Dna Results? Where Is It?

[Guest]

Why assume that any difficulties in publication would stem from referees having a problem with the "implications" of the paper? Why wouldn't the more parsimonious explanation (i.e., that the data aren't compelling enough to warrant the hype afforded the work in the bigfoot community) be the more likely?

Not when we have scientists on record as saying precisely that and other scientists on record as saying they have been told that by other scientists.

The key to peer-reviewed publication is not the reviewers rubber-stamping everything that comes across their desks.

Nor it the key to "peer review" to judge articles unworthy for publication simply because you don't like the results, but it happens.

The onus is on the authors to substantiate their claims with data and analysis that point to one unequivocal explanation.

There is equal onus on the reviewers to review in a dispassionate and impartial manner, publish the paper and their rebuttals, and let the collective readership decide.

[Guest]

They've let leak that the preliminary studies show an animal somewhere between a Neanderthal and a Human--and Dr. Meldrum said that this is just a lot more human-like than he would have expected, seeing as Neanderthals had material culture (tools and stuff that they made, used, owned) and were fully human..

found this somewhere , cant remember where......

I remember seeing that too somewhere...

A weird result, considering that the yeti tracks are more ape-foot than human-foot in general appearance. More than one species, as some have been saying?

I wonder if Dr Fahrenbach would be willing to submit samples of his "vetted" sas hairs to the team for analysis?

[Guest nixon]

Listened to a man from "Ripley's" on the radio this past weekend. He was claiming that their most prized possession was a hair sample from a proclaimed Yeti skull held by the monks of Tibet. They had the hair DNA tested and it came back as unknown primate. This was unusual because there are no primates in this region of the world, according to the man.

[Guest ajciani]

A reputable journal might want a token sample of the evidence before publishing something so huge as conclusive DNA evidence of a North American Great Ape/ Non-human Hominid.

Actually, the journals never get into "hands on" review of the work. They accept that the author is telling the truth, and let the reviewers hash out any flaws and ask questions.

Mulder already hit the nail pretty square, but I'll just add this.

A reviewer will NEVER overtly state that the implications are too great, and reject a paper for that reason. Instead, they attack the conclusion and method and everything about the paper, but often in a way that makes the author wonder if they even bothered to read it. I had one paper rejected, likely by a researcher who had done prior work and was unhappy that I had both stepped into their territory and contradicted some of their findings. The statements in the rejection were ridiculous, and mostly ignored the science and methodology, while attacking the "completeness" of the work. We wrote a rather scathing response, and the editor sent it out for a second review, which came back with a big thumbs up. I swear, it was so blatant that my co-author's head almost exploded when he read that rejection letter.

The science of DNA sequencing is reasonably mature, and the database for human and non-human primate mtDNA is also reasonably complete. It even includes paleo DNA. Ketchum would have to royally F-up to produce any substantial errors in the methodology, especially if she is dealing with multiple sub-samples of multiple samples run at different times in different batches. So if her paper receives a rejection, it will be on something other than the science.

BTW, the options of the reviewer are:

• Accept as is
  
• Accept with changes
  
• Reject
  

If the reviewer recommends changes, the paper is usually not reviewed again. If the paper is rejected, the editor might suggest changes, and send the changed paper out for review, the author might respond to the rejection and request a second review with or without changes, or the author might withdraw the submission and try somewhere else.

Alas, it seems that Ketchum has a "last call" out for samples, which probably means she is still doing the testing, and has yet to do the analysis or write the paper. As far as I know, there have been no preliminary results released by Ketchum.

There was a result from that Snell Grove Lake sample, which indicated that bigfoots were somewhere between the ape-human split and human. Given the humanoid features of Patty and suspected bigfoot prints, that makes sense. Then again, the Snell Grove Lake sample was a single sample loaded with zinc (which cleaves DNA), so who knows.

[southernyahoo]

Thanks ajciani,

I would expect that many of the samples have been fully processed. It's easier to add late comers when all the processes have been ironed out, the research team is in place and the unique identifiers are located in the Genome. Further ID of squatch hairs would become rather straight forward.

[Guest]

Yes, people prepare crappy reviews all the time. That is not the same thing as assuming going into the process that reviewers will reject a bigfoot paper because they can't handle the "implications." What implications? The implication would be that we've got arguably the greatest scientific discovery in anthropology, human evolution, wildlife biology, etc., ever. I honestly can't think of a single scientific colleague who wouldn't be thrilled to learn of such a discovery.

It's no secret that I don't think there's anything other than human perception, creativity, mythology, and tomfoolery behind the bigfoot phenomenon. But this fantasy that "science won't give bigfoot a fair shake" is far less supported than evidence for the beast itself. If Ketchum (or anyone else) has "bigfoot DNA" and can prove so with evidence presented in a rigorous scientific analysis, then she WILL be able to publish it, and with great fanfare.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Hopefully someone knows and will answer these;

Will anyone else test the hair during this process?

Do the findings have to be replicated by others in order to accepted?

Will they assume that the database she used has results from every known primate?

Are they making this into another episode of Destination Truth?

If the hair turns out to be from a lemur while she is pushing for a yeti, will she quietly back away into obscurity and we'll never find out?

Edited February 8, 2011 by FuriousGeorge

[southernyahoo]

I wonder if Dr Fahrenbach would be willing to submit samples of his "vetted" sas hairs to the team for analysis?

I would expect that if he had any with a root attached he would have sent them to Dr. Ketchum, how could he miss this boat?

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Wow, nobody took a stab at my questions. Hmm interesting. Very interesting. Maybe they weren't up long enough yet. I thought by now that the folks that seem to know everything under the sun about the peer review process and/or the folks that write a half of page soliloquy about this topic would be able to answer the first three. Keep in mind, this is not a twenty year field study up for review, this is one item of physical evidence trying to meet the criteria of being from an unknown large primate. If you can't answer these or don't want to, that's fine too. But I'm judging you lol. Maybe if I reword them for better clarification. The last two could probably not be answered by anyone here so I'll leave them out. Challenge thrown down here. The questions seem simple enough, no?

Will anyone else test the hair during this process?

Do the results have to be replicated by others with her samples in order to accepted?

If "no" to the above two questions.........

Will they verify that the database she used has results from every known primate?

[southernyahoo]

Wow, nobody took a stab at my questions. Hmm interesting. Very interesting. Maybe they weren't up long enough yet. I thought by now that the folks that seem to know everything under the sun about the peer review process and/or the folks that write a half of page soliloquy about this topic would be able to answer the first three. Keep in mind, this is not a twenty year field study up for review, this is one item of physical evidence trying to meet the criteria of being from an unknown large primate. If you can't answer these or don't want to, that's fine too. But I'm judging you lol. Maybe if I reword them for better clarification. The last two could probably not be answered by anyone here so I'll leave them out. Challenge thrown down here. The questions seem simple enough, no?

Will anyone else test the hair during this process?

Do the results have to be replicated by others with her samples in order to accepted?

If "no" to the above two questions.........

Will they verify that the database she used has results from every known primate?

I would think there is enough data in Genbank to do an accurate comparison of the results to the knowns and establish what they are most closely related to. Thats going to tell you plenty right there. Ketchum has stated that she is also comparing them to all the data available on great apes, humans, Neanderthal etc. Placing it on the phylogenetic tree of life would allow everyone to see what it is even with no match to a known.

[Guest]

Yes, people prepare crappy reviews all the time. That is not the same thing as assuming going into the process that reviewers will reject a bigfoot paper because they can't handle the "implications." What implications? The implication would be that we've got arguably the greatest scientific discovery in anthropology, human evolution, wildlife biology, etc., ever. I honestly can't think of a single scientific colleague who wouldn't be thrilled to learn of such a discovery.

It's no secret that I don't think there's anything other than human perception, creativity, mythology, and tomfoolery behind the bigfoot phenomenon. But this fantasy that "science won't give bigfoot a fair shake" is far less supported than evidence for the beast itself. If Ketchum (or anyone else) has "bigfoot DNA" and can prove so with evidence presented in a rigorous scientific analysis, then she WILL be able to publish it, and with great fanfare.

Then how do YOU explain the multiple statements Dr Meldrum documents where scientists have spoken about their urge to reject the evidence in front of them based on their incredulity of the topic and implications?

[Guest ajciani]

I think stigma can go a long way toward knee-jerk rejection. For a long time, I thought that cold fusion was bunk. It is almost impossible to publish anything cold fusion related in the major journals, and most patent offices will reject cold fusion patents out of hand. Basically, every "good" physicist knows that the anomalous heating experiments could not be reproduced, and there was no theoretical basis for how a medium-energy nuclear reaction could be achieved with very low energies. After investigating the topic some, I discovered that the experiments were reproduced, factors affecting the reproducibility were identified, anomalous heating with other metals had been observed, nuclear reaction products were observed, and a theoretical framework existed. There is even an Italian company that claims it has been manufacturing and selling hydrogen-nickel reactors as a cheap means to provide industrial steam.

Will anyone else test the hair during this process?

Probably not. The samples will most likely be consumed in the process, but if done right, should be split into sub-samples run in multiple batches.

Do the findings have to be replicated by others in order to accepted?

Depends on how many Ketchum does and how thorough she is. Most likely, the publication will spark enough interest to get people out in the field looking for more, and others interested in doing the testing.

Will they assume that the database she used has results from every known primate?

Ketchum will identify the databases she uses, so there will be no assumptions as to what they contain.

Are they making this into another episode of Destination Truth?

Probably not. I am not aware of any recent reports of Destination Truth working with anyone that has been publicly acknowledged as sending her samples. Then again, the DT people tend to do their own thing, so if they send her samples as part of this, it may show up in an episode. If it does, it would correspond closely with Ketchum's press conference and publication.

If the hair turns out to be from a lemur while she is pushing for a yeti, will she quietly back away into obscurity and we'll never find out?

Finding lemur hair in Tibet would be a substantial discovery in its own right. Of course, finding yeti hair in North American samples would also be a surprise.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Good answers ajciani. I appreciate it.

Finding lemur hair in Tibet would be a substantial discovery in its own right. Of course, finding yeti hair in North American samples would also be a surprise.

The lemur was an arbitrary animal thrown in there by me. The main part of the question was to see if we will ever find out any information about her study if someone is able to prove that the hair is from another animal. I should have said a Gee's Golden langur. Rare animal so it may not be in the database that she used. Lives in that area.

[Guest]

Then how do YOU explain the multiple statements Dr Meldrum documents where scientists have spoken about their urge to reject the evidence in front of them based on their incredulity of the topic and implications?

Hearsay and cherry picking from someone who gains materially from bolstering the myth of editorial bias against bigfoot?

[Guest]

For a long time, I thought that cold fusion was bunk. . . . After investigating the topic some, I discovered that the experiments were reproduced, factors affecting the reproducibility were identified, anomalous heating with other metals had been observed, nuclear reaction products were observed, and a theoretical framework existed. There is even an Italian company that claims it has been manufacturing and selling hydrogen-nickel reactors as a cheap means to provide industrial steam.

Others investigating cold fusion come to decidedly different conclusions:

Neurologica

JREF thread on Rossi