JonazzDJ wrote:A common criticism I hear is that Folding@Home isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. This proves them wrong!
Here's some facts that might be useful for talking to people who have doubts. By every metric used in the scientific community, we do really well:
* citations: I have an h-index of 55 with over 10,000 citations, primarily due to our work with FAH.
* awards: due to FAH, my group and I have been awarded key prizes. Most notably, I'm only one of two people to win both the Protein Society Young Investigator Award and The Biophysical Society Young Investigator award --- two key prizes from the scientific community based on our work with Folding@home. There are numerous other awards.
* grants: we have been very successful in peer reviewed grants.
* papers: our papers are in key, peer reviewed scientific journals
* conferences: my team and I present our work at invited talks at key conferences (I'm at one right now in fact)
With that said, there will be people skeptical about new methods, but I find that these are people *not* in our field (eg not in protein folding) and not familiar with our work. I could see how someone unfamiliar with our work would be skeptical (it probably sounds crazy that we could pull off what we've done, brining millions of people together to make scientific advances). If you encounter such people, probably sending them to the page which talks about our awards (http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Awards
), papers (http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers
), or citation impact (http://scholar.google.com/citations?use ... AAAJ&hl=en
) is a good place to start.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that our key predictions are tested experimentally, either by my lab or others. Our work on Alzheimer's Disease recently published in J Med Chem is primarily an experimental test of previous FAH simulations some years ago.
Prof. Vijay Pande, PhD
Departments of Chemistry, Structural Biology, and Computer Science
Director, Folding@home Distributed Computing Project