Posts Tagged ‘United Kingdom’

The atom and the molecule: A one-day symposium on 23 March, 2016 celebrating Gilbert N. Lewis.

Friday, December 11th, 2015

You might have noticed the occasional reference here to the upcoming centenary of the publication of Gilbert N. Lewis’ famous article entitled “The atom and the molecule“.[1] A symposium exploring his scientific impact and legacy will be held in London on March 23, 2016, exactly 70 years to the day since his death. A list of the speakers and their titles is shown below; there is no attendance fee, but you must register as per the instructions below.


Royal Society of Chemistry Historical Group Meeting on 23th March 2016, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London: The atom and the molecule: A symposium celebrating Gilbert N. Lewis.

  • Dr Patrick Coffey (Berkeley, USA): Does Personality Influence Scientific Credit? Simultaneous Priority Disputes: Lewis vs. Langmuir and Langmuir vs. Harkins
  • Professor Robin Hendry (Durham, UK): Lewis on Structure and the Chemical Bond
  • Professor Alan Dronsfield (UK): An organic chemist reflects on the Lewis two-electron bond
  • Dr Julia Contreras-García (UPMC, France): Do bonds need a name?
  • Professor Nick Greeves (Liverpool, UK): The influence of Lewis on organic chemistry teaching, textbooks and beyond
  • Professor Clark Landis (UWM, USA): Lewis and Lewis-like Structures in the Quantum Era
  • Professor Michael Mingos (Oxford, UK): The Inorganic dimension to Lewis and Kossel’s landmark contributions
  • Dr Patrick Coffey (Berkeley, USA): Lewis’ Life, Death, and Missing Nobel Prize

Prior registration is essential. Please email your name and address to Professor John Nicholson,  jwnicholson01 @ gmail.com


References

  1. G.N. Lewis, "THE ATOM AND THE MOLECULE.", Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 38, pp. 762-785, 1916. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja02261a002

How-open-is-it?

Thursday, February 12th, 2015

The title of this post refers to the site http://howopenisit.org/  which is in effect a license scraper for journal articles. In the past 2-3 years in the UK, we have been able to make use of grants to our university to pay publishers to convert our publications into Open Access (also called GOLD). I thought I might check out a few of my recent publications to see what http://howopenisit.org/ makes of them.

This was catalysed by an article which revealed that UK universities spent £9M in 2014 on the purchase of such openness. One of the “challenges” identified is the difficulty in converting such payment into an article that actually is open. Apparently, publishers make not a few mistakes in their quality controls in ensuring it is so, relying on irate authors informing them of such mistakes. This can be quite tedious to do, and so a tool that largely automates this checking is most useful. So here we go.

  1. doi: 10.1039/C3SC53416B[1] This is a good start. The output looks like thus. Green is GOLD so to speak. Well done the Royal Society of Chemistry.
    10.1039:C3SC53416B
  2. doi: 10.1021/ci500302p[2] from the ACS this time. Pink, but at least free to read. Quite what that means is less certain. There is an adage, “the right to read means the right to mine” presumably means this article is OK to mine, but then why does it not say so?10.1021:ci500302p
  3. doi: 10.1002/anie.201405238[3]. Pink again, but the colour now simply means no information about the license could be obtained from the publisher (Wiley). 10.1002:anie.201405238

I ran a few more and sadly the third of the above, “no information” was the most common response. And the legal response is invariably that if no information can be obtained, the answer is NO, it is not free to read. In other words, not providing a license is just as bad as saying it’s not free to read.

Article aggregators such as Symplectic do not yet perform the service above (which to be fair is still in beta), and so I cannot yet check how many GOLD articles there are to my name. I think it should be about 8, and I might add that the time I have to spend in arranging for this to happen is not negligible. Hell, I could probably have found a few more reactions mechanism in the time I have spent on achieving GOLD. This is one of those topics which would be interesting to revisit say in five years time to see how the world has changed. So I leave this little time capsule and will update it then!

References

  1. A. Armstrong, R.A. Boto, P. Dingwall, J. Contreras-García, M.J. Harvey, N.J. Mason, and H.S. Rzepa, "The Houk–List transition states for organocatalytic mechanisms revisited", Chem. Sci., vol. 5, pp. 2057-2071, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3sc53416b
  2. M.J. Harvey, N.J. Mason, and H.S. Rzepa, "Digital Data Repositories in Chemistry and Their Integration with Journals and Electronic Notebooks", Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 54, pp. 2627-2635, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci500302p
  3. A. Jana, I. Omlor, V. Huch, H.S. Rzepa, and D. Scheschkewitz, "N‐Heterocyclic Carbene Coordinated Neutral and Cationic Heavier Cyclopropylidenes", Angewandte Chemie International Edition, vol. 53, pp. 9953-9956, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201405238

The demographics of a blog readership – updated

Thursday, January 8th, 2015

About two years ago, I posted on the distribution of readership of this blog. The passage of time has increased this from 144 to 176 countries. There are apparently between 189-196 such, so not quite yet complete coverage! 2015
Of course, it is the nature of the beast that whilst we can track countries, very little else is known about such readerships. Is the readership young or old, student or professor, chemist or not (although I fancy the latter is less likely). Another way of keeping tabs on some of the activity are aggregators such as Chemical Blogspace, which has been rather quiet recently. Perhaps we have become too obsessed by metrics, and with the Internet-of-things apparently the “next-big-thing”, the metrics are only likely to increase. This will only encourage “game playing“, and I urge you to see a prime example of this in the UK REF (research excellence framework), the measure which attempts to rank UK universities in terms of their “excellence”.

Ah well, I had better leave this blog and go off and check on my h-index just in case it has notched up another integer.

The price of information: Evaluating big deal journal bundles

Thursday, July 3rd, 2014

Increasingly, our access to scientific information is becoming a research topic in itself. Thus an analysis of big deal journal bundles[1] has attracted much interesting commentary (including one from a large scientific publisher[2]). In the UK, our funding councils have been pro-active in promoting the so-called GOLD publishing model, where the authors (aided by grants from their own institution or others) pay the perpetual up-front publication costs (more precisely the costs demanded by the publishers, which is not necessarily the same thing) so that their article is removed from the normal subscription pay wall erected by the publisher and becomes accessible to anyone. As the proportion of GOLD content increases, it was anticipated (hoped?) that the costs of accessing the remaining non-GOLD articles via a pay-walled subscription would decrease.

But as was shown[1], the publishers have hitherto arranged for the prices of these subscriptions to be covered by non-disclosure clauses. Which makes it quite difficult for us (the readers of these journals, and of course the main sources of their content as well) to find out if this model is (starting) to actually work. Certainly, the entire system does not yet appear to be in any sort of steady state equilibrium; perhaps it never will achieve this in the current model? For example, although extra funds have been made available to promote GOLD publishing, these cover only a small fraction of the total output of a typical research university. One could respond to this in several ways:

  1. Find the missing funds from somewhere else, which probably means less money for the research itself. This of course is the model that maintains or increases a publisher’s incomes.
  2. Decrease the costs of GOLD publishing. Currently a typical article processing charge ranges from £500-5000 depending on the prestige of the journal. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that this range could change to eg £50-500?
  3. Simply persuade everyone to publish less. Perhaps ten times less? Every group might be restricted to one or two block-buster articles a year, and the rest of their output goes into open repositories? Or indeed into blogs! These two options of course are unlikely to increase publishers’ incomes.

Well, after 350 years of scientific publishing, we appear to have arrived at a critical point. A cross-roads if you like. But who should be in charge of deciding what direction is now taken? Should it not be the very people who create and then “consume” scientific information and knowledge!

References

  1. T.C. Bergstrom, P.N. Courant, R.P. McAfee, and M.A. Williams, "Evaluating big deal journal bundles", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, pp. 9425-9430, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403006111
  2. C. Woolston, "Secret publishing deals exposed", Nature, vol. 510, pp. 447-447, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1038/510447f

Anchoring chemistry.

Wednesday, June 18th, 2014

I was reminded of this article by Michelle Francl[1], where she poses the question “What anchor values would most benefit students as they seek to hone their chemical intuition?” She gives as common examples: room temperature is 298.17K (actually 300K, but perhaps her climate is warmer than that of the UK!), the length of a carbon-carbon single bond, the atomic masses of the more common elements.

Well, one of my own personal favourites is anchoring chemical timescales. From 10-18 s (that of electron dynamics, and presumably the fastest processes in chemistry) to 10+18 (approximately the age of the universe). And (for a unimolecular process) this can be reduced to this equation:  Ln(k/T) = 23.76 – ΔG/RT I quoted this equation in a recent post, since it gives you the fastest possible chemical reaction if ΔG is set to zero (which of course is not a reaction but a vibration), but which gives you a good estimate of how fast a process will be for any given value of a barrier. It can of course also be solved for e.g. the required barrier to achieve a half-life equivalent to the age of the universe. So, perhaps in increments of orders of 3 magnitudes (of which there are 13 covering the above span) would anyone like to contribute either:

  1. Their own favourite chemical anchor, or
  2. Their own favourite example of a chemical timescale bounded by the above limits?

(I did start a list of the latter for our own students, but it is still pretty sparse!)

References

  1. M. Francl, "Take a number", Nature Chemistry, vol. 5, pp. 725-726, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1733

Disambiguation/provenance of claimed scientific opinion and research.

Monday, May 5th, 2014

My name is displayed pretty prominently on this blog, but it is not always easy to find out who the real person is behind many a blog. In science, I am troubled by such anonymity. Well, a new era is about to hit us. When you come across an Internet resource, or an opinion/review of some scientific topic, I argue here that you should immediately ask: “what is its provenance?”

In the 350 year history of scientific dissemination[1], provenance has almost always been provided by publishers. Arguably, that was their most important role (and arranging anonymous peer review). Not that they ever met with their authors or always established that a real person or a real group actually existed! But with the explosion of vanity publication and a host of horror stories about articles for sale to authors keen to have a publication to their name, perhaps the role of provenance needs rethinking.

ORCiD is a project that seems to be gaining serious momentum in achieving a mechanism for disambiguation and provenance of researchers. Thus Brian Kelly (who has played an important role in the modern internet in the UK since 1993 or earlier) encourages all researchers to sign up (although I cannot help noting, rather cheekily, that he does not add his own ORCiD as provenance for his blog). ResearcherID was in fact an earlier organisation to offer such a service, but it is run by a commercial publisher and it is hosted at a “.com“. ORCiD at least claims to be an open (.org)anisation, and carries an open source license. It seems that some UK Universities (home to some researchers) have decided to sign up to ORCiD and most I suspect are planning to deploy these resources amongst their researchers, and quite possibly their students as well (postgraduate initially, maybe even undergraduate eventually).

I jumped the gun somewhat, getting mine more than a year ago. Better the devil you know, etc etc! It is orcid.org/0000-0002-8635-8390. What happened next? Well, I publish data@Figshare, who themselves signed up to be an early member of ORCiD. This gives them access to the API (application programmer interface), and so by supplying my ORCiD to Figshare, I can gain access by proxy to the ORCiD features on offer. The most immediate impact is that ORCiD lists all the data-objects I have published at Figshare, thus establishing a trust between them and my ORCiD identity. Mind you, no-one at ORCiD has ever met me, or checked on who I am. I think that task is going to be delegated eventually to e.g. my university (I am not absolutely certain how the linkage between my ORCiD and my employer, who clearly know me since they pay my salary, will be formalised). Because my employer has also now become an ORCiD member, we will be adding ORCiD API access to our own SPECTRa-DSpace data repository shortly, so that the data held there will also be added to my ORCiD lists.

And as the major journal publishers start to do the same, a formal linkage between my identity (perhaps as verified by my employer), journal-published articles (narratives) and my data publications (via the identifiers known as DOIs) will come into being.

How, you might reasonably ask, is this in the least useful? In truth, I am not sure anyone really knows exactly where this is heading. For example, impactstory.org/about is one added value site which attempts to gather altmetrics about the impact your research is having. But hey, the although the preceding link tells you who founded this organisation, you do not get the kind of provenance I am describing above; none of the founders cite their ORCiDs! You do get their @Twitter accounts though; I wonder what that tells us about the modern interpretation of provenance? Well, my impact can be seen here; in truth it’s not quite the impact I imagined my scientific career was having, but I suppose this is early days. What I am pleased to tell you is that ImpactStory does tell you not only about the impact articles I have published has had, but also the data. Two data sets are described as both discussed and highly viewed. Although as usual, you do not get to learn why the data is being discussed!

Where next? Well, to go back to the start of this post; blogs. It would be nice to formally link this blog to my ORCiD ID (this is not done simply by quoting it here, but via the ORCiD API). If/when I work out how to do this, I will no doubt post the event!

References

  1. H. Oldenburg, "Epistle dedicatory", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 1, pp. i-ii, 1665. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1665.0001

Blasts from the past and present: altmetrics.

Sunday, October 13th, 2013

I reminisced about the wonderfully naive but exciting Web-period of 1993-1994. This introduced the server-log analysis to us for the first time, and hits-on-a-web-page. One of our first attempts at crowd-sourcing and analysis was to run an electronic conference in heterocyclic chemistry and to look at how the attendees visited the individual posters and presentations by analysing the server logs.

all_accesses

You can read all about that analysis here. This is one interesting graphic below, showing the 24-hour distribution of accesses. Remember, this was before Google and its analytics even existed (and yes, we were also doing Google-like searches before they did).

hourly-accesses

But let me get to the actual point of this post. A decade or so ago, all universities in the UK were asked to undertake a quality review exercise of their research outputs. One of the metrics of such outputs is the scientific publication, and each research group leader had to collect their most important four articles published in the previous few years and submit them (as paper) to a review panel. This poor panel was faced with a mountain of paperwork (literally!) when they arrived to do their job. It was soon decided that a better (electronic) system had to be devised. So now we have a product called Symplectic (which as it happens originated in the physics department here at Imperial College), which tirelessly gathers such outputs. More accurately, it gathers the meta-data for research publications, since most publishers do not allow actual reprints to be so harvested! And when it finds a new article, it informs its author, and asks them to check that the meta-data is accurate.

So it was a few days ago that I received such an alert. I checked the meta-data (adding in fact some which associates the scientific work with a particular resource, our High-Performance-Computing unit, and also the NMR systems here) but then the following thumbnail caught my eye. The wonderful Symplectic system had computed this for me. 

altmetrics3

This I had to see. Expanded, it shows as follows. An altmetric measures  attention. And attention (however transient) is apparently itself measured by tweets, facebook, news outlets, science blogs, Mendeley and CiteULike

altmetrics1

Well, things have certainly moved on from the days of analysing server-logs! Now, would an aspiring tenure-track young scientist, presenting an altmetric score of 28 to their head of department expect to get their tenure on this basis? Of course, we are back to the old hoary chestnut. Is attention necessarily good? You cannot tell from the above if we have indeed produced worthy science, or science to be scorned.

Well, the above represents a 20 year period in the evolution of science and how it is communicated. Whether this represents positive progress I leave you to decide. And if one of your altmetric scores is > 28, you have done better than us!


Does the icon look familiar? See here.

A two-publisher model for the scientific article: narrative+shared data.

Sunday, September 15th, 2013

I do go on rather a lot about enabling or hyper-activating[1] data. So do others[2]. Why is sharing data important?

  1. Reproducibility is a cornerstone in science,
  2. To achieve this, it is important that scientific research be open and transparent.
  3. Openly available research data is central to achieving this. It is estimated that less than 20% of the data collected in chemistry is made available in any open manner.
  4. RCUK (the UK research councils) wish increased transparency of publicly funded research and availability of its outputs

But it’s not all hot air, honestly. Peter Murray-Rust and I had started out on a journey to improve reproducibility, openness and transparency in (inter alia) scientific publishing in 1994. In 2001 we published an example of a data-rich article[3] based on CML, and by 2004 the concept had evolved into something Peter termed a datument[4]. Some forty such have now been crafted.[5]

In 2009, the journal Nature Chemistry was starting up, and I approached them with the idea of an interactive data exploratorium on the premise that a new journal might be receptive to new ways of presenting science. It was accepted and published[6] and was followed in 2010 by a second variation.[7] In both cases, these activated-figures were sent to the journal as part of the submission process, and hosted by them (they still are). You can even access them without a subscription to the journal!

Move on to 2012, when David Scheschkewitz had some very exciting silicon chemistry to report, we collaborated on some computational modelling, and sent the resulting article to Nature Chemistry for publication. This included the usual interactive table reporting the modelling and its data. However, it transpired that the production workflows for Nature Chemistry had been streamlined and I was informed that interactive tables could no longer be accepted. This time, we (i.e. the authors) would have to solve the issue of how to host and present the data ourselves.

I was very keen that this table be treated with equal weight to the article itself (citable in its own right) and that it not be downgraded to supporting information (ESI). My objection to ESI is that it is often poorly structured by authors, i.e. it is not prepared in a form which allows the data to be re-used, either by a perceptive human, or a logical machine. As a result it is often given little attention by referees (although bloggers seem to do a far better job) and furthermore can end up being lost behind a pay wall (the two Nature Chem interactive objects noted above can be openly accessed, but only if you know that they exist). So I determined that:

  1. The table should be immediately accessible by non-experts, but not through any convoluted processes of downloading a file, expanding it and finding the correct document within the resulting fileset to view in the correct program, which is how normal ESI is handled.
  2. The table and the data it contained within should be capable of acting as a scientific tool, forming what could be the starting point for a new investigation if appropriate.

To solve this issue, some lateral and quick thinking was needed. The solution was a two-component model in which the original article is treated as a “narrative“, intertwingled with a second, but nevertheless distinct component, the “data“. This data would follow the principles of the Amsterdam Manifesto; it would itself be citable. The two components would become symbiotes (a datument). The narrative[8] could cite this data and the data could back-link to the narrative. The data would inherit trust (i.e. peer review) from that applied to the narrative and the latter would inherit a date stamp and integrity from the data host (in this case Figshare[9]).*

The data itself can have two layers, presentation [9] using a combination of software (Jmol or JSmol for chemistry) which are used to invoke the “raw” data. That data itself is citable[10] (this is just a single example, resident as it happens on a different repository). The reader can choose use just the presentation layer or the underlying data.

The data object can be embedded in other pages; here it is below. The data sources for this table are themselves citable[11].



What are the advantages of such an approach? (the “what’s in it for me” question often asked by research students and their supervisors)

  1. Each of the components is held in an environment optimised for it and so can be presented to full advantage.
  2. The conventional narrative publisher does not necessarily also have to develop their own infrastructures for handling the data. They can choose to devolve that task to a “data publisher”.
  3. The data publisher (Figshare in this case) makes the data open. One does not need an institutional subscription to access it.
  4. “Added value” for each component can be done separately. Thus most narrative publishers would not necessarily wish to develop infrastructures for validating it or subsequently mining such “big data”. Indeed data mining of journals is prohibited by many publishers; it simply is either not possible or rendered so administratively difficult as to be impractical.
  5. Whilst a narrative article must clearly exist as a single instance (otherwise the authors would be accused of plagiarism), data can have multiple instances. Indeed, there exist protocols (SWORD) for moving data from one repository to another as the need arises. Publishing the same data in two or more locations is not currently considered plagiarism!
  6. The data component can be published as part of an article or say as part of a PhD thesis. This way, the creator of the data gets the advantages not of a date stamp associated with a narrative citation but of a much earlier stamp associated more closely with the actual creation of the data. That could easily and usefully resolve many disputes about who discovered what first, leaving the other issue of who interpreted what first to the narrative. I should mention that it is perfectly possible to “embargo” the data deposition so that it only becomes public when the narrative does (although you may choose not to do this).
  7. A data deposition cannot be modified, but a new version (which bidirectionally links back to the old one) can be published if say more data is collected at a future date.
  8. A whole infrastructure devoted just to enhancing the cited data can evolve; one that is unlikely to do so if the narrative publishers are the only stakeholders. For example, synthetic procedural data can be tagged using the excellent chemical tagger.
  9. It is relatively simple (=cheap) to build a pre-processor for publishing data, which for a research student can act as an electronic laboratory notebook, holding meta-data about the deposited/published data and the handles (doi) associated with each deposition. I have been using such an environment now for about seven years as the e-notebook for this blog for example. Thus the task of preparing figures and tables for a publication (or a blog post) is greatly facilitated. The same system is also used by research students and undergraduates for their lab work.
  10. I have noted previously how e.g. Google Scholar identifies data citations along with article citations in constructing an individual research profile. A researcher could become known for their published data as well as their published narratives. Indeed, it seems likely that the person who acquires and publishes the data, i.e. the research student, would then get accolades directly rather them all accruing to their supervisor.

But what can you, gentle reader of this blog, do to help? Well, ask if your institution already has, or plans to create a data repository. It can be local (we use DSpace) or “in-the-cloud” (e.g. Figshare). If not, ask why not! And if you are planning to submit an article for publication in the near future, ponder how you might better share its data.


As first circulated on 28 April, 2011. See 
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/standards/researchdata/Pages/policyframework.aspx

The example given at the start of this post[8] contains only one table processed in this manner; the actual synthetic procedures are still held in more conventional SI.

*This blog uses the excellent Kcite plugin to manage citations.

The good folks at Figshare were extremely helpful in converting this deposition into an interactive presentation. Thanks guys!


References

  1. O. Casher, G.K. Chandramohan, M.J. Hargreaves, C. Leach, P. Murray-Rust, H.S. Rzepa, R. Sayle, and B.J. Whitaker, "Hyperactive molecules and the World-Wide-Web information system", Journal of the Chemical Society, Perkin Transactions 2, pp. 7, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1039/p29950000007
  2. R. Van Noorden, "Data-sharing: Everything on display", Nature, vol. 500, pp. 243-245, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7461-243a
  3. P. Murray-Rust, H.S. Rzepa, and M. Wright, "Development of chemical markup language (CML) as a system for handling complex chemical content", New Journal of Chemistry, vol. 25, pp. 618-634, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1039/b008780g
  4. H.S. Rzepa, "Chemical datuments as scientific enablers", Journal of Cheminformatics, vol. 5, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-5-6
  5. H.S. Rzepa, "Transclusions of data into articles", 2013. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.797481
  6. H.S. Rzepa, "The importance of being bonded", Nature Chemistry, vol. 1, pp. 510-512, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.373
  7. H.S. Rzepa, "The rational design of helium bonds", Nature Chemistry, vol. 2, pp. 390-393, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.596
  8. M.J. Cowley, V. Huch, H.S. Rzepa, and D. Scheschkewitz, "Equilibrium between a cyclotrisilene and an isolable base adduct of a disilenyl silylene", Nature Chemistry, vol. 5, pp. 876-879, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.1751
  9. D. Scheschkewitz, M.J. Cowley, V. Huch, and H.S. Rzepa, "The Vinylcarbene – Cyclopropene Equilibrium of Silicon: an Isolable Disilenyl Silylene", 2013. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.744825
  10. H.S. Rzepa, "Gaussian Job Archive for C60H92Si3", 2012. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.96410

Computers 1967-2013: a personal perspective. Part 5. Network bandwidth.

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

In a time of change, we often do not notice that Δ = ∫δ. Here I am thinking of network bandwidth, and my personal experience of it over a 46 year period.

I first encountered bandwidth in 1967 (although it was not called that then). I was writing Algol code to compute the value of π, using paper tape to send the code to the computer. Unfortunately, the paper tape punch was about 10 km from that computer. The round trip (by van) took about a week, the outcome being often merely to discover that the first line of the code contained a compilation error. I think I got to computing π after about six weeks. That is a bandwidth of about 18 characters (108 bits) in 3628800 seconds, or 0.00003 bits per second.

I did my undergraduate work in 1969, when the distance between the card punch and the computer had reduced to about 50m, and instant turnaround involved circulating in a loop between the punch and the line printer, hoping that neither suffered a paper-wreck. The bandwidth had certainly gone up. On a good day, you could make 20 or so circuits, which did leave one feeling faintly dizzy. 

The next improvement came in 1972, when I was solving non-linear equations for kinetic rate constants, using a 110 bits per second (baud) or ~ 18 characters per second using the 6-bit computers of that era) teletypewriter. This was about 50m from the lab where the kinetic measurements were made (using, if you are interested a scintillation counter. Yes, I was mildly radioactive for most of my PhD, but I do not believe I glowed in the dark). This bandwidth was in fact fine for uploading kinetic data, and receiving the computed rate constant and its standard error. You might note however that this teletypewriter was the only one in the building I occupied, and yet demand for it was small (I was pretty much its only user). 

The next increment occurred in Texas 1974-1977, where I was now doing quantum chemical calculations. Back in time to the card punch and the lineprinter (Texas is big, and so now the distance between them was a 10 minute walk). But in my last year there, a state-of-the-art 300 baud teletypewriter was installed! This was now fast enough to play a computer game (something to do with Dragons and Dungeons I think), and so now there was competition to use it. Particularly from one of my friends, who shall be called George, and who on one occasion spent about 48 virtually contiguous hours trying to get to the last level. The rest of us returned to the card punch to submit the calculations. It was also during this period that the first emails started to be exchanged, but only really as a curiosity: “it would never catch on” was the opinion of most.

Back in the UK by 1977, I was overwhelmed by the speed of the 9.6 kbaud graphics terminal I now had access to, 32 times faster. And the rate continued to multiply, by a further 1000 to attain 10 Mbaud in 1987. But another change occurred during this period. The previous eras had involved transmitting the data no more than ~200m, from one point in the campus to another. But by 1986, if one tried hard enough, one could reach ARPANET. And that was 5000 km away! My first use of such distances was to reach California and download Apple’s system 5.0 for the Macs in the department (I have described elsewhere the role the Mac’s printer port played in this). From then on, we always did have the latest operating system installed on most of the machines (although not always did this subterfuge address the intended issue, which was to stop the computer crashing as often).

These speeds however did not reach beyond the university. Back home, around 1983, I was back to using a 300 baud modem, with an acoustic coupler to the land line. Our young daughter, aged 3 at the time, joined in the data transmission with gusto. Her joyful shrieks were invariably picked up by the acoustic coupler, and translated into a jumble of characters, which were then interleaved into the numbers coming back from quantum calculations. It was sometimes difficult to tell them apart! These domestic modems gradually got faster, probably attaining 9.6 kbaud by about 1993 (during the course of which the acoustic component was replaced by electronics, and oddly, our daughter stopped shrieking in quite the same way). 

Back in the university in 1993, the first 100 megabits per second (100Mbps ≅100 Mbaud) ethernet lines and switches were being installed, but the national and international backbones were still a lot slower. It was in this year that I was approached to be part of a SuperJanet project. We were going to do a molecular videoconference from London to Cambridge and Leeds; a three-way connection, and this needed ~ 20Mbps to transmit the signal from the video camera as well as the 3D images of molecules in real-time (compression techniques were not so advanced in those days). Because BT was sponsoring the project, they naturally wanted some publicity, and so we even got to appear on the national television news that night. But we came within about 1 minute of a disaster. Our 20Mbps connection went through the SuperJanet national backbone, the capacity of which was, you guessed, ~ 20 Mbps. The network operators (located at the Rutherford-Appleton laboratories), who we had not had the foresight to pre-warn, came within 1 minute of isolating Imperial College from the national network because of our bandwidth hogging. I met them a month or so later, and they told me this. I feel I was lucky to escape with my life and body intact from that meeting (or to put it another way, they were not happy bunnies). 

By about 2000, I had achieved 1 Gbps to my desktop computer (and there it has stayed for the past 13 years). What about home? Well, to cut the story short, I recently benchmarked the domestic WiFi connection between a laptop and “the world” at about 65 Mbps (download) and 18 Mbps (upload), a little less than 1 million times greater than 30 years earlier and a 12 orders of magnitude greater than in 1967. I gather however that some lucky inhabitants of Austin Texas (the scene of my 1974-1977 experiments), courtesy of Google, can get 1 Gbps!

I will end by quoting Samuel Butler, writing in 1863I venture to suggest that … the general development of the human race to be well and effectually completed when all men, in all places, without any loss of time, at a low rate of charge, are cognizant through their senses, of all that they desire to be cognizant of in all other places. … This is the grand annihilation of time and place which we are all striving for, and which in one small part we have been permitted to see actually realised” (Quoted in George Dyson, “Darwin amongst the Machines, The Evolution of Global Intelligence”, Addison-Wesley, N.Y., 1997. ISBN 0-201-400649-7).


I just benchmarked my office computer (using only solid-state memory and that 1Gbps connection) and got 58Mbps (download)/75Mbps (upload).

The standard program was NCSA Telnet if  I remember. You made a connection from the computer (using its printer port) to the ARPANET node at University College London (not a widely advertised service), and thence to an Apple FTP site where one could initiate an anonymous file transfer back to one’s computer.  System 5 was about half a Mbyte then, and this took about 1-2 hours to retrieve (unless the connection went down, in which case one started again).