> If your arguments against me are merely based on your impressions about
> what you think I am trying to say, we'll simply end up in the typical
> "said so, did not" exchanges that go nowhere.
>
> The facts are as follows:
>
> 1. Wexler was told by many experts in gene mapping that it would take
> 50 years to map the HD gene.
>
And she learned from other experts that it could be done in less time.
>
> 2. Wexler proceeded nevertheless.
>
Because she had the assurance of other experts that what she wanted to do
could be done.
>
> You claim she proceeded because she learned from the insiders that
> the "50 year" argument was flawed and thus "insider insight" provided
> the rational basis for proceeding. But you can't cite the journal
> articles nor can you cite the arguments she supposedly learned.
>
(My answer to this point is largely moot because of what you say later, but
my comments do underscore a serious misconception in your thinking.)
So? If she did not come up with the idea on her own then she had to have
gotten it from from someone else; there is no other alternative. You claim
that you are NOT arguing that she came up with it on her own; therefore you
you must agree that she got it from someone else. Your equivocation on this
point, plus your argument above, are simply smokescreens meant to obscure the
fact that if she did get the idea from someone else the most likely source
was an insider, which would in turn undermone your argument.
have talked to who do research in this field, the idea that genes could be
mapped more quickly was already being debated in the late Seventies when
Wexler burst on the scene. My inability to cite specific references does not
disprove that. Nor is it even relevant since you claim that you are not
arguing that she came up with the idea on her own. Unfortunately you
continue to word your arguments as if you were arguing that she did come up
with it on her own, thereby maintaining a false impression even as you deny
it. This equivocation on your part feels alot like a cheap rhetorical trick
meant to keep your opponent guessing so that you can deny anything he says
regardless of what he says.
Well, no more; I am calling your bluff. Stop dancing around this point and
commit yourself: from where did she get the idea that mapping the HD gene
would not take 50 years? Did she come up with it on her own or did she read
it in the scientific literature? Surely in the book or aticle she wrote that
you have quoted from she explains where she got the idea from, so tell us!
Stop hiding from the issue.
If you state that she came up with it on her own, I will then try to find
specific references that would show that she could have gotten it from the
literature instead. If, however, you state that she read it in the
literature, then I won't need to cite any references because you will have
agreed with my claim. At that point the question would then be whether those
articles were written by insiders. Unless Wexler lists a bibliography, that
question may be unanswerable, but the burden of proof would then be on you to
demonstrate that the articles were not written by insiders.
>
> I maintain she proceeded because of her sense of passion, which,
> IMO, remained intact because she did not have the previous experience
> which told her just how irrational it would be to go looking for
> the HD gene in the late 70s.
>
And I am saying that a number of insiders had already determined by that time
that it was not irrational "to go looking for the HD gene in the late 70s".
Invoking this supposed passion of hers is meaningless because it does not
explain where she got the idea from, how she came to believe it was right,
and how she was able to convince some PI to let her do the project in his lab.
>
> The ambiguity comes in when we realize that she did need to
> at least collaborate with some insiders (who had the technical
> skills) and she did need some basic understanding of genetics.
>
No the ambiguity stems from the fact that you will not explain exactly where
she got the idea that mapping the HD gene would not take 50 years, how she
came to believe that that idea was correct, and how she was able to convince
some insider to let her pursue in his lab some project he did not believe
would work. Based on what I have read and the people I have talked to, she
got the idea from journal articles published by insiders, their research
convinced her they had the right idea, and when she contacted them one of
them invited her to come to his lab to work on it with him.
>
> Once again, I am not saying that Wexler's status of an outsider
> was essential to mapping genes....
>
If it wasn't essential then your argument has no basis and is seriously
flawed.
>
> ...or that she developed the idea of mapping on her own....
>
Then you agree she must have gotten it from the scientific literature (in
which case I don't have to provide references to support a claim you agree is
true already). So whom else would such an idea come from if not an insider
who decided his colleagues were wrong? Where else would she get the
arguments she needed to spot the flaws in the naysayers' arguments?
>
> ...but I do think that in this case, it
> did contribute something substantial to *this* discovery.
>
Except that your argument makes sense only if this contribution was unique,
something only an outsider could provide. If there were already insiders
that had realized that mapping a gene need not take 50 years, and if Wexler
got that idea from them, then she contributed nothing as an outsider that had
not already been contributed by an insider. Again your argument collapses
because it has no foundation.
>
> Science is, after all, a *human* endeavor. Perhaps I shall
> focus on this in more depth.
>
Unless you try to argue that Wexler was the only person who could have made
this discovery, you will simply obscure the discussion all the more with this
irrelevancy.
Kevin L. O'Brien