> 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."
Kevin:
>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.
That's not a relevant distinction. Since the majority of experts
said it would take 50 years to map the HD gene (and she was
crazy for trying), the arguments clearly indicated it would not
work in *her* lifetime.
>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".
Yes, but see below.
Me:
> 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.
Kevin:
>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.
So you imagine. I get the feeling that so strongly-held are your
opinions about this topic that you don't see that you might be
rewriting history in light of those opinions. The fact remains
that you have not cited any paper arguing the HD gene could be
mapped rather quickly nor have your provided the arguments that
were used against the majority of experts.
>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.
There is no need for a lab that was "equally passionate." The
really hard work comes in flying down to Venezuella, living
among the people, making the contacts, doing the interviews,
obtaining the samples, etc. It takes hard-core passion to sacrifice
like this. Bringing back the samples and putting someone to
work with blotting doesn't require as much passion.
Me:
> 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.
Kevin:
>Again, you are trying to make a blanket statement concerning outsiders vs.
>insiders.
No, I am not making blanket statements. This is not a matter of
all-or-none, it's a matter of degree.
>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.
I gave you the original quote earlier on:
"Needless to say, several knowledgeable scientists told us that we were
crazy to look for genes in this haphazard, hit-or-miss fashion. They
predicted it would take fifty years or longer to find our target."
Given the human life span, they were telling Wexler 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.
They told her it would take 50 years or longer - given her age and lifespan,
that means she could not do it.
>It should also be pointed again that it was not naivete that convinced her
she
>was right,
What was she right about? She recognized their arguments were sound.
She just did it anyway out of her sense of passion. Now why do you think
that is? Because she is at risk for Huntington's! Her mother died of HD
(although her father doesn't have it). She didn't have time to wait 50
years so she took her chances. That's what it's all about and not because
she came up with some great "insider insight" that gave her confidence
the gene would be found in 3 years.
>She believed she was right because she had confidence
>based on the support and training of sympathetic insiders that she would
>succeed.
No, it wasn't confidence. It was passion. Without Wexler, do you really
think these sympathetic insiders would have worked so hard in Venuzuella?
Me:
> 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.
Kevin:
>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.
The keyword is "eventually." I'm not talking in generic terms, I am
discussing what happened in the actual history of science.
Me:
> 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.
Kevin:
>Except that you have yet to demonstrate that an outsider can contribute
>anything that no insider could also contribute.
That's not the issue. I am not saying an outsider status is necessary.
You are the one claiming an outsider cannot contribute anything to
science. I don't have to show that an outsider can contribute
anything that no insider could also contribute. You have show
that no outsider has ever contributed anything to science (and you
can always do this by defining an insider as someone who
contributes things to science, thus this is getting boring).
Me:
> 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.
Kevin:
>Again, you seem to be arguing that Wexler and only Wexler could have mapped
>the HD gene.
And of course I am not. It simply is a fact that Wexler is indeed the one
behind the mapping.
>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.
And those insiders could only accomplish what they did because she
did all that hard work in Venezuella.
>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.
Such is your faith in the interchangeable worker bee.
>If you knew more about how science worked than simply from a work-study
>program you would realize that.
It seems we have a very different view of how science works. You
view science as this impersonal and deterministic force. Simply remove
Wexler and
someone else fills in. Science was going to map the HD gene in the early
80s with or without Wexler. Things like person-dependent passions and
inspiration have no place. It's all about knowing the theories and employing
the techniques, where Science functions as a machine and scientists are
no more than cogs in the machine (seen one, seen 'em all). I have a more
humanistic and contingent view of science, where personalities and chance
play important roles in the history of science. Where things would be
very different if certain scientists had not been born. Where experiments
take place because risk-takers exist (and not all are risk takers) and ideas
stem
from influences beyond the isolated theories of science.
I'm going to move beyond the insider vs. outsider debate (if you need,
consider
that you have won your battle and "exposed" the flaws) and focus on this
differing view of how science is practiced.
Perhaps others can offer their opinions. Is science deterministic and
impersonal? Or does it also involve contingency and the personal, such
that our state of scientific knowledge would be different if certain
scientists had not been born?
Mike