There have been some follow-on comments from the recent Nature Article written about ChemSpider.

I was happy to see this comment from Jose Barros:

“As enthusiast of “Internet-aided Chemistry” subject I wish to congratulate Nature for mentioning the Chemspider initiative. To the best of our knowledge, Chemspider represents a reliable alternative for those who were not able to access commercial databases, thus contributing for scientific inclusion mainly in the less developed countries. As Chemspider grows up, it may also be used by the scientific community as a bargain tool for obtain better services or lower prices from suppliers of commercial databases.”

and a follow-on post tonight from Barrie Walker relative to his comment in the article. Originally quoted as saying “There’s an awful lot of chemical information, but there’s an awful lot of rubbish as well, says Barrie Walker, a retired industrial chemist in Yorkshire, UK, who helps maintain the site.”  Barrie added a follow up comment “comments used by Nature applied to chemistry on the internet rather than anything to do with ChemSpider. As one of ChemSpider’s master curaters, I am very supportive of the project, otherwise I would not be spending time editing the data.

I have known and worked with Tony for many years and I believe the project has a great future and with further development will see an increasing number of users.”

Comments with context have a whole different meaning. I wonder what the context was when Bob Massie from Chemical Abstracts Service compared the Golfing Industry with the Drug Industry? Likely that whole comment was taken out of context …

Stumble it!

Leave a Reply