The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

That would certainly be the argument that I'd make, but I think that's a pretty weak argument. Among other things, I think that raises a question of unconscionability - Ketchum still gets all the profits, and the submitters get to look at data with which they can do nothing.

Courts typically will not substitute their own judgment to replace the bargained for exchange to which the parties agreed. The individuals signing the NDA must have subjectively believed that they were receiving some benefit in the transaction. I haven't read that there was any duress or noticed evidence of something other than an arms length negotiation. Where the parties are in relatively equal position when entering into a contract, unconscionability is typically not a valid defense. I admit though that I am not overly familiar with this situation.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Plenipotentiary

[Guest]

There might be more pages to the NDA outlining the compensation? We really don't have all the facts, as per my previous post.

You know what Thermalman - I know people who submitted - and this would absolutely be news. I have heard about the NDA - but none of them ever discussed delayed compensation or any compensation..

Interesting twist. But, you're right - we really don't have all the facts.

[southernyahoo]

southernyahoo said:

Are you talking about the primers developed by Ketchum?

So, Melba figures out in the lab the nuDNA was novel - and develops a primer. She sends the sample with the new primer to an outside source for independent testing? Would this be correct or am I off the mark here?

According to the paper, an outside lab used their own primers. I think Ketchum began to get some novel results, then sent samples out and had the outside lab develope their own.

[Guest]

Southernyahoo.. You may be right - but I swear I remember someone saying that Melba created her own primers for these tests....

[Guest]

"The primers used in the sequencing of MC1R were designed by DNA Diagnostics and additional primers by SeqWright to correspond with great apes, humans and Neanderthals" Ketchum et al 2013

At least for the MC1R gene she did.

[Guest]

Whewww - score one for my memory.. It still works. Thank you ridgerunner.

[Guest Tyler H]

The problem with that, though, is that that's not how the courts want it. In order for there to be a valid contract, there needs to be an offer, consideration, and acceptance. I'm not seeing any consideration here - it's pretty obvious how Ketchum benefits, but how do the other parties benefit?

Again, not legal advice - consult your attorney.

I would think that the argument would be made that the "consideration" would be performing the testing that the submitters wanted done, on the sample and eventually finding out the result - whether that was through "inside info" or not.

I'll attach the NDA I got from a source a couple years back now, I believe. I think it was used for the submitters. Haven't looked at it in forever.

Melba's Research Testing Agreement converted.rtf

[Guest]

Thermalman said:

Is it in the NDA?

Leisureclass said:

Thank you for your thoughts. I am willing to bet there are two different NDA's - one for the sample submitters and one for the labs and other scientists working with her.

Not a legal opinion, just a guess.

In this quote there is no mention of a nda, also it sounds like other labs pulled their support when Ketchum told them the results they sent her were interpreted as bigfoot.

" Also, I contacted one of the eleven

scientists referenced by name as

contributing to the genome research. He

confirmed that his lab did the DNA

extraction for Dr. Ketchum, but he would

not agree to an on-the-record interview

because the controversy the DeNovo

article has provoked about an alleged

Sasquatch hybrid threatens the credibility

and livelihood of his lab and other

scientists. The Catch-22 is: his lab

extracted the DNA. Other scientists did

blind genome sequencing and their results

match Dr. Ketchum's. But as soon as

those labs and scientists learned the DNA

under study allegedly came from the

unproved Sasquatch creature, then they

backed off from vouching for their own

work."

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=2070&category=Science

[Guest]

It is quite common for journals to charge folks to read a paper. I checked a handful of journals, namely Science, Nature, and Genome Research. Science and Genome Research will ding you US$20 to access the article for ONE day. Nature will let you purchase an article in PDF format for $8.

I couldn't tell you if that is their standard pricing for all articles. And not sure if you need to have a subscription to be able to access them otherwise. If you did then Science charges $50 to $310, Nature charges $99 to $199, and Genome Research charges $625 to $3820+.

In light of this, then it would seem to me that $30 for Ketchum's paper, is quite inexpensive, and more than fair.

Except De Novo was identified as an "open source" journal, which is by deffinition open access, no cost!

I think one lab was doing the human mito sequencing. Ketchum was sending them samples and telling them they were human (I guess) then they sequenced human mtDNA from the samples which had been screened to eliminate samples conforming to human morphology. So if the outside lab did due diligence in cleansing and purifying the DNA, thats a repeating result "coming back the same".

Another lab was doing the nuDNA targeted genes. This lab had to know the origin of the samples was questioned, because proprietary primers were developed to do the sequencing. Universal primers were also mentioned. Novelty found here could also be "coming back the same"

one more time, you do not use primers in Next gen sequencing!

[Guest]

one more time, you do not use primers in Next gen sequencing!

actually they did some more standard sequencing of several of the nuDNA genes described for which they generated new primers. These were targeted genes as SY stated.

[gigantor]

Wow! this thread just keeps going and going and

[Guest]

actually they did some more standard sequencing of several of the nuDNA genes described for which they generated new primers. These were targeted genes as SY stated.

How difficult of a process is it to create new primers?

[Guest Tyler H]

"The primers used in the sequencing of MC1R were designed by DNA Diagnostics and additional primers by SeqWright to correspond with great apes, humans and Neanderthals" Ketchum et al 2013

At least for the MC1R gene she did.

Of note:

When Melba and I spoke on the phone, I asked her if her specialized primers could be behind the differing results - she told me "the primers have nothing to do with it"

[Guest]

Okay stupid question time..

How could a primer adversely affect the outcome of sequencing?

[Guest]

How difficult of a process is it to create new primers?

very easy - they are just short pieces of DNA that are used to "prime" DNA synthesis in either PCR or sequencing reactions. Today it typically cost about 5-10 dollars and can be made often overnight. Once you know your target sequence, it is quite simple.

Of note:

When Melba and I spoke on the phone, I asked her if her specialized primers could be behind the differing results - she told me "the primers have nothing to do with it"

Tyler, your sequences were generated from PCR products (I believe), where as the sequences we are looking at from MK are from her Illumina sequencing efforts. We don't have much real sequence info from MKs primer based sequencing (just any altered bases).

Okay stupid question time..

How could a primer adversely affect the outcome of sequencing?

primers could effect the outcome of the sequencing by amplifying something other than that which was planned. Frequently when you do a pcr reaction, you get spurious bands, which are usually just labeled as artifacts - and usually have nothing to do with the intended target. I think the "unknowns" in the manuscript are just artifacts. If you sequence these spurious bands, you will come up with "unknown" sequences. Occasionally one set of primers might pick up other related genes or pseudo genes, but these would not be unknowns.

Edited March 12, 2013 by ridgerunner