). Still had to get a number of slides the next day from collaborators. Found out that I couldn’t use the Internet in the talk (but I’d anticipated this). Finally managed to get something together.
Normally I have my little html menu so I know what slides I can choose, but with Powerpoint I don’t. I therefore wrote the subjects of the slides on a bit of paper. And I took some props to demonstrate – I felt exactly as if I were going into the DragonsDen (where budding entrepreneurs pitch their products and get put under the spotlight). I was selling a new product – the Datument.
Suddenly during the first talk (I was third) I realised I’d lost my paper. Real panic. And the others really had something to show. Quantum computing, personalised lasers and manufacture, repairing brains. I had no clothes. What a stupid topic and title I had chosen. This wouldn’t change the world. And hundreds of Cambridge entrepreneurs had paid money for this event.
So – whatever – I pitched the idea of a billion dollar market in scientific publishing. When, not if, half the major scientific publishers go out of business. At least I was sincere about that – they will. I didn’t get any offers of even millions of dollars, but I did get a few laughs, and quite a few people came up afterwards and showed real interest.
But I owe a lot to my helpers on the night. Here they are:
oscar.PNG
OSCAR – the journal eating robot
spider.JPG
The crystaleye spider (Nick) whose little dance amused the crowd
crystaleye.png
crystaleye itself
monkey.jpg
and the blue obelisk greasemonkey.
So thanks to them, thanks to Nick and Joe and Dave and Nico and Jim and …
The Powerpoint should be up on the website as soon as I remember the password…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment