How To Ensure Long-Term Support For Crucial Resources? Or Should We?

Question

[Mary]

I don't know if you have all seen this item, which is all the buzz on twitter right now:

RT @karlkugler: What? That's bad news RT @onertipaday KEGG will be available only to paid subscribers: http://bit.ly/lxyE8H #bioinformatics

Although I think it would be a nice idea for this community to write a letter of support for this, it does get to the broader question of the persistence of data and resources over time.

KEGG is one of the earliest computational tools I can remember using. But now it's creator is reaching retirement age. This is not the first case of that I'm sure, and it won't be the last.

I've seen a couple of them go away that I was really surprised by (anyone else remember GDB?).

I went to look up an old copy of Pedro's List today to walk down memory lane a bit.

What are your thoughts on how to maintain access to crucial stuff? Is there anything this community can do (or should do) to support KEGG? Or should we let them go and assume something else will take their place?

(Yes, this may become community wiki if it is deemed not a suitable question...) But it is a bioinformatics topic that I think is worth discussing.

[Gilleain]

Well if KEGG would draw the stereo wedges on their reactions properly I would be more sympathetic to their plight...

[Mary]

It's a fair point to consider whether they are meeting people's needs.

Answer 1

[Casey Bergman]

For a discussion on this topic, see:

Bastow R, Leonelli S. EMBO Rep. 2010 11:730-4. Sustainable digital infrastructure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20847740

Answer 2

[Pablo]

You can call it "circle of life", "supply and demand" or "evolution" if you like: If there is demand for a resource that is going away, soon another one will take its place. Chances are that the new one will be even better.

[Michael]

sounds a bit too simple to be true.

[Mary]

I agree to some extent. Although I did see some grousing when GDB vaporized, people have moved on. But this one seems more fundamental and integrated into existing resources to me.

Answer 3

[Larry_Parnell]

I do recall that during one phase of explosive genome data growth (around mid to late 1990's) many grant applicants were strongly urged to submit a plan for maintaining the database after the grant funding period. This was really a hard section to plan and write. While a few of the most important databases offered very expensive subscriptions to corporate customers; I think that KEGG was one of these but I would not know the current status of this. In fact, I seem to recall that KEGG or SwissProt went through a financial crunch some years ago and was threatened to go away, as it were. Both lived through that time and perhaps KEGG will this time as well.

In the end, it is money and I am not sure that this community can secure enough funds for KEGG to maintain its operations as we know them. There is also the precedent that other "important" databases will come knocking or send out a similar warning to all users. So, if we at BioStar could do something in the KEGG case, do we then assume this responsibility for all subsequent cases? That's not likely.

Just some thoughts at the moment. Perhaps I add more later after editing.