I have a computer science student friend who pokes fun at me for taking BOINC so seriously. I just had a conversation with him where he claims BOINC doesn't help science or scientists! I'll quote the coversation, in part, below (with his name removed, of course). What can I say to convince him? A project scientist chiming in would be neat too ;)

ME(4:06:19 PM): as a computer scientist you should think DC/boinc is neat!
HIM(4:06:21 PM): you're just lucky i don't try to explain how boinc actually doesn't help anyone
ME(4:06:31 PM): but it does!
HIM(4:06:34 PM): not really
ME(4:06:37 PM): lies
HIM(4:06:48 PM): like i said before, it helps computer science a lot more than medicine

ME(4:08:52 PM): this is one of the two i run: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/
they MUST be getting something useful from the project or they wouldn't do it!

ME(4:12:11 PM): again - WHY would rosetta (for example) make and maintain a project for NO REASON?
HIM(4:10:30 PM): but when you look at all these projects, what are their results?
HIM(4:10:37 PM): for rosetta, i can't find any

HIM(4:22:54 PM): but that research, at the moment, is not really being applied, and as far as i know, aside from the climate change one (the results of which have been disputed) nothing practical has come out of it

---

HIM(4:06:48 PM): like i said before, it helps computer science a lot more than medicine

HIM(4:10:30 PM): but when you look at all these projects, what are their results?
HIM(4:10:37 PM): for rosetta, i can't find any

HIM(4:22:54 PM): but that research, at the moment, is not really being applied, and as far as i know, aside from the climate change one (the results of which have been disputed) nothing practical has come out of it

I would argue that for Rosetta at least, many of the practical results are the computer science that is related to the medicine. Much of this project DOES benefit computer science more than medicine. What HIM is missing however, is that the benefit to computer science results in a benefit to medicine. With better (faser, more accurate) predictive abilities, the medical research community is able to make new discoveries and develop better treatments a lot more efficiently.

At the same time, the project team here is working on a number of projects very much related to advances in medicine. I would cite the collaboration on HIV, the fybril structure predictions, and Brian Kidd's new WUs dealing with allosteric proteins. The results of these projects are not out there for HIM to find yet because they are still running and because structure prediction is only a first step, but a necessary step, in the kind of results that HIM is probably looking for.

Ummm, I'll assume for the moment that we're talking Distributed/Grid Computing here, of which Boinc is merely Middleware.

So, your friend is the type who likes instant gratification, huh?

44th Known Mersenne Prime Found

GIMPS Success Stories

M4 Message Breaking Project

Optimal Golomb Ruler(OGR)
"OGR's have many applications including sensor placements for X-ray crystallography and radio astronomy. Golomb rulers can also play a significant role in combinatorics, coding theory and communications..."

Simap
Project status
The project has currently no work (see below).
The similarity matrix of the SIMAP project is currently up to date. The calculation of new simap workunits containing the novel proteins from december 2006 will start around january 1st.
The initial calculation of protein domains has been finished. The calculation of updates (new sequences and new domains from InterPro 13.0) will start around december 15th.

HIM(4:22:54 PM): but that research, at the moment, is not really being applied, and as far as i know, aside from the climate change one (the results of which have been disputed) nothing practical has come out of it

I would tell "HIM" this:

The quantum mechanical foundation of chemistry and physics is what brought us all our modern devices and technologies, be it lasers, solar cells, safety systems in cars and planes, PCs, MP3 Players, Microwaves, MRTs and CTs and any other advanced medical device or whatever has a silicon chip inside. It all depends on us being able today to do the right material design.

Today, we do in principle understand any chemical element and its behaviour and reactions on a mathematical basis. On the same basis we do in principle know how to calculate the structures of biomolecules, just that they are a lot harder to do than "simple" solid state chemical or physical calculations.

As SOAN said, there are a lot of medically relevant projects Rosetta is helping with its research. It is definitely at the front of what quantum chemistry can do and that always meant and means doing valuable research that will aid or bring forth future technologies.

And don't forget Find-a-Drug where the US government has the anthrax results, the HIV, Cacer results where scientifically tested in labs NIH.
Also the Malaria results are currently being used by scientists as well.
That is for acutal chemical and biological science.
http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/malaria

But that is not BOINC, boinc in itself is a platform, much like Windows.
Not much use by itself ;-)

His analogy is like saying the physicist and mathematicians developing and investing in all the technolgy that goes into the first laser and subsequent lasers has only advanced laser science..... but look at how the outcome has advanced medical science.


He obviously does not see (being a computer scientest ;-) that 'computers' are as much a part of traditional sciences now as they are on the desktop at home.
Just becuase it is not chemicals or a physical thing does not mean it is not directly related to the science.
That is his problem.

---

Team mauisun.org

...look at all these projects, what are their results?

Your friend would say that during the space race... if you hadn't landed on the moon yet, then you had no "results".

Your friend would say that while the rollercoaster is climbing, to begin the initial plummet, he say he doesn't see why everyone says this ride is so great.

Your friend would say that unless you've spoken to ET, that SETI is a waste, and deny that if you have some confidence about where ET is NOT, that anything has been accomplished.

Your friend would have died of the black plague because it is pointless to study the disease and even try to learn more about how it spreads or who is suseptible to it.

You might also mention the grant from the Gates foundation, but your friend will just say that Gates has so much money he doesn't care who he gives it to. I'd then encourage your friend to get in the action and apply for a grant.

In short, I doubt your friend and I have very much in common... I'd be looking for some other ways to spend my time.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

A guy lacking foresight?!?:

Simon Cameron: "I am tired of all this sort of thing called science here... We have spent millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be stopped." (on the Smithsonian Institute, 1861)[/url]

---

I have a computer science student friend who pokes fun at me for taking BOINC so seriously. I just had a conversation with him where he claims BOINC doesn't help science or scientists! I'll quote the coversation, in part, below (with his name removed, of course). What can I say to convince him? A project scientist chiming in would be neat too ;)

ME(4:06:19 PM): as a computer scientist you should think DC/boinc is neat!
HIM(4:06:21 PM): you're just lucky i don't try to explain how boinc actually doesn't help anyone
ME(4:06:31 PM): but it does!
HIM(4:06:34 PM): not really
ME(4:06:37 PM): lies
HIM(4:06:48 PM): like i said before, it helps computer science a lot more than medicine

ME(4:08:52 PM): this is one of the two i run: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/
they MUST be getting something useful from the project or they wouldn't do it!

ME(4:12:11 PM): again - WHY would rosetta (for example) make and maintain a project for NO REASON?
HIM(4:10:30 PM): but when you look at all these projects, what are their results?
HIM(4:10:37 PM): for rosetta, i can't find any

HIM(4:22:54 PM): but that research, at the moment, is not really being applied, and as far as i know, aside from the climate change one (the results of which have been disputed) nothing practical has come out of it

Your friend is just plain wrong. The examples from Rosetta@home already are too many to go through. The most recent illustration was just yesterday when Chu presented the results of your protein-protein docking calculations at our weekly lab seminar. They are really amazing--he showed that for the first time it is possible to allow full flexibility of both protein backbones and dramatically improve the accuracy with which the structures of protein-protein complexes can be predicted. This simply would not have been achieved without the large scale computing boinc and all of you are making possible as the space of possibilities is FAR too big to be searched with conventional computing resources. The very striking improvements in protein structure prediction evident in the CASP7 tests (see my journal) are another very recent example.

---

The most recent illustration was just yesterday when Chu presented the results of your protein-protein docking calculations at our weekly lab seminar.

Is a summary of these results available for all to see?

Matt:

Find out what your friend considers a medical practical result. If it's a "cure" or a new treatment for various diseases.. we won't see it any time soon.

When talking to a pharmacist about my hatred for syringe injections of insulin, he told me about the fact they were coming out with a sniffable insulin. It was around 10 years later that sniffable insulin became available to normal people - not just the test subjects used in the studies. Granted.. I will continue using a medijector (shoots a jet of insulin under the skin) before sniffing insulin - but once a DC project comes up with promising results - the testing process and FDA allowing it to be used on non-test subjects takes forever..

---

Matt:

Find out what your friend considers a medical practical result. If it's a "cure" or a new treatment for various diseases.. we won't see it any time soon.

When talking to a pharmacist about my hatred for syringe injections of insulin, he told me about the fact they were coming out with a sniffable insulin. It was around 10 years later that sniffable insulin became available to normal people - not just the test subjects used in the studies. Granted.. I will continue using a medijector (shoots a jet of insulin under the skin) before sniffing insulin - but once a DC project comes up with promising results - the testing process and FDA allowing it to be used on non-test subjects takes forever..

Curious, is that medijector an none needle injeciton ?
Since I was about to say (before I read the last bit) I was involved in a different method, the needle less injection back in '98/'99. Wasn't directly for insulin, it was just the technology.

---

Team mauisun.org

The tip is a plastic tube with a tiny hole- and with enough pressure becomes a jet that shoots the insulin under the skin. No needles involved.

http://www.medijector.com/?gclid=CNDVs6-ljokCFR0OYAodDHbq6Q
It's about 8 inches long and has a 1 inch diameter.

It's a bummer that changes in the medical field take so long; but it hopefully keeps the pills my dad was taking to boost insulin production when he first came down with diabetes from making it out into the wild. (They were pulled after they'd caused the deaths of a handful of diabetics.)

---

Thanks, everyone. I just linked him to the thread :)