Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
16 bytes added ,  19:47, June 28, 2008
"Peer review" is meaningless - what counts is "replication" of the results
Line 1: Line 1: −
'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University.  He holds a doctorate from the University of North Carolina.
+
'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State University.  He holds a doctorate from the University of North Carolina.
   −
Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed evolution of E. coli in a long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination.  His 2008 paper asserting his claims was peer reviewed in a mere 14 days, sparking questions about the thoroughness of the review.
+
Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination.  His 2008 paper asserting his claims was [[peer review]]ed in a mere 14 days, sparking questions about the thoroughness of the review.
    
When Lenski received a public request for the data underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded.  No one else has reproduced Lenski's findings.
 
When Lenski received a public request for the data underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded.  No one else has reproduced Lenski's findings.
Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650

edits

Navigation menu