Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 139:
Line 139: + + Line 147:
Line 149: + + + + + + + Line 157:
Line 166: + + + +
Reverted edits by GCA (Talk); changed back to last version by Argon
::Shame. But what, in that case, is the point about the work being "Federally Funded"? If you are saying that FOIA does not (for some reason) cover the work then why mention that its Federally Funded and then say that FOIA doesn't cover it? I dont understand. Is it a way of saying the law should be expanded? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 10:35, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::Shame. But what, in that case, is the point about the work being "Federally Funded"? If you are saying that FOIA does not (for some reason) cover the work then why mention that its Federally Funded and then say that FOIA doesn't cover it? I dont understand. Is it a way of saying the law should be expanded? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 10:35, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I see you have not yet answered on this. Probably because I did not make my question clear. (It may be be because my medicines.) My question is: Why would you make a challenge: - ""Who will be first to figure out a legal means for obtaining public disclosure of Lenski's underlying federally funded data?"" - If you already know that the freedom of information act gives no authority or means to ask for this federally funded data. It seems a strange thing to do.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 14:17, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I see you have not yet answered on this. Probably because I did not make my question clear. (It may be be because my medicines.) My question is: Why would you make a challenge: - ""Who will be first to figure out a legal means for obtaining public disclosure of Lenski's underlying federally funded data?"" - If you already know that the freedom of information act gives no authority or means to ask for this federally funded data. It seems a strange thing to do.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 14:17, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: Obviously FOIA is not the only legal means for obtaining information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:34, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
== Quick quiz: What form would the data for the Ara marker take? How is it tested? ==
== Quick quiz: What form would the data for the Ara marker take? How is it tested? ==
And what things could go wrong in an experiment to test the Ara marker? What controls would you run to test for errors?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
And what things could go wrong in an experiment to test the Ara marker? What controls would you run to test for errors?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
: When you demonstrate a recognition of the benefits of public scrutiny of data, Argon, there might be more interest in your postings. Put another way, do you really think Lenski is perfect and there can be no flaws in his analysis of data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::If it were me, I would first make sure I'd read not just the primary paper but a solid survey of the related and referenced papers to collect as much information as possible about the techniques used. If I still didn't understand, I might pull out a microbiology textbook or find a microbiologist to discuss the work, and then I'd ponder some more. I might even ask the first author to explain some of details. Only after all that, if something clearly did not appear to be supported by the data would I consider error or fraud. Then, the next step for me would be to try to reproduce the experiment. If that failed, I would contact the journal editors and the authors, report my results and work to see the source of the discrepancy. In my opinion, Andy, your order of approach has been almost the exact opposite of what most scientist would do.
::As for demanding the data for 'public scrutiny', there are benefits and there are costs. Can anyone at any time waltz into any lab and demand copies of any researcher's data, especially when there is not hint of fraud or error and the requesting party shows no ability to understand the results and has not even read the literature pertaining to the work? After all, I demonstrated that some of the information you demanded was already present in the paper -- '''''On the paper's very first page'''''. Others (including myself) have provided links to additional papers that describe their key procedures but it would appear you haven't read them. Is that *really* the optimal use of a taxpayer funded researcher's time? Andy, if there is suspicion of fraud there are procedures in place that can lead to the examination of lab notebooks. Have you investigated how to report your suspicions to the correct organizations? Yes or no?
::On the other hand, if a researcher supposes a simple error in the results, the most common and time-tested method for verification is to reproduce the work in another lab. That is the gold standard for scientific experiments. As I've mentioned previously, work like marker verification would be simple and quick. Furthermore, it's clear from the 'replay experiments' that culturing of the pre-Cit+ strains can produce Cit+ mutants. So even that can be verified in labs with relatively little expense (just daily subculturing for a few weeks). Andy, have you contacted any microbiologist to discuss the paper or test the strains that Lenksi is making available?
::Andy, throughout all this 'debate', you've frequently demanded that others show you the data or give you proof about their claims. The reason why I asked about how the Ara markers are tested is for you to show that you've read and understood the key papers. In my opinion, until you demonstrate a recognition of the benefits of understanding the papers and the techniques behind them, most observers would find it hard to believe the you could assess whether there are flaws in the paper. I remain surprised with what appears to me as disconcerting lack of interest in how the actual experiments were performed and what they mean. At this point it's clear to many, including some long-time editors here, that the demand for 'public scrutiny' does not offset the costs to taxpayers for collating and sending you the data.
::I'll grant that what I write might not be interesting to you, but others probably find it relevant.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:44, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
== Plans for the data? ==
== Plans for the data? ==
::: I've been clear about the request for "data", a term that does not ordinarily include organisms. I recall that Lenski himself in the paper claims that he analyzed "data", and one of his co-authors did not. The table in the entry here on [[Lenski]] illustrates with great specificity what the undisclosed data are. No, it is not necessary to perform experiments and generate new data in order to review existing data for a published paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:30, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
::: I've been clear about the request for "data", a term that does not ordinarily include organisms. I recall that Lenski himself in the paper claims that he analyzed "data", and one of his co-authors did not. The table in the entry here on [[Lenski]] illustrates with great specificity what the undisclosed data are. No, it is not necessary to perform experiments and generate new data in order to review existing data for a published paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:30, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::: First, Mr. Schlafly (if you like, my real name is Scott), I specifically said "the documents and bacteria samples", yet you act as if I am only talking about the bacteria. Second, even if you had those documents you'd be stuck with another problem: you are essentially charging Mr. Lenski with either misinterpreting or making up the results in his research. Assuming you had every single document (be it paper or electronic or whatever) on your desk this very moment, what would cause you to suddenly believe them with those missing parts now included? If I'm interpreting your challenge correctly, you wish to come to your own conclusions about the ''E. coli'' study. How are you going to do that with documents that you clearly distrust? You would need to examine the bacteria generations themselves, not just the documents you think are incorrect, to come to an independent opinion. Mr. Lenski seems more than willing to comply with your data request, but I haven't seen something similar from you showing that you're capable of storing and examining the bacteria samples safely. When do you hope to have the facilities online or loaned out? - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 20:27, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Addressing the table on [[Lenski]]- it would be worthwhile to state what the minimum requirements are for you to declare that the data is fully disclosed. For example, when you ask for data on daily turbidity observations, do you require a facsimile of every observation for all twelve cell lines for every daily transfer since 1988? A summary of only those observations which are 'unusual', according to some predetermined criteria? With or without facsimiles of those particular observations? With or without summaries and/or facsimiles of the tests performed to establish the cause of the unusual turbidity? When you ask for 'data' on contamination, do you wish for a summary of every contamination event for all twelve cell lines over since 1988, or just the Ara-3 line? Are facsimiles required? When you ask for 'higher resolution data underlying the figure', is it acceptable to present the same data in a table form rather than a figure, or are facsimiles of the recorded observations needed? Each 'Question' can be narrowed down significantly. The legitimacy of the challenge can be enhanced by fixing the goalposts at the outset.