> 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.
>
Then we are largely in agreement: she had to become an "insider" in order to
accomplish her goal. What remains to be worked out are common definitions
for "outsider" and "insider", and determining the precise nature of her
contribution to science. Since your argument essentially is that as an
"outsider" she was able to accomplish something that no "insider" was likely
to duplicate, these considerations are critical.
I define "insider" as someone who is trained in and does research in a field
of science; consequently I define an "outsider" as someone who is not trained
in that field and who does not do any research work in that field. I believe
that her contribution was the successful mapping of the HD gene. Since the
goal she wanted to accomplish involved doing research in a particular field
and since she had to be trained in that field to do that research, she had to
become an "insider" in order to make her contribution. So half of your
argument is refuted by the fact that she was no longer an "outsider" when she
made her contribution.
The question then becomes, was what she did unique? That is, could any
"insider" have accomplished what she did? Certainly any "insider" had the
training and experience, but would they have the attitude? Since I maintain
that she got the idea from reading "insider" journal articles and that she
was trained and supported by sympathetic "insiders", it iseems obvious that
in fact at least some "insiders" believed as she did that mapping the gene
quickly was possible. In other words, a few "insiders" at least did have the
same attitude. This then would refute the other half of your argument:
there were "insiders" who were just as likely to accomplish what she did.
So again I conclude that Wexler's contribution to science was neither unique
nor based on any "outsider" status.
>
> 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.
>
But for the conditions of your argument to be satisfied, this would have to
be a somewhat unique attitude among "outsiders"; in other words, no "insider"
would be likely to share it. If it is true that she got the idea originally
from "insiders" and that she was trained by "insiders", they had to have the
same attitude she did, despite their intimate familiarity with "all the
nitty-gritty details". In fact this seems to be the fundamental flaw in your
argument. People do not get talked out of doing an experiment because they
know it will be hard; they get talked out of doing it because they have no
real confidence it can be done. The key is confidence, not knowledge. You
are in essence suggesting that it was her naivete that gave her her attitude;
it wasn't. Her attidue came from her confidence, which came from the
support, encouragement and training she received from the "insiders" who also
had confidence. So claiming that her accomplishment was really that she
brought a unique attitude to that field is simply wrong.
>
> 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."
>
As Wesley pointed out, there is nothing in the quote to suggest that her
approach would not work, only that it would take far longer than she
imagined. And as I pointed out, her references to "our" and "we" indicates
that by that time she had already enlisted the help of sympathetic "insiders".
>
> 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.
>
If it wasn't essential, then your argument has no basis. And its importance
is diminished by the fact that there were some "insiders" who believed as she
did.
>
> 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.
>
Again this is an overstatement, because the "insiders" who gave her the idea
and who trained her and supported her knew very well "just how tedious and
frustrating genetic mapping can be," yet also believed as she did that it
could be done rather quickly. And neither was her passion or sense of
urgency unique; had there been no "insider" who was equally passionate and
had the same or a greater sense of urgency, her contribution never would have
happened.
>
> >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.
>
This is not about my supposed "need to win an argument"; this dispute lies at
the very heart of your argument. Your argument is based on the assumption
that as an outsider she contributed something that no insider was likely to
contribute. If as I maintain she in fact deliberately became an insider to
make her contribution, then your argument has no basis.
This attitude suggests to me that you view your position as unopposable
(therefore my opposition to it must be some ego thing) and that you are now
looking for an excuse to terminate this discussion to avoid looking foolish
(a suspicion that has been born out by your later posts). I think you
recognize that this is in fact the weak point of your argument, so you would
rather avoid discussing it rather than run the risk of having its flawed
nature exposed.
>
> 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.
>
Again, you are trying to make a blanket statement concerning outsiders vs.
insiders. Obviously not all insiders predicted she would fail since she got
the idea from insiders and was trained by insiders. And in point of fact you
have not provided any evidence that any insider predicted she would fail. By
her own words, what people were telling her was that it would take far longer
than she believed it would, not that she could never do it. It should also
be pointed again that it was not naivete that convinced her she was right,
otherwise when she found out just how hard gene mapping really was she would
most likely have quit. She believed she was right because she had confidence
based on the support and training of sympathetic insiders that she would
succeed.
>
> 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.
>
All that that demonstrates is that you have a naive view of scientific
research. In order to publish her 1983 paper she had to have publishable
results, which means she had to know how to get those results, which means
that she had to know the right experimental techniques, which means she had
to be trained and experienced in those techniques, which means she had to be
an expert in those techniques. By the time her training was complete and she
began work on the HD gene, she was indeed an expert in the techniques of
genetic mapping.
>
> 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.
>
Wexler's importance was only that she was in the right place at the right
time. Had she not been, someone else would have done the work eventually.
>
> 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.
>
Except that you have yet to demonstrate that an outsider can contribute
anything that no insider could also contribute. You are not defending your
claim here, you are simply restating it. I have demonstrated that anything
she supposedly contributed had already been contributed by any number of
insiders, so she had nothing special or important to contribute except to be
in the right place at the right time to do the work. I have also
demonstrated that by the time she made her contribution, she wasn't even an
outsider anymore, so your argument collapses for lack of any sound basis.
>
> >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.
>
Again, you seem to be arguing that Wexler and only Wexler could have mapped
the HD gene. There was nothing unique about Wexler that would have made this
even remotely true. Wexler could accomplish what she did only because
certain insiders had already laid the foundation. Had she not been in the
right place at the time, someone else would have stepped in to do the work,
and we would be just as far along as we are now. If you knew more about how
science worked than simply from a work-study program you would realize that.
>
> >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.
>
And that is because there were insiders who believed as she did, who also
would "not be discouraged in looking for it by the naysayers", and so
encouraged and supported her. Had no such sympathetic insiders existed (as
you continually imply) she never would have gotten off the ground, but had
she never existed some insider would have done what she had done..
>
> >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.
>
There is no need to be sarcastic; this is what I meant by arguing
irrationally, at least in part. The analogy is a poor one, because science
is very much a human endeavor, but it has one advantage over other human
endeavors such as art and philosophy: it studies objectivity rather than
subjectivity. Since what it studies is real, the work of individual
scientists is itself real and not simply a product of how they subjectively
perceive the subject. This is why a group of scientists can work on the same
project, each doing their own experiments, and the results can later be
combined and analyzed as if they were obtained by a single person. This is
why reproducibility is a criterion for determining whether experimental
results are valid. This is why it is possible for PIs to essentially replace
virtually their entire research staff once every two to four years and still
continue the same long-term project. That is why one person can start a
project and another can finish it with almost no cooperation between them.
The point is that in science what matters is the results obtained, not who
does them. To claim as you appear to do that only Wexler could have
accomplished what she did is to deny this very fundamental aspect of science.
Wexler WAS unimportant, in so far as she had nothing unique to contribute.
Her specialness comes only from the fact that she was the one who did it; it
does not come from the false belief that she was the only person who could
have done it.
Kevin L. O'Brien