@KerSamson

I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way. I honestly do NOT think WCGrid is useless without further analysis. My point is that we should *make* this analysis since this analysis could either show us we should keep crunching or maybe we should use the money from the electricity in another project(s). There's also the possibility of no clear conclusion - fair enough. Then, I would rest my case and you wouldn't see me trying to argue in these concerns anytime soon. Anyone could choose to crunch or not and I wouldn't criticize anyone for doing it.

I'd be a very enthusiastic cruncher if we estimated the costs and found out the project has costs that most likely are being put to good use.

I think you've missed my last few posts, because I've specifically focused on getting the costs estimated, not on a cost-benefit analysis in the common sense. And from that, even if it's possible that we do not get a clear conclusion, a conclusion might be possible if the marginal costs are much greater or much lower than the universe that could potentially benefit from the research earlier (see my post regarding "marginal benefits" and "marginal costs").

@nickoli

As I've repeated before, in my last posts I've explained the focus on getting costs estimated rather than the regular cost-benefit analysis.
Spare computing time exists, but it has costs. We could take the most cautious estimates by assuming that all computers on the grid would be on if they weren't running WCGrid. Forget machine wear, I'm assuming it is negligible in monetary terms. Forget noise, too. Assume everybody that is bothered by it limits the CPU in a way that mitigates this issue.

If we found out that the costs (the price you pay a year in electricity to run WCGrid on that tablet) could very most likely be put to better use in another project (an existing one), would you rather not be part of that project instead?

NOTE: I'm talking about electricity here, but CO2 emissions should be estimated too (I have no idea what is the greatest cost - the direct cost of electricity, or the indirect cost of CO2 emissions from using that electricity - though I bet on the first).

I lose brain cells every time I visit this bloody thread. I wish this forum software wasn't so obsolete (and also a security risk, I would imagine) so we have both PM functionality and ignore list functionality.

WCG through IBM provides through its goodwill initiative the infrastructure to house the BOINC server platform and a small but talented team of employees to make it available to academic and organizational researchers to conduct their in silico research simulations. The value of each project contributes to the larger body of science, and the sooner the research is conducted, the sooner that research that builds on that research can begin. We would be losing greatly by postponing things just to wait for _____ (insert x). Now whether the in silico research involves docking chemical compounds (i.e. drugs) to a protein target, protein folding and prediction, to weather simulation to coming up with better water filters or photovoltaic cell materials, the analysis of whether to participate or not is in the subjective eye of the volunteer. The value to humanity at large is largely hindsight. When Ed Morley and Albert Michelson conducted their famous experiment, did they know at the time it would lead to the first Nobel Prize won by an American? Did they know their research would be built upon by Albert Einstein? Though their experiment disproved something instead of proved, it was still valuable. Not unlike how Edison went through thousands of failed filament and light bulb designs: each failure eventually led to success, and you better believe that materials were "wasted" in that pursuit. Similarly, we can throw the entire ZINC database at a disease target, and even if only a few of those compounds lead to real world drug leads, the computing effort still provides value to researchers in helping them save literal years of human effort and helps them narrow down the search for drug compounds that show a good hit in actual lab testing and eventually in animal and then human testing. These things take decades, but you have to start somewhere.

As stated in my first post, this thread is sophistry, since it starts with a foregone conclusion (muh carbon emissions!) and then works backwards to demonize a volunteer project. The OP not only doesn't understand how basic scientific research works but keeps beating the dead horse of the original premise that it's even possible to calculate an exact ratio of if WCG's power consumption is worth it.

Look. Without the petaflops we volunteers give them, most of these projects wouldn't exist. Or if they did manage to get NIH funding and other grants through their home country, they would still be consuming similar levels of electricity by designing their own BOINC computing clusters in house.

Look on YouTube at the University of Nottingham (e.g. the "Computerphile" channel on YouTube) and look at their datacenter tour. They have their own private grids used for academic projects. The Help Stop TB team -- I imagine -- would have access to that cluster on a first come, first serve basis. And yes, that datacenter uses electricity 24/7. *gasp!* Our Consumer Off The Shelf (COTS) or home built computers, servers, and mobile devices also use electricity. *gasp* It's potato, po-tah-toe. Either way, the computational research needs to get done. If you personally don't want to volunteer your electric bill or think that other projects provide more value to you and your interests, then it's a free country/world! And don't let the door hit you.

+1

The quintessential beauty and perhaps ultimate frustration of science is that there are no ultimate solutions, only provisional knowledges.

@wcgridmember
I think, the best positive conclusion you could expect is:
"Human disappearing from Mother Earth is the most sustainable approach for the future".
Everything human does is causing trouble and disturbing the natural balance (if any). It is called entropy!
In silico research, in vitro research, in vivo research can always be questionable.
Are they worth to be done?
Since I do not consider to commit suicide in a close future, I think that my limited contribution to WCG sciences is worth it.
Yves