I don't see this as being just a question of whether the lawyer (or even the
wider customer base, such as the inventor-chemists for whom I search)
understands the *database*, or even the limitations of the host command
language. The whole issue of what we used to call "reference interviewing"
i.e. negotiation with the requester so that both sides thoroughly understand
the *question*, is surely fundamental to the business of information
searching. It is as important for someone manning an enquiry desk with only
half a dozen printed books for reference as it is for those of use with the
combined power of several online hosts and hundreds of databases.
Unfortunately, the demand for patent searching training at the information
science schools seems to be dropping in favour of modules on
company/business/financial information sources, and the disciplines required
for patent subject-matter searches are not being taught.
My experience is that both searchers and customers improve with time and
experience - our regular customers no longer ask for "anything on herbicide
X", but someone coming new to the company may well do. Any searcher needs
to work with their customers to establish a position of mutual respect of
one another's skills. Personally, I found the reaction of the attorney
whose comments (as quoted by Greg Aharonian) started this discussion to be
sad, bordering on the offensive. They suggested the man may have had some
bad experiences of past searches and consequently damned the whole system en
bloc. I have had nothing but support from the team of attorneys on this
site, and intend to keep it that way.
Stephen Adams
Zeneca Agrochemicals
stephen.s.r.adams@gbjha.zeneca.com