[3dem] RE: Microscopy: Williams and Carter follow up

[Penczek, Pawel A]

Dear Phillip.

I purchased WC book looking for a concise introduction to EM image formation.
My decision was based on scanning various options and looking at chapter
titles.  When I got the book I realized it was not what I was looking for.
It is filled with various practical advices possibly thrilling for somebody
trying to learn the practice of EM from a book.  However, the theoretical
aspects, as you aptly pointed out, are confused, to put it mildly, and at
least for my purposes useless.

The solution is not to "ban a book", but simply do not quote it in your publications.
I for one have no intentions to refer to it.  Books/papers that are not quoted will vanish
soon enough.

Regards,
Pawel A. Penczek, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
The University of Texas - Houston Medical School
MSB 6.220
6431 Fannin
Houston, TX 77030
USA

phone: 713-500-5416
fax: 713-500-6297
pawel.a.penczek at uth.tmc.edu
http://www.uth.tmc.edu/bmb/faculty/pawel-penczek.html
________________________________________
From: 3dem-bounces at ncmir.ucsd.edu [3dem-bounces at ncmir.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Philip Köck [Philip.Koeck at ki.se]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:01 AM
To: 3dem at ncmir.ucsd.edu; microscopy at microscopy.com
Subject: [3dem] Microscopy: Williams and Carter follow up

Hi again,

I’m a bit surprised by the lack of response to my mail.
I would have expected someone to stand up and defend W+C since it’s
such a highly recommended book.

To make things clear: I’m not saying everything is wrong in the book.
I simply cannot judge that.
What I am saying is that some of the parts I’ve read carefully and that lie within
the field I teach don’t seem to make sense.
Since I cannot judge the rest of the book I have to make my decisions
based on what I know. Should I assume that the rest of the book is
also full of logical problems or should I hope that I just happened to stumble
upon the weakest parts of the book.

For me this question has implications in two areas of academic life.
One is teaching: Can I tell my students that W+C is a trustworthy book
apart from a few derivations or should I tell them to stay away from it?

The second is research: Text books like W+C are actually quoted in
scientific papers. What are such references worth? Maybe one
should ban quoting certain text books?

Any comments?

Philip