Although I greatly appreciate what people are complaining about having been a tragic witness to numerous episodes over the years, nevertheless I feel that users are being sold short (and the managers themselves ?!) and I think some responses have been too negative, but there is cause for concern and this is something that should definitely be discussed. I like automation (and all the other bells and whistles) and don’t fear it, it is a good way to get lots of work done quickly and I do not think that it detracts from the operation. It can especially help with the grunge work, and then one can get on and do some strong NMR. However, just because users do it the hands-on way doesn’t necessarily mean they have any idea of what’s going on or really know what they are doing, so how does manual performance help in such an instance? This is not to imply that managers should not make an effort to train and educate people, quite the contrary, I think that managers should persevere wit
h it but do need to recognise that different people have different requirements, different capabilities, and varying amounts of time and energy, etc. The most important thing is effective and productive use of the machines, so if users are getting meaningful results that they can use (and collecting them efficiently), then the primary goal is accomplished. Knowledge and appreciation of the workings, limitations, etc. are highly desirable but expecting comprehensive understanding from all and sundry can be too unrealistic and somewhat unnecessary. The point is not to have all users turned into NMR spectroscopists. It might be clear to oneself why certain things/concepts are important, but this is not necessarily the case for others. For example, how necessary is it for chemists to be familiar with vector representation, given its limitations ? (But it does provide a wonderful physical basis for appreciating the NMR phenomenon, and one that helped me considerably.) It is certai
nly worth debating what is required but there are so many concepts to consider and there is just too much to know, so it is difficult to know where to draw the line, and at what level for what type of user. The one important caveat is the requirement to balance the demands with chemists’ viewpoints and objectives (or whatever species the users happen to be).
So here then is my proposition:
Assemble a working group for the express purpose of formulating a policy/set of standards regarding this topic (level of user competency) that could be adopted universally or referred to; call for suggested recommendations, tally the responses and prepare a set of guidelines representing the consensus of the input, and then have the guidelines evaluated by the wider community.
The purpose of such a process would be five-fold:
1) help reduce duplication of work;
2) assist managers in supporting their cases when confronted with obstacles (e.g. with faculty or with visiting scholars);
3) provide continuity for the transitions from one place to another of managers/faculty/students/researchers etc.;
4) help foster higher and more consistent standards of professionalism, NMR practice and productivity;
5) provide a consolidated repository of the requirements of NMR users for instrument manufacturers, program developers and other NMR-orientated commercial interests.
It might also be worth assembling a recommended reading list of books, web lectures, etc. appropriate for the different levels of users and have this placed on the AMMRL web page. It could even be worth contemplating starting accumulating data on the AMMRL web page as a source of information for users (e.g. have a limited number of persons editing it but still have numerous contributors, as in an open encyclopaedia-type thing).
Another problem is the question of what is an NMR expert, since anyone can practically declare themselves as such, and why not, there are clear guidelines or standards on what constitutes such, so save for majoring in or doing one’s thesis in an NMR-related topic, attending courses, etc. (And in defence of users/students, they can be blissfully unaware of what they should know or perhaps don’t know, and it doesn’t help if their bosses are telling them that they are NMR experts simply because they know more than them or want them to help others in the group...I think we are all familiar with this type of scenario.) But there are many who are highly competent in NMR yet have no specific qualifications or certificates to attest to such, courses and exams are one thing, but what about practical evaluation ? Thus it might be worthwhile considering taking steps towards some sort of formal recognition of abilities or requisite skills (i.e. certification).
Looks as though there is plenty to discuss at ENC, pity I won’t be there to discuss these considerations as I’m sure there will be some lively and absorbing debates taking place.
Karel Klika
Received on Wed Apr 12 2006 - 14:14:22 MST