Dear colleagues,
Since when does being a structural biologist make us experts in
climatology,
and isn't it a breach of basic ethical practice and professionalism as
scientists
to sign on as authors to an article for which we have neither contributed
research nor intellectual content of the manuscript? Are we now going
against
the standard to which the editorial policies of leading reputable
biological
journals normally hold us as authors? And doesn't it hurt the credibility
of a serious scientific article, its authors, and the journal in which it
appears
if biologists with no expertise in earth science/astrophysics appear
without humility as authors to such an article?
Are you not embarrassed to put your name to an article that uses physical
sciences data as a platform for preaching about religion, politics, and
economic
theory ("...social and economic justice for all...")?
Does it not upset you when someone unfamiliar with structural biology draws
firm conclusions that heavily depend on the part of a structural model that
has high
B-factors? So why are you unconcerned that you may be guilty of an
analogous
error when, as structural biologists, you put your name to a controversial
interpretation
of selected earth science data? See, for example,
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2017/02/24/living-warm-peak-ice-ages/ about
the ways
climate data can be misinterpreted by choosing too tight a time interval,
and lets stick to
structural biology and allied sciences in the CCP4 list, please.
Respectfully,
Daniel M. Himmel
>
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
