> To do this, you'll need to show that Wexler's training led her
> to conclude that mapping the HD gene would not be a long-shot.
Kevin:
>In your latest response to me you claim that it was very definately NOT your
>argument that Wexler pioneered the idea that "mapping the HD gene would not
>be a long-shot"; now you are making that exact argument to try to support
>your position.
No I am not. I'm trying to put my finger on the importance of
Wexler becoming an insider. It was not becoming an insider
that led her to proceed by finding holes in the arguments of
those who warned her it would take 50 years to find the gene.
And her contribution is that she proceeded when so many
others were naysayers.
>As I explained before, however, Wexler did NOT pioneer that
>idea;
Nobody said or implied she did.
>she got it from reading the literature published by a minority of
>molecular genetic "insiders" who also believed that "mapping the
>HD gene would not be a long-shot".
And what arguments did they use to counter the majority of insiders
who claimed it was a long shot? Where did they publish these
arguments (you said it is in the literature)?
>In that same post you also claimed that Wexler's contribution as
>an outsider was NOT mapping the HD gene but her enthusiasm
>that it could be done and her unwillingness to believe those who told her
she
>was wasting her time. If that is true, then obviously this enthusiam and
>conviction was promoted and encouraged by "insiders" who already believed
>that "mapping the HD gene would not be a long-shot".
I see. She got her enthusiasm from the insiders. That is, insiders
existed who had the skills and enthusiasm, but for some reason,
they decided to bring an amateur on board and train her. Why?
>In a later post, you also claimed that her contribution was "passion
>and a sense of urgency".
Same thing.
>Obviously, however, the "insider" who trained her was just as
>"passionate" to see her do the research and had as great a "sense
>of urgency" that she do it as soon as she was able, otherwise he/she
>would never have helped her.
Really? Haven't you ever known a PI who allowed an overly
enthusiastic grad student or post-doc to pursue a risky project,
not because the PI shared in the enthusiasm, but because cheap
labor might get lucky and turn up a unlikely, but big payoff?
After all, it was Wexler who went on all those South American
trips to organize and oversee the tedious process of making
pedigrees and gathering samples. Hey, if she wants to bring
back some blood samples, a PI could put a grad student to
work on some simple hybridization experiments - low cost
with a potential big time payoff. The insiders don't need
enthusiasm, only an extra pair of hands to spare.
>My point is not to belittle her contribution (which was not a
>novel concept, or enthusiasm, or conviction, or passion, or a sense
>of urgency, but the successful mapping of the HD gene), but to dispell
>the myth that she did it entirely on her own, with no training or experience
>or knowledge of the molecular genetics field, in complete and total
>opposition to and isolation from all those who work in that field.
If you need to dispell a myth that no one is propagating, be my guest.
>In reality she got the idea from "insiders", her own enthusiam and
>conviction was fueled by the enthusiam and conviction of the "insiders"
>who believed that the HD gene could be mapped, she was trained by
"insiders"
>who wanted her to succeed, and she was encouraged by "insiders" to devote
>herself to doing it as soon as possible. These "insiders" constituted a
>distinct minority within their field, but had they not existed in the first
place,
>it is highly unlikely she would have even gotten the idea, much less the
training
>or the encouragement, to try.
No one is arguing that the insiders are irrelevant.
>And my overall point still is that by the time she made her contribution
>(mapping the HD gene), she had become an expert in the theoretical and
>experimental techniques of molecular genetics; i.e., she had become an
>"insider".
Perhaps you need to better define "insider". You claim that by the
early 80s, she had become an expert. Obviously then, to become
an expert, you don't need a Ph.D. in the field of study. Nor do you
need a track record of publications in genetics prior to this time. Nor
do you need previous experience in mapping other genes. Are technical
skills enough? Do collecting blood samples and doing Southern blots
make one an expert/insider in gene mapping? The only thing that
seems to qualify Wexler as the expert/insider (at this time) were the
immediate dynamics surrounding her discovery. But that seems somewhat
circular. Only insiders make discoveries and you can tell an insider
because they are the ones who make discoveries.
As far as I am concerned, this all boils down to personal opinions
about when an insider is really an insider, thus I'm quickly losing
interest and will leave it as is.
I'm not interested in arguing over the next month whether
Wexler was or was not really an 'insider.' And what's worse,
judging from the perceived intensity you invest in this issue, it seems
really important to you that I be wrong. This, in turn,
suggests endless attempts to "have the last word" and
"prove you are right." These dynamics simply don't
appeal to me and don't offer much promise or encouragement
for me to proceed with a critical look at your proto-cell
model. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you could
supply the references for your claims that thermal proteins
convert sunlight into ATP, create polynucleotides, and
also create polypeptides from polynucleotides. Thanks.
Mike