From: Damien Broderick (damien@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Mon Mar 29 1999 - 16:06:41 MST
At 12:33 AM 3/29/99 EST, Curt wrote:
>Well, he certainly doesn't know much about neurobiology.
Point well taken.
>"Failed to find evidence of fraud" is an *extremely* charitable way
>of putting it.
That was my understanding, too. But I gather that at least a few somewhat
sceptical observers such as Marcello Truzzi still claim that the Nature
investigation was a snow-job.
>So now somebody whose experiments are, intentionally or unintentionally,
>fudged, has found a new implausible effect which solves a "problem"
>which actually doesn't exist.
That sounds pretty likely, Curt. I posted that newspaper piece just on the
off-chance that it might lead somewhere expected and useful.
BTW, the nanobe story doesn't fall into the same category, as far as I can
tell. It was picked up by all the major serious news outlets in Oz, can be
traced back to journal articles in what look like sound peer reviewed
journals (I haven't gone to the uni stacks and sought the refs out), and
can be found linked from various reputable university research sites. I
think it's safe to assume that the nanobe claims are perfectly serious.
(They might also turn out to be misunderstood non-controversial
commonplaces, of course.)
Damien Broderick (trying to cover his arse while whistling blithely, though
not therefrom)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:25 MST