LONG post... It's interesting to entertain the notion of squelching of unconventional claims in science. And I have no doubt that this happens on a somewhat regular basis. Part of this arises from the fact that null results are typically not published (even if they may shed light on the state of the universe as much as statistically significant results, IN SOME CASES). This approach leads to far fewer Type II errors as Type I (which is science is seen as the more serious, as we all know). The logic of inference, however, should prevent some of the problems in scientific decision-making in the long-run. Let's take the work that was being done in prenatal cocaine exposure in the 80s and early 90s (i.e., rat models of "crack babies"), and heavily funded by NIH and NIDA. MANY scientists were finding null results and thus the work was not getting published (reasonably). The few who were finding detrimental effects of prenatal cocaine exposure (Type I errors?) were publishing and thus creating a "bias" in the literature. Presently, the "myth" of "crack babies" has been well-documented. BTW, I can provide references if you would like. That is, we now "know" that the "crack baby" syndrome is probably more a result of malnutrition and poor prenatal care (along with concurrent use of a variety of other drugs including alcohol and cigarettes) than actual cocaine exposure (and I am certainly NOT suggesting that that exposure is a good thing). It's really an interesting story in the history of psychopharmacology and experimental research and modeling (I use it in my methods class every semester). For a more personal story, I remember when I was in graduate school, I was told by my advisor that we couldn't possibly publish my dissertation... because the results conflicted with something already published "from the lab". There's more to that story, but I'm not really interested in "going there".
But I digress from the primary point I would like to raise. There is always an additional possibility -- that a very intelligent and legitimately accomplished individual might also be experiencing some kind of psychiatric disorder. I always assume that this happens rarely... but I acknowledge it as a possibility. I'm sure we've all seen it, albeit infrequently, in our students. I read through the Ling "letter" in its entirety. Very interesting (especially with the caveat that many of the cited research is from a single author... the letter writer himself). It's also interesting that not only was he the editor of the journal from which many of his cited research come, but his funding source is also associated with another disgruntled Nobel Prize NON-winner. I am certainly NOT suggesting that Ling has any kind of psychiatric disorder, but I found the following passages from his letter most interesting: Thus, unbelievable as it is, we find Nobel Laureate Skou also in the role of victim- (unknowing) perpetrator of this global information embargo. the Nobel Committee members and their favorite advisors are themselves part of the victim-(unknowing) perpetrator network. Next I fill in the historical details of the en masse exodus of my students. The story really began at a much more honest time in the history of biomedical sciences. Then the lion’s teeth and claws were suddenly upon us and upon all those who have come to share my scientific view. A coordinated siege began. As an example, NIH program director, Dr. Paul Bowman told me that our NIH support might be terminated permanently. But the harm was already done. During the 20 years, when I was not aware of Gena Kolata’s manuscript switching and therefore could not have rebutted its falseness, she, Friedman and Miller as well as Science magazine have all become a part of the victim- (knowing or unknowing) perpetrator of the network of global deception. Next, I share with you what I dug out further: a pair of upstart “big-time” players in the global information embargo. The key question is has cell physiology been always like this? The answer is a decidedly No. The deception began not much longer than half of a century ago, when a few misguided individuals took over the helm. Soon the absolute power they wielded corrupted them. By recording only publications in favor of the membrane pump hypothesis and ignor- ing all opposed, Glynn and followers have done away with the search for truth as the goal of science and have installed in its place the perpetration and glorification of the status quo right or wrong. And over the long run, the sin/crime of the deception is going to be paid in the lives and suffering of countless innocent men, women and children. Just take one incurable disease, cancer as an example In America alone, 1990 innocent men, women and children died of cancer everyday in the year 2000. Put differently, cancer kills more innocent Americans on any two ordinary days (3980) than on that single calamitous day, 9–11, 2001 at the World Trade Center (2801.) In closing, I ask you another question. At this very moment, 19 year olds are asked to give up their most precious possession, their lives to protect American citizens. Shouldn’t you and other intelligent and caring scientists like you, who have now the visibility and public trusts that come with the Nobel Prize, join me in righting the wrongs in basic cell physiological science, wherever they are? ======================================================== Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology Utica College Utica, NY 13502 (315) 792-3171 monkeybrain-collagist.blogspot.com "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Martin Luther King Jr. On Dec 31, 2010, at 4:47 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Carol's mention of the sodium-potassium pump reminded me of an article that I > came across recently in which the author, Gilbert Ling, accuses Nobel-prize > winner, Roderick McKinnon, of plagiarizing Ling's work. In his paper, Ling > essentially attempts to debunk the notion of the sodium potassium pump, a > concept that seems to me to be more than well-established in biology, by > providing various lines of evidence, mostly coming from his lab, for an > alternative theory. In the process, he seems to demonstrate that McKinnon > should have known about Ling's work but appears to ignore it (rightly so, > perhaps?). Not having the proper background in biology, nor the time to look > into these matters closely, it is difficult for me to ascertain the > legitimacy of the two claims: 1) That McKinnon failed to credit Ling's work; > 2) the evidence for and against the notion of the sodium potassium pump. For > those who may be curious about the paper, it may be accessed directly from > http://www.physiologicalchemistryandphysics.com/pdf/PCP39-89_ling.pdf, > > An interesting, if not glaring, detail about the legitimacy of Ling's claims > is that the > journal,http://www.physiologicalchemistryandphysics.com/default.htm, in which > the paper appears in and which dates back to 1969, but ends in 2008, contains > several papers most, if not all, of which are authored or co-authored by > Ling. Ling is also its 'Chief Editor'. > > In addition to the allegations of plagiarism, this case is interesting from a > couple of other angles (e.g., mentoring of graduate students, their > marketability, the nature of unconventional claims). > > I was wondering if any of you are familiar with this case and, if so, if you > would provide some short commentary. > > Miguel > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DeVolder Carol L" <[email protected]> > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 12:26:01 PM > Subject: [tips] Khan Academy > > My son told me about this site. Maybe I'm the last person to discover it, but > I thought I'd share it just in case. It seems to be a useful resource. So far > I've only looked at the anatomy of a neuron and sodium-potassium pumps. I'd > be interested in others' opinions. > > http://www.khanacademy.org/ > > Carol > > Carol L. DeVolder, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology > Chair, Department of Psychology > St. Ambrose University > 518 West Locust Street > Davenport, Iowa 52803 > > Phone: 563-333-6482 > e-mail: [email protected] > web: http://web.sau.edu/psychology/psychfaculty/cdevolder.htm > > The contents of this message are confidential and may not be shared with > anyone without permission of the sender. > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13482.917fac06d4daae681dabfe964ca8c74e&n=T&l=tips&o=7571 > or send a blank email to > leave-7571-13482.917fac06d4daae681dabfe964ca8c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13522.468cbac056133a996283cca7e2976336&n=T&l=tips&o=7575 > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > or send a blank email to > leave-7575-13522.468cbac056133a996283cca7e2976...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7679 or send a blank email to leave-7679-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
