> >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.
>
She only found those holes because she believed it could be done faster, and
she came to believe that only because she read journal articles by "insiders"
who suggested that it was possbile and explained why.
>
> And her contribution is that she proceeded when so many
> others were naysayers.
>
Then her contribution was not unique, considering the "insiders" who also
were proceeding "when so many others were naysayers".
>
> >As I explained before, however, Wexler did NOT pioneer that
> >idea;
>
> Nobody said or implied she did.
>
You did in your original one-paragraph description of her accomplishment, and
the wording of your statement -- "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." -- also implies this very point; after all if she did not get the
idea from her training, then she had it before she started her training.
That means she either got it from someone else, or she developed it on her
own. The fact that you still will not acknowledge the fact that she got the
idea from "insiders" whenever you say things like: "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", that perpetuates the
impression that you believe she came up with this idea all on her own and met
nothing but opposition from "insiders" when she tried to pursue it.
>
> >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)?
>
Here again you give the impression that you do not believe that she got the
idea from "insiders"; that in turn implies that you believe she came up with
the idea on her own (that is, after all, the only other alternative). If as
you claim "Nobody [including you presumably] said or implied she" came up
with the idea on her own, why even ask these questions, unless you in fact
question the claim that she got the idea from "insiders"? If I don't provide
any references would you conclude that in fact she couldn't have gotten the
idea from "insiders" and must have come up with it on her own? Why don't you
just come out and admit that this is what you have believed all along?
I am not familiar with the literature on this subject, so I cannot answer
your questions, but that does not prove she could not have gotten the idea
from an "insider". From what I've read about the historical details and from
talking with people who do research in that field, it is a generally accepted
fact that she obtained the idea from the literature, and that many of the
refutations she made against the "naysayers" came right out of the literature
as well.
>
> >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?
>
Probably for a very simple reason. The realization that the mapping could be
done more quickly probably came out of results from existing projects, but
they were otherwise committed to these projects and couldn't start any new
ones right away. Then along comes an experienced and knowledgeable scientist
(definately not an amateur) who says, "Listen, I'll provide the money and the
hands to do the project, you provide the training and a place to work, and
we'll share the results." Few PIs can resist that kind of offer (though many
may be unable to accept for various non-scientific reasons).
Your question is somewhat naive because it is unaware that the vast majority
of PIs can do a project only if they can get funding for it, but once they
have that funding they cannot use it for anything except that project. As
such, while the current project may generate a number of ideas for new
projects, no new project can be begun on existing funds. Funds specifically
for that new project must be acquired, and that takes time. On top of that,
many PIs simply do not have the logistics to handle more than one project at
a time, so they won't take on any new projects until the current one is
finished. So having someone come along and say, "I'll provide the money and
do the work; all I need from you is training, and we'll do the project
together", is often seen as a godsend.
>
> >In a later post, you also claimed that her contribution was "passion
> >and a sense of urgency".
>
> Same thing.
>
Same answer; if anything, the "insiders" probably have a greater "sense of
urgency" because they want to get started on a new idea before someone beats
them to the publication.
>
> >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?
>
Yes, but it is rare, particularly with controversial projects. The damage to
a PIs' reputation should he fail would be great, so PIs who have little
enthusiasm also have little interest in gambling their reputation on chancy
projects. You have to be enthusiastically optimistic to take such a risk,
and the greater the risk, the greater the enthusiam and optimism you have to
have. On top of that, it is the duty of a PI to guide a grad student or
post-doc into projects that have a good chance of generating results, because
this is what generates papers and thus reputations. There will be plenty of
time later in their careers for grad students and post-docs to take risks if
they want to. Besides post-docs do not come cheap; their time is too
valuable to waste on projects that the PI believes will generate little or no
payoff, and a PI can loose his position if he gives grad students thesis
projects that may not succeed and thus jeopardize the student's chances of
graduating.
>
> 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.
>
The PI wouldn't put a grad student on it; the grad student would be too busy
doing his own thesis project. Since it is Wexler's project, she would do it,
unless she paid for a research assistant. In any event, no PI is going to
risk his reputation by letting some wacko use his lab to pursue a project
that cannot possibly work, no matter how much money she offered and no matter
how much work she was willing to do. The PI would agree to it only if he
believed in the project himself.
>
> >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.
>
It is you who are propogating the myth. You are arguing that Wexler made her
contribution only because she was an "outsider" defying of the opinion of the
"insiders". You even seem to be arguing that because she was an "outsider"
she was the only person who could have accomplished what she did; that in
fact no "insider" could have done it. While you admit to her need for
training and you dance around the issue of whether she came up with idea on
her own, you continue to push her status as an "outsider" as if that was the
only way this breakthrough could have been done. This is what is false, this
is what the myth is based on.
>
> >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.
>
Again, you give a very strong impression of arguing exactly that, especially
when you keep harping on how she refused to be discouraged by naysayers
without acknowledging the encouragement and support she received from a
minority group of "insiders".
>
> >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".
>
An "insider" is simply someone who knows a field, is trained in that field
and has work experience in that field.
>
> You claim that by the early 80s, she had become an expert.
>
The expertise I am referring to is in technical skill, not in theoretical
knowledge. One can become a technical expert very quickly, but it takes
years of personal study and research to be a theoretical expert.
>
> Obviously then, to become
> an expert, you don't need a Ph.D. in the field of study.
>
I don't have a PhD in either enzymology or protein chemistry, yet my PIs have
all acknowledged that I am a technical expert in both. As long as you have
certain basic skills, you can become a technical expert in a technique or
skill very quickly. Wexler already had a PhD, she was a trained scientist
and she knew the basic skills. It wasn't necessary for her to earn a PhD in
molecular genetics simply to learn how to map genes.
>
> Nor do you
> need a track record of publications in genetics prior to this time.
>
Not to have expertise in technical skills.
>
> Nor do you need previous experience in mapping other genes.
>
Talk about a Catch-22: "You cannot become an expert in mapping genes unless
you are already an expert in mapping genes." Give me a break. You have to
learn the techniques at some point, but once you do you are an expert in
doing those techniques
>
> Are technical
> skills enough? Do collecting blood samples and doing Southern blots
> make one an expert/insider in gene mapping?
>
You certainly cannot become an expert if you **don't** do any of this!
Expertise is acquired by training and experience, but you cannot get training
or experience unless you practise the techniques.
>
> The only thing that
> seems to qualify Wexler as the expert/insider (at this time) were the
> immediate dynamics surrounding her discovery.
>
I have no idea what you mean by that. Wexler was an expert because she was
trained in gene mapping and she had experience in gene mapping; for technical
expertise you don't need anything else.
>
> But that seems somewhat
> circular. Only insiders make discoveries and you can tell an insider
> because they are the ones who make discoveries.
>
The only people who make discoveries in a field of science are those who do
research in that field of science. That is not rhetoric; that is a fact of
scientific life. Since anyone who does research in a field of science is an
"insider", then to say that only "insiders" make discoveries because
discoveries are only made by "insiders" is not a circular argument; it is a
statement of plain (if redundant) fact.
>
> 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.
>
Except that that is the very heart of our dispute: you argue that Wexler was
an outsider who accomplished something no insider could and I am arguing that
Wexler could only make that contribution because she became an insider and
was supported by insiders. If we are at an impasse it is because you keep
repeating the same bad arguments, irrationalities and misconceptions even
after I have demonstrated them as such.
>
> I'm not interested in arguing over the next month whether
> Wexler was or was not really an 'insider.'
>
I repeat, this is the basis of our dispute. You used her as an example of an
outsider making a significant contribution in a field she otherwise has no
training or experience in. If in fact she was an insider, then your claim is
incorrect; if she wan't, then your claim is correct. I find it interesting
that throughout our discussion you refrained from defending your claim by
defining what you meant by outsider vs. insider, yet you would vigorously
attack my definitions as if you felt they were wrong. It was almost as if
you believed your claim should be self-evident and so didn't need to be
defended against someone too blindly stubborn to recognize the truth of it.
>
> And what's worse,
> judging from the perceived intensity you invest in this issue, it seems
> really important to you that I be wrong.
>
No, it is important to me that I try to show you your misconceptions and
irrational arguments, so that you can learn from it. I am not counting coup
here; this is not some kind of ego trip for me as you seem to imply. Your
thinking is all turned around on this issue and it is making you use bad
arguments to try to defend an untennable position. I am trying to get you to
recognize that so that you can think about this issue more clearly and
rationally. I could care less whether you agree with me or not, but there is
no reason to repeat the same stupid irrational arguments over and over again,
without even trying to evaluate their logic or effectiveness. Yes, I believe
you are wrong, but my ego is not at stake here. I am only trying to get you
to look at this issue rationally.
>
> This, in turn,
> suggests endless attempts to "have the last word" and
> "prove you are right."
>
That's only because you simply repeat the same irrationality over and over
again, so I keep trying to come up with new ways to get you to argue
rationaly. If you would at least acknowledge my arguments and start
discussing them we could move forward, but all you do is dismiss whatever I
say with more repeats of the same irrational garbage.
>
> These dynamics simply don't appeal to me....
>
Me neither; it's too frustrating to have an opponant who both sounds like a
broken record and acts as if his claims are indesputable.
>
> ...and don't offer much promise or encouragement
> for me to proceed with a critical look at your proto-cell
> model.
>
Well, if your analysis would have been no better than your current argument,
I'm not really interested in seeing it. There's no fun in re-refuting the
same infantile arguments others have presented. I had thought that you might
be different, but your eagerness to find an excuse to avoid further
discussion after only one exchange is disappointing.
>
> 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.
>
Having just declared that it is not worth your while to continue the
discussion, you nonetheless expect me to provide you with references to
defend my claim. Does a snowball's chance in hell mean anything to you?
Nonetheless, while I am obnoxious, I am not vindictive. I will send you
privately a PDF file of an article that makes these claims and provides
references to the original research reports. I will do the same for anyone
else who asks.
Kevin L. O'Brien