Hi Cara! Seems to me that you should go with your real mind (aka, your gut) and make sure your students, at least, don't develop habits of lazy "scholarship" that seem to be creeping in everywhere and contaminating all sorts of literature with ripples of error that can become tsunamis. Certainly there is no need to go to absurd or irrelevant lengths to cite original research merely for decorative purposes (especially if the student hasn't read or really isn't citing the original research but just using a lab manual), but if the context calls for it there should be zero tolerance of sloppiness--or phoniness.
WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cara Lin Bridgman" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:33 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Plagiarizing methods... > Hi Malcolm, > > You know, some of the problem may be a case of bad habits among those > using PCR techniques (and other research tools, since it isn't just a > PCR problem). Published papers are not citing the original paper that > came up with the whole idea. They are not citing a standard lab manual. > I've requested my students to do one or the other and then explain the > changes. My students, looking at the papers in their field, seem to > think that's not the way to go. Instead, everyone (published papers, my > students) is 'reinventing the wheel' and redefining the wheel--all > without citation. > > In fact, in summarizing Ecolog responses to my class last night, that's > what I told them. I suggested that they should find the original PCR > paper. One reason I gave is that since everyone is citing more recent > papers, maybe some errors have crept into the entire protocol. It's all > part of doing the library research of your research project--you have to > check and confirm and the best way is by digging out the original papers. > > So, I agree with you. I guess the bottom line of all this (talk about > an idiom-filled email) is for me to be more confident in insisting my > students try it the right way: cite and explain any changes. > > CL > > malcolm McCallum wrote: > > I really don't understand the problem here. In ecotoxicology there > > are piles of standardized methods published in ASTM, AWWA, EPA. All > > you do is quote the standard and then tell how you modified it; if you > > did. So, with PCR you just cite the methodology and follow that with > > a sentence/paragraph or two of how you modified the former methods. > > > > OLAY! > > its done and its concise. > > > > Malcolm > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Cara Lin > > Bridgman<[email protected]> wrote: > >> That's the problem with PCR. My students can't just write "We > followed the > >> methods of Author (year)." because everyone does PCR slightly > differently. > >> Times and temperatures and number of cycles vary--sometimes by > miniscule > >> amounts--but they vary. > >> > >> PCR really is about following a cookbook, but the recipe constantly gets > >> tinkered with to improve results for the particular species, primers, > >> whatever. So, standardizing times and temperatures in my examples below > >> have probably confused things. Those temperatures and times and > number of > >> cycles vary. Well, 94*C and 72*C are used in many studies, as are 35 > >> cycles. > >> > >> CL > > > malcolm McCallum wrote: >> I really don't understand the problem here. In ecotoxicology there >> are piles of standardized methods published in ASTM, AWWA, EPA. All >> you do is quote the standard and then tell how you modified it; if you >> did. So, with PCR you just cite the methodology and follow that with >> a sentence/paragraph or two of how you modified the former methods. >> >> OLAY! >> its done and its concise. >> >> Malcolm >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Cara Lin >> Bridgman<[email protected]> wrote: >>> That's the problem with PCR. My students can't just write "We followed the >>> methods of Author (year)." because everyone does PCR slightly differently. >>> Times and temperatures and number of cycles vary--sometimes by miniscule >>> amounts--but they vary. >>> >>> PCR really is about following a cookbook, but the recipe constantly gets >>> tinkered with to improve results for the particular species, primers, >>> whatever. So, standardizing times and temperatures in my examples below >>> have probably confused things. Those temperatures and times and number of >>> cycles vary. Well, 94*C and 72*C are used in many studies, as are 35 >>> cycles. >>> >>> CL >>> >>> malcolm McCallum wrote: >>>> Just write "We Followed the PCR methods of AUTHOR (year)." > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Cara Lin Bridgman [email protected] > > P.O. Box 013 Shinjhuang http://megaview.com.tw/~caralin > Longjing Township http://www.BugDorm.com > Taichung County 43499 > Taiwan Phone: 886-4-2632-5484 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.59/2165 - Release Date: 06/09/09 05:53:00
