>At that time, the view that HD was caused by a gene was a
>prevalent but distinctly minority view amoung molecular geneticists
>and clinical psychiatrists; therefore, as a psychologist Wexler would
>have been aware of that. While her own studies may have helped to
>convince her that the hypothesis was correct, she did not originate
>the idea. Once she decided to devote her career to finding the gene,
>she then sought out a genetics lab that would teach her the theory
>and techniques she needed to do the proper research. Most of the
>labs she applied to replied as Mike describes, but eventually she found
>one that believed as she did and which was willing to train her in
>exchange for her contribution to the lab's own research efforts. Only
>after she had this training -- both empirical and theoretical -- did she
>then have the ability to begin locating and mapping the HD gene,
>and that training would not have been possible if she hadn't also
>found another researcher within the molecular genetics field who
>believed as she did that HD was caused by a gene.
Of course Wexler had to obtain this training, just as she would
need training if she decided to put a new transmission on her
car. But I wasn't talking about learning *techniques* and
interpreting data points. I was speaking of an attitude that
an outsider can bring to a problem. As I mentioned, because
outsiders don't know all the nitty-gritty details, they are not
as easily talked out of doing an experiment. Wexler's approach
was indeed a long-shot and there were plenty of reasons to
think it would not work. And the experts explained these
reasons to her. Let me quote her:
"Needless to say, several knowledgeable scientists told us
we were crazy to look for the gene in this haphazard, hit-or-miss
fashion. They predicted it would take fifty years or longer
to find out target·Our critics said "wait until a more detailed
genetic map is available, one with many more regularly spaced
markers." This is, of course, a much better strategy if you have
the time to wait·..In 1979, despite such sensible advise, we
began hunting for the Huntington's disease gene."
I am not arguing that Wexler's status as an outsider was
essential for her work, but I do think it played an important
role. Having no prior experience with just how tedious
and frustrating genetic mapping can be, Wexler's passion
and sense of urgency remained intact and she was truly
instrumental in making this discovery.
>So again we see how a "classical" case of an "outsider" making
>a significant contribution in some field is not in fact true. Wexler's
>career as a psychologist made her enough of an "insider" as far as
>mental illness was concerned to know the relevant research that
>suggested that HD was caused by a gene, and she deliberately
>became an "insider" as far as molecular genetics was concerned
>in order to learn the skills she needed to accomplish her goal.
I'm not interested in nitpicking about what makes a "real"
insider vs. a "real" outsider. If you need to win an argument
by splitting hairs, be my guest. As I see it, what is significant
is that Wexler was not an experienced gene-mapper when she
decided to take on this challenge. And I suspect she took on
this challenge because she wasn't an experienced gene-mapper,
as the experienced gene mappers predicted she would fail.
Remember, Kevin, you claimed:
===================================================
The only examples that exist are those of people who
were already experts in the field in which they made their breakthrough,
through independent study and research, but who were unacknowledged by the
recognized experts in that field.
===============================================
Wexler was not *already* an expert in gene-mapping prior to
her 83 paper. Now, obviously, she needed the help of some
who were experts, but then we have a *symbiotic* relationship
and there is no reason to believe Wexler was unimportant.
And perhaps that is the point you are missing. An outsider
may not be able to make a dent alone, but as part of a
symbiotic team, an outsider can contribute things of
crucial importance.
>Had she never become interested in HD, some other "insider" would
>have eventually followed his belief and mapped out the HD gene,
Maybe, maybe not. But it's a good bet that if it wasn't for Wexler,
we would not have made the amount of progress that has been
made. I suppose I'm just the type who sees a human face behind
science.
>because the hypothesis that HD was caused by a gene was itself
>conceived of and proposed by "insiders" based on their intimate
>knowledge of the field and their own research experience.
No one is claiming Wexler conceived the genetic basis for
this disease. Wexler simply had the spirit not to be discouraged
in looking for it by the naysayers.
>In other words, certain "insiders" had already decided not to
>talk themselves out of doing an experiment (finding a gene for
>HD) long before an "outsider" (Wexler) decided to go ahead
>and do it.
Yes, I know. Wexler was completely unimportant in this
discovery. Scientists are like worker ants working in
segregated castes - easily replaceable from within the
caste and no ability to contribute between castes.
Perhaps I will e-mail her to get her take on her role.
Mike