185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 151:
Line 151: + + + + +
→Quick quiz: What form would the data for the Ara marker take? How is it tested?
: 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)
: 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? ==