The Ketchum Report

[Guest watcher]

I don't know where you get this new methodology from watcher. Maybe you could elaborate on that.

You should consider though that she would have to protect herself in publishing results from so many clients. A legal release would have to be done, one that gives her control over publishing rights and ownership. She couldn't afford to deal with people who wouldn't do that, and it would compromise the integrety of the study to have so many hands on the steering wheel so to speak. I wouldn't expect to see results in this paper that wasn't fully released to her.

A legal release would not "HAVE to be done". But yes, of course it would be something that BOTH parties would want to be done, and something that both parties would want to be drawn up in their favor. Melba would of course want to retain control, as would the people behind any projects that brought her the samples. Do you think that people that spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and decades of work on researching this animal would just say "here you go, all yours!" and sign it over to her? Or does it instead maybe sound like a potential for conflict where both parties want agreements that let them retain control over the information?

The way I see it, one party has made the discovery, and another party is a source of new testing methods that get results that other testers have not gotten. The person who comes up with the methods should retain control over said methods, and any patentable ingenutiy that comes from them; and the parties that produce the samples should retain control over the discovery they have worked on for decades.

The DNA tests are a huge part of obtaining widespread acknowledgment of a discovery that has already been made - a "defacto discovery" as John Bindernagel has called it. But the DNA tests are still just that - tests. Tests in a field wherein the methodology will have other applications. But again, it is like someone who improves a microscope, or improves thermal imaging - she is NOT a sasquatch researcher. And she is NOT discoverying anything - the DNA is already there, and has been tested by many before her - she is just claiming to have a new way of reading it that makes more sense than the way her predecessors have read it. She's not even inventing DNA testing - shis is just claiming to have improved it. It is NOT her discovery.

you know, hair samples have been submitted to Dr Henner Fahrenbach for years. He has pioneered methodology that shows consistencies in these unidentified primate hairs. I think he deserves a whole lot of credit fot that. But he would never presume to own a project just because he contributed his expertise in testing a sample that someone asked him to contribute his opininion on.

And yes, I do have some insight on this.

[Guest]

washingtonian

Is it customary for a scientist to be maligned prior to the release of their findings that they believe are significant? Can a scientist who has spent the first part of his career studying the making of beer and wine offer anything of significance to the medical profession? It has been done before.

I agree with those who say that Dr. Ketchem's study/ test results will stand on their own. The time to critique a work is when the work is completed and presented, and even then it should be the work that is critiqued more so than the person who presented it.

These are both excellent points.

Cancer researchers, CDC Doctors aren't "roasted" routinely as Dr. Ketchum has been by the BF community of late. She is actually trying to add information to the subject of Bigfoot...I would think we'd appreciate her efforts a little more & ease up on the nay-saying.

Any info garnered is more than we had previously...whether each of us agree with the testing used or not. All things in the scientific arena are either breakthru's or missteps....but even when things don't go according to plan, or theory, something is learned. It's all trial & error.

[southernyahoo]

A legal release would not "HAVE to be done". But yes, of course it would be something that BOTH parties would want to be done, and something that both parties would want to be drawn up in their favor. Melba would of course want to retain control, as would the people behind any projects that brought her the samples. Do you think that people that spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and decades of work on researching this animal would just say "here you go, all yours!" and sign it over to her? Or does it instead maybe sound like a potential for conflict where both parties want agreements that let them retain control over the information?

There is testing and novel methods, then there is publishing the results. The agreements, between the person assembling the science paper and submitters of samples would have to be very specific. I wouldn't blame DR. K. for asking for full release of the results to be published. I understand that the submitters of the evidence want their rights to the evidence and to own the results of their paid for testing but thats where it ends. The published paper contains results from multiple submitters and none of them can claim control of the complete study and none are the boss of Dr. K.

The way I see it, one party has made the discovery, and another party is a source of new testing methods that get results that other testers have not gotten. The person who comes up with the methods should retain control over said methods, and any patentable ingenutiy that comes from them; and the parties that produce the samples should retain control over the discovery they have worked on for decades.

I'll reference my above statements regarding ownership, you would have to release her of any liability regarding publishing the results in a science journal. If the discovery is already done then it won't need to be published in Dr. K's paper. To me it didn't matter if she owned the results, what mattered is that it got published the right way.

The DNA tests are a huge part of obtaining widespread acknowledgment of a discovery that has already been made - a "defacto discovery" as John Bindernagel has called it. But the DNA tests are still just that - tests. Tests in a field wherein the methodology will have other applications. But again, it is like someone who improves a microscope, or improves thermal imaging - she is NOT a sasquatch researcher. And she is NOT discoverying anything - the DNA is already there, and has been tested by many before her - she is just claiming to have a new way of reading it that makes more sense than the way her predecessors have read it. She's not even inventing DNA testing - shis is just claiming to have improved it. It is NOT her discovery.

To me, scientific discovery will be in the pure sequencing data that comes from the samples. Dr. K. is the one who has endevored to assemble the results from across the country, and take the testing to the depth needed for a supportable conclusion. This is both thanks to the submitters and financial contributors that drove it this far. Some of us were just after scientific recognition of the creature, and apparently some wanted to own the discovery outright, but put someone elses name on the published results.

you know, hair samples have been submitted to Dr Henner Fahrenbach for years. He has pioneered methodology that shows consistencies in these unidentified primate hairs. I think he deserves a whole lot of credit fot that. But he would never presume to own a project just because he contributed his expertise in testing a sample that someone asked him to contribute his opininion on.

Yes , and Henner had limited results some time ago that he refrained from publishing because it wouldn't have settled this. I think we both know why.

And yes, I do have some insight on this.

Me too.

[Guest Bucket]

I'm of the opinion that DNA test results aren't going to matter much, one way or the other. You can say on paper, yes we have proof, Bigfoot is real. But without a living creature or a body that can be displayed, people still won't believe.

[Guest]

I'm of the opinion that DNA test results aren't going to matter much, one way or the other. You can say on paper, yes we have proof, Bigfoot is real. But without a living creature or a body that can be displayed, people still won't believe.

Unfortunately this is very true, but the initial DNA is still a step in the right direction.

[Guest]

Whoops!

Edited August 5, 2011 by grayjay
Double post

[Guest HairyGreek]

washingtonian

Is it customary for a scientist to be maligned prior to the release of their findings that they believe are significant? Can a scientist who has spent the first part of his career studying the making of beer and wine offer anything of significance to the medical profession? It has been done before.

I agree with those who say that Dr. Ketchem's study/ test results will stand on their own. The time to critique a work is when the work is completed and presented, and even then it should be the work that is critiqued more so than the person who presented it.

These are both excellent points.

Cancer researchers, CDC Doctors aren't "roasted" routinely as Dr. Ketchum has been by the BF community of late. She is actually trying to add information to the subject of Bigfoot...I would think we'd appreciate her efforts a little more & ease up on the nay-saying.

Any info garnered is more than we had previously...whether each of us agree with the testing used or not. All things in the scientific arena are either breakthru's or missteps....but even when things don't go according to plan, or theory, something is learned. It's all trial & error.

I think we also need to remember the point Art made (perhaps in another thread?) that she is a member of this board albeit not an actively participating member and deserves to live under the smae rules of protection against hostile attacks and innuendo as we all do. I just want to point that out. Not saying anyone has done that per say. JMHO.

[Guest]

So does anybody have the skinny on this bone that she and David talked about on their first interview in August? By their second radio show, Paulidies wouldn't give anymore information about it and I haven't heard anything about it since.

[Guest]

She was in a combined program in which she was admitted to vet school without an undergrad degree and then given double credit for subsequent classes toward both a B.S. and a DVM. One can debate the merits of that.

I'm glad Hairyman called but perhaps there was a misunderstanding. DVM is a professional degree. That is not referred to as a doctorate or a doctoral degree any more than an MD is. But if a person wants to call it that, that is up to them.

I have no further comment on the "scientist" issue other than what I posted above.

Tempest in a teapot....

How many years of graduate courses did she take and pass?

Okay, This is what these titles mean as far as I know.

I know a man with a Ph.D in chemistry and M.D.degree. He is still called Dr.

Another man has an M.D. with 6 years *post* medical school training in a specific field,and he is still just an M.D.with the title Dr.

However, in the teaching field having post graduate degrees helps a lot to obtain tenure. Ph.Ds , especially dual Ph.Ds are highly regarded in academia and in the **Science** world.

Those with Ph.Ds are considered doctorate degrees, and use the title Dr. legally.

Vets who have a post graduate degree in vet medicine use the Dr.title, and those who have a doctorate in vet medicine and can/do use the title doctor of vet practice.

Does she have this post grad degree? From what you said I believe that she can truly use the title Dr. that she is using.

It's a dog eat dog world sometimes in academia. I've seen it happen.I believe that I am correct.

She is fully qualified to be a part of this study degree wise..

Hope this helps.

Edited August 5, 2011 by SweetSusiq

[Guest]

Dr. Melba S. Ketchum grew up in Texas City, Texas. She attended Texas A&M University where she received her doctorate in Veterinary Medicine after five years at the university. She had a mixed veterinary practice until she founded DNA Diagnostics. Dr. Ketchum is the president and founder of DNA Diagnostics, Inc. d/b/a Shelterwood Laboratories. Established in 1985, DNA Diagnostics has become a leader in all types of DNA testing including: human and animal forensics, human and animal paternity and parentage testing, disease diagnostics, trait tests, animal and human identity testing, species identification and sex determination. Most common species of animals are tested at DNA Diagnostics.

What is a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine?

It is a degree of the highest study in Veterninary Medicine. To do a Doctorate, you must first do a Bachelor Degree ie. the first level of degree, then a Masters (second level of degree), then a Doctorate. To complete a Doctorate, you must write a book on your subject matter and have it approved and published. This is the product on what your degree will be graded and awarded. Once you have achieved a Doctorate, you can place the abbreviation of Dr. before your name.

I'd say she qualifies as a Scientist.

Technically the paper is considered a *thesis*, not a book, even tho it is often a large book length.

A thesis must be read and approved by other scientists before the degree is awarded.

[masterbarber]

Thank You Susi

It wasn't my definition but I suspect the author was trying to keep it layman friendly.

[Guest watcher]

none are the boss of Dr. K.

Well, if you hire a Doctor to cure your cancer, he may take charge... but in the end, he still works for YOU. He who controls the testing cubject (ie, the samples) controls the situation. No samples, no testing.

One person was hired by the other. In the world I live in, that makes one person the employer, or boss.

Either party can chose to go it on their own, but one party DEFINITELY is not working for the other; whereas one IS hired by the other.

Ketchum may get samples elsewhere, but DNA testing can also be done elsewhere.

[TimB]

Okay WAtcher- your argument seems to be that Dr. Ketchum should be processing the lab work and forwarding the results to the people who submitted them. That is, I'd imagine, what usually happens (I've never had any kind of DNA lab work done). Perhaps, instead of railing against Dr. Ketchum overstepping her role, you should be trying to figure out why all of the submitting parties AGREED to let her do a paper on their samples! Or am I missing something?

Tim B.

[southernyahoo]

Well, if you hire a Doctor to cure your cancer, he may take charge... but in the end, he still works for YOU. He who controls the testing cubject (ie, the samples) controls the situation. No samples, no testing.

One person was hired by the other. In the world I live in, that makes one person the employer, or boss.

Either party can chose to go it on their own, but one party DEFINITELY is not working for the other; whereas one IS hired by the other.

Ketchum may get samples elsewhere, but DNA testing can also be done elsewhere.

Yes you could take your samples elsewhere, and pay a lab to try and duplicate what Dr. K is doing and get your results back if that's what you wanted. But if Dr. K found them to be squatchy you would have a decision to make..... Let her have the results and publish with the rest, or get your results back and make do with whatever it says, and let it stand by itself. The samples would be far more persuasive as a group than one result by itself in my opinion. If you think you could hire a scientist to test a sample and then "make" them publish on it, well you may be sadly mistaken.

[TimB]

Nicely put, SY.