Roger Critchlow wrote circa 12/06/2010 09:39 PM: > Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research: > > > http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html
Very cool! Thanks, Roger. > <http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html>Via > Maggie Koerth-Baker at Boing Boing: > > http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/06/microbiologist-turns.html Reading the comments to this one, I'm always amazed how people misunderstand peer review. Some people speak as if a panel of 3 ... or 12 ... reviewers (who do have _other_ things to do in their life) are responsible for omnisciently accepting truth and rejecting falsity. Publishing research that _later_ is criticized and turns out to be fatally flawed is all part of the process. Peer review is just 1 step in the process. Hopefully, Redfield's criticism will get published and we'll quickly follow an asymptote to a definitive conclusion that can be used in more research. One thing that's sure, though, is brought out nicely by this comment: "Maybe she's wrong. But it deserves a quick response, not a plodding discussion in the editorial pages of a magazine that most everyone can't afford." -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
