Methods and reagents: bionet.molbio.methds-reagents - a status report Methods and reagents is a unique monthly column that highlights current discussions in the newsgroup bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts, available on the Internet. In this, the closing article for the Methods and reagents monthly column, I discuss how the methods group has evolved since the onset of this experimental monthly column, and try to relate its past and present condition to future improvements. For details on how to join the discussions on bionet, see the accompanying box. Over the past five years, the methods group has grown from having only a few postings per day by a handful of netters into one of the most popular meeting places for scientists on the Internet. This group has grown enormously within the past year alone, and being the highest traffic area now on the bionet, it is presently receiving upwards of 1000 postings per month or approximately 35-40 postings per day. In the past, netters have enjoyed a relatively low level of outside annoyances. Minor problems associated with the methods newsgroup were mostly postings from people who did not understand the purpose of the bionet newsgroups, from those who were just `kicking the tyres' in order to learn how to make postings, and from those who did not regularly participate in the discussions and therefore lacked the proper (n)etiquette. The `kit wars' I wrote about in the third article (TiBS 19, 46-47) have all but disappeared, possibly because scientists have accepted pre-packaged reagents, or maybe because the battle over kits is just not worth fighting anymore. More recently, however, uncontrolled mass postings and unsolicited junk Email to members of the group have threatened the solitude of the Bionet. The high signal-to-noise ratio once enjoyed among bio-netters is becoming increasingly shattered. Commercialization of the Internet and unsolicited advertisements have resulted from the explosion of Internet traffic and the popularity of household computers, with net providers now making access to the World Wide Web easier than ever. Hot babes and recycled golf balls ********************************* The bionet was originally set up as a non-commercial public site, and the policy against advertising is clear - no advertisements are allowed to be posted to the bionet newsgroups. Since the explosion of commercial ventures on the Internet and the increasing cost of providing service to scientists who frequent the net discussions, the bionet was forced to begin selling banner space on its web pages (see Box 1 below). The banner advertisements provide some income in order to maintain the bionet site, now housed at Stanford University. In contrast, the policy with regard to advertising in the newsgroups themselves remains the same. As outside annoyances are now beginning to flood into the bionet, we are beginning to see professional scientists driven away from the net, most likely because of uncontrolled misuse of the worldwide `Information Highway'. The once untamed Web has now become a hunting ground for net poachers, those who are trying to take advantage of free `air time' for profit. Perhaps having to deal with this flood of intruders is the price we will pay for reaching an ever-growing worldwide audience. One netter recently summed it up by saying that there are several newsgroups that he will no longer read mainly because his interest in the group subject does not outweigh the trepidation he feels towards paging through screens and screens of indexed spam (mass postings of advertisements through the news system; the legend has it that the source of the word `spam' comes from the undefined processed canned meat sold as Spam and Monty Python's famous spam-loving vikings sketch in which the vikings chant `spam' so loudly that others cannot hold a normal conversation). The bionet is now inundated with postings on subjects like pyramid schemes, multi-level marketing ploys, advertisements for questionable dieting supplements, pay-for-view XXX download sites, URLs for where to order the cheapest golf balls, and the like. In addition, many of the mass postings are being propagated through the bionet hypermail archive system, hogging huge amounts of memory space allocated for scientific research. The amount of money lost through this type of action is of major concern. Gerard Tromp (tromp@sanger.med.wayne.edu) wrote in bionet.general that there are several types of spam currently causing the problem. They are: (1) a posting that has no relevance to the newsgroups to which it is posted, with the message being cross-posted to a large number of newsgroups; (2) a posting that is clearly deemed as `advertising' with no relevance to the newsgroup to which it is posted; and (3) unsolicited bulk Email to group participants from computer programs designed to create huge mailing lists from postings to newsgroups. What can be done about it? ************************** Quality control in the bionet (and on the Internet in general) is difficult to enforce. There are no hard and fast rules, laws or `net' police officers. One way to avoid the spam is to set up kill filters on your own machine or through your newsreader. This is not as easy as it sounds though, because it does take some computer know-how and it really does not solve the problem in the long run. Another method is to complain to the systems administrator at the site from which the message originated. This might not be very effective, however, as spammers (people who send spam messages) can spoof (forge) the Email and usenet posting headers, or can post from throw-away accounts. Gerard Tromp wrote that this allows them to `insulate themselves from the onslaught of irate recipients who have absolutely no interest in their nefarious get-rich-quickly schemes or other products'. Another method that might work for the bionet is by using anti-spam software. Cancel-bots (programs that sift through the postings and propagate cancel messages for spammed postings) could be put in place, but are currently not on the bionet. One solution proposed by many people on bionet is to have all the bionet newsgroups moderated. Moderation works by having all the postings sent through a volunteer arbiter who either passes the message on to the net or trashes it. This would ensure that no spam gets through the cracks, but has the disadvantage that the postings take much longer to appear and your posting might be passed up for whim of the arbiter. In addition, slower turn around time could effectively kill some useful conversations. Some think that moderation also somehow reduces the feeling of free speech you get when not being constantly watched or regulated. A simple way to combat bulk Email is to keep your Email address from being parsed by bulk mail programs by including a `no_spam' insert. For example, the address pnhno_spam@ncifcrf.gov must have the no_spam segment manually deleted before it is usable. This fake address keeps bulk Email from reaching the correct mail box. The down side is that others whom you would like to get Email from might not know this, and it could cause confusion if they have little or no experience with Email. The problem is that spammers can by-pass most attempts to skirt them. They can keep up with the latest efforts to kill their messages by cancel-bots or spam-bots (programs designed to eliminate spam postings). Spam wars are very much akin to that of computer virus detectors trying to keep up with the people who write computer viruses - a spy-versus-spy cycle, with the spammers countering every move that a cancel-bot makes to rid them from the newsgroups. Netters think that some sort of regulation is needed, but who will be the new `Information Highway Patrol (IHP)'?...and how will they enforce the proper use of the Internet? Perhaps it is time to begin the move toward regulating the Web before it's too late. One step is to begin writing to your congressman or senator for pressing laws prohibiting bulk Email if you feel that strongly about it. In the USA, there is legislature proposed (bill S. 771 in the Senate and bill H.R. 1748 in the House of Representatives) regarding the transmission of unsolicited advertisements by Email. More information on fighting against spam can be obtained through the net. Point your browser to http://www.canismajor.demon.co.uk/antispam/antispam.htm Even with all its down points, the methods group is by far the best resource available to researchers today for international exchange of laboratory advice, know-how, and ideas. I am glad to have participated over the last five years. Other netters in the methods group are optimistic about the future of the bionet too, and think that this current trend of spamming will pass as only a temporary annoyance. Something must be done quickly, however, because if the spamming continues, the best researchers will leave and the quality of the discussions will deteriorate. Happy trails ************ This article marks the last of an experimental monthly series devoted to summarizing discussions on an Internet newsgroup. This column was first of it's kind to break ground in an effort to combine electronic publishing and hardcopy printed reviews. Over the past four years, I have enjoyed the pleasure of contributing to this series on both serious and not-so-serious topics discussed on the net. I tried to combine the serious side of biological research with the odd bit of humor, sometimes with mixed results from readers (not to mention some biotechnology companies). On occasion, I would try some off-beat discussions to see what the readership would consider important, interesting and entertaining. I not only blasted kits, exposed library contaminants and suggested using household items like pencils, mixed drink blenders, garlic presses and furniture polish for lab experiments, but I also had a serious look. In one column, I showed how someone could do molecular genetics in the comfort of their own home, outlining in detail (quite tongue-in-check I might add) how to make an electrophoresis unit out of pencils (TiBS 20, 202-203). In another, I tried to alert the molecular biology community to discrepancies within commonly accepted terminology and suggested possible changes of policy regarding the adoption of biological terms (TiBS 21, 153-154). Over the past few years, I have tried to make improvements in the quality of discussions by introducing the M & R Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) list (now available as a hyperlinked HTML version), and making the list and past manuscripts from this column publically available through my Homepage. I hope you have enjoyed the running of my unique column. I would like to thank the people at Elsevier Trends Division for their continued support throughout this experiment and I am extremely grateful to Jo McEntyre for inviting me to write this column, and for not squirming too much when I introduced my own bizarre sense of humor into the writings. So, until next time, adios amigos! ******************************************************************************* Box 1. BIOSCI sponsorship The US BIOSCI node is looking for additional sponsors to help continue its work. Sponsors will have their advertisement displayed in any of numerous locations on the Bionet Web pages, have a hyperlink to their Homepage, and gain other advertising exposure through the BIOSCI documentation and BIOSCI presentations at scientific meetings. Please contact biosci-help@net.bio.net for details on how your organization can help BIOSCI continue its service to the biology community. ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* Any statements made by the author are not meant to advocate the use of a particular commercial product or endorse any company. All opinions are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health. Copyright: This manuscript is not copyrighted by Elsevier Publishing Company. However, you may not reproduce any portion for resale or edit the text for redistribution, sale, or otherwise without written permission from the author. You found this at the World Wide Web (WWW) Uniform Resource Locator (URL) ftp://ftp.ncifcrf.gov/pub/methods/TIBS/sep97.txt Any reference to this column must be cited as the following published article: Hengen, P. N. 1997. Methods and reagents: bionet.molbio.methds-reagents - a status report. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 22(9):359-360. ******************************************************************************* * Paul N. Hengen, Ph.D. /--------------------------/* * National Cancer Institute |Internet: pnh@ncifcrf.gov |* * Laboratory of Mathematical Biology | Phone: (301) 846-5581 |* * Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center| FAX: (301) 846-5598 |* * Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201 USA /--------------------------/* *******************************************************************************