Crystallography - image and reality

As crystallographers we have taken great pride in the spectacular successes in our field over the years. These have been liberally rewarded with Nobel Prizes and other forms of public recognition. Nevertheless, there has always been a tension involving those who see crystallographers as mere technicians who determine a set of xyz's and then go on to the next structure. Even funding bodies are not immune from this view!

It is undeniable that image is important, especially when so many of us depend on public money to make our work possible. It is then incumbent on us to tell the public what we do, and why. Preferably in plain language! This will be one of the special concerns of the IUCr in 1998, as we mark the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Union. A group headed by Professor Henk Schenk (Netherlands) is developing ideas to celebrate the achievements of the past and point to the exciting prospects there are for the future. We urgently seek your input into this.

It seems to be part of the human condition to want to place people in neatly-labelled boxes. One of the strengths of crystallography is that it crosses boundaries, and those who are sometimes labelled as crystallographers are also chemists, physicists or biologists - sometimes all three! I can think of few, if any, other groupings with such breadth. Of course, science is dynamic and some areas shrink as others expand, but I hope we all take great pride in the achievements of our colleagues over this wide range.

Thinking of the future, there are clearly very exciting times ahead. A glance at the special feature on 3rd generation synchrotron facilities (Science, August 29) gives but one example. There are concerns, however. Our discipline (if that is the right word) depends on rigorous methodology, which determines the kinds of questions that can be answered. With many new researchers entering the field, especially from the biological sciences, the teaching of crystallographic methods becomes all the more important. I worry that if we neglect the fundamentals, the quality of what we do may suffer, even as the opportunities expand. As we celebrate the achievements, then, it is important still to promote the method.

Edward N. Baker