Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Okay, finally settled down enough to read Bart's statement and it's OK in that it (for me) boils down to these points: 1. Her promise was analysis and peer review with embargo and the course of events leaves him questioning her word b/c peer review has not been demonstrated before a big hulabaloo in mainstream media was made (our wold of bloggers still under the radar vs. an internet press release and TV interviews) 2. Justin is motivated, as the others involved, to get an analysis they can make public ASAP (good move! and one I felt should have been done at the onset) regardless of what those labs/scientists say, and without peer review, relying on their credentials of which he speaks highly.. Neither path solves it apparently, in that such startling results (even if they do not agree) will only elicit either (we hope) serious further study, conform with Sykes's results, conform with each other, or result in ridicule and dis-assembly of efforts before serious attention is given. They both have that potential, or not, depending on the data...so, all those tied up with NDAs in the Ketchum Study and additional data are waiting to weigh in, pins and needles I am sure. So, not such a bad position for Bart to take, or Justin, and his voice much more measured than Matt Moneymakers, although strongly opinionated, but he's at ground zero, the pressure and anticipation in concert with Ketchum's I suppose. Or anyone with a personal stake in the outcomes. Edited December 1, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I haven't seen anybody speculating that it could have been much harder than she anticipated to get "peers" to take the study seriously. After all the snickering, eye rolling, & lame attempts at comedy demonstrated by the media since the press release, it occurred to me that she may have received that sort of reaction when it was submitted for peer review. Perhaps the "serious scientists" were all afraid of being laughed at for even considering it. A lot of time may have been wasted trying to find peers with enough guts to actually review her findings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Who is a "Peer" in this situation? If she was trying to publish a paper on Vet Medicine she would have a group of Peers. She is a DVM with Human DNA research. One who created her own primers and patented them? Who is a peer for that kind of aisle crossing work? There may not be a single peer out there that fits the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) I haven't seen anybody speculating that it could have been much harder than she anticipated to get "peers" to take the study seriously. After all the snickering, eye rolling, & lame attempts at comedy demonstrated by the media since the press release, it occurred to me that she may have received that sort of reaction when it was submitted for peer review. Perhaps the "serious scientists" were all afraid of being laughed at for even considering it. A lot of time may have been wasted trying to find peers with enough guts to actually review her findings. I have seen many speculate so, myself included. My dismal view goes even further in that I spent many years involved in just two legal suits, but both reliant on peer-review work to make their case. It's a long road folks, and if this fails peer-review or our expectations (or meets them!) don't think it's all worthless necessarily (or the final proof) as the news really is too big, and the legal implications, for law and society to allow any one scientist (or study) say.....this will take decades I feel....b/c even if Sykes say "Yep! You guys were right!" - we don't know anything (much) about BFs reliably (or we will argue we do, and dissolve among our biases perhaps)...and we also know that kind of knowledge might never follow....those BFs are wiley! So, for the long haul, I have to figure out to compartmentalize my BF time! Edited December 1, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Who is a "Peer" in this situation? If she was trying to publish a paper on Vet Medicine she would have a group of Peers. I have no idea. I assume they are the same peers that everybody has been waiting on to review it for the past 346 pages of this thread. Edited December 1, 2012 by Sasfooty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Who is a "Peer" in this situation? If she was trying to publish a paper on Vet Medicine she would have a group of Peers. Ketchum has already published in peer-reviewed journals. See here. The media will happily point out she's a vet without mentioning this particular detail. Edited December 1, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Who is a "Peer" in this situation? If she was trying to publish a paper on Vet Medicine she would have a group of Peers. She is a DVM with Human DNA research. One who created her own primers and patented them? Who is a peer for that kind of aisle crossing work? There may not be a single peer out there that fits the bill. There are many different kinds of peers in genetics who would have valid input, and most would have experience or knowledge about developing primers to sequence DNA. Don't blind yourself to that fact. Edited December 1, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Who is a "Peer" in this situation? If she was trying to publish a paper on Vet Medicine she would have a group of Peers. She is a DVM with Human DNA research. One who created her own primers and patented them? Who is a peer for that kind of aisle crossing work? There may not be a single peer out there that fits the bill. It only requires peers of methodology, whether chemical process or statistical analysis, a review of the underlying science, and that it leads to her conclusions based on her hypothesis (which I guess we now know?). . If she has novel methodology it can be reviewed as either theoretically viable (many reactions, etc can be predicted well), or actually be replicated by a reviewer, and in this case....there might be that kind of review attention (say a novel chemical process..so a careful Journal might have a reviewer re-create the process to verify, but not necessarily so replicate the entire body of work or conclusion she is seeking.) So, I can't really speak to all the many opportunities to get DNA analysis wrong, or right, but she has peers, many even more knowledgeable than her in their disciplines within the foundations of chemistry, genetics, and statistics. What they might not have is this whole picture through the many samples except through her work/conclusions. What will be interesting is if after publication she makes those original samples available to other geneticists. Sykes said the testing is destructive, so quantity matters, and he set up a repository for future testing of left over samples if one so elected, but I don't know if it is to share with other institutions. I would think so as the whole foundation/massive growth in genetics had been b/c of the intense cooperation between labs and projects contributing to things like Genbank. But, then that has been my view as relates to including the Sierra Kills sample in the peer-review study, given the emotional aspect and also the impact to Justin waiting for a verdict, that those samples should have had a more public path early. Edited December 1, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 slimwitness, your recent post is very heartening, thank you. I tend to lose sight of the fact that she is a *real* scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 1, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Why would she go through the effort if her methodology and processes were not repeatable? I'd think she lined this up in advance (just like she states she's lined up the contamination backchecking). Multiple samples are still being analyzed by certified labs be they companion, contracted or competing labs or samples. That tells me that if things are lined up as they are described ..... science should be happy if the results and conclusions derive from the method and hypotheses. Not to mention the discussion as to implications and need for further studies or analysis based on results, findings and conclusions. Sure you can place all the onus on chain of custody and such but even that has been described to have been described, controlled and elaborated upon as best as can be done. Long story short: we need some sequencing, sequential reasoning, results and conclusions don't we. Edited December 1, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 From what I've seen the Bigfoot Evidence folks are in the same camp as Moneymaker on Ketchum. Neither think she is trustworthy. Only time will tell. If Dr. Ketchum's results pass peer review and hold up to scrutiny, they'll have egg on their face and be a bit discredited themselves. If her results fail, they'll look like the experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I was pretty critical of her antics over the course of time too, but I just can't imagine putting yourself out there like she has, and knowing that she is a Dr., and completely failing. I think she'd have to be holding all the cards in this particular case to say what she has said. Otherwise, she's gonna have to change her profession to dog groomer. And if it turns out to be nothing, then MM's tweets become gospel. Maybe he's just hedging his bets where he's a winner either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Who is a "Peer" in this situation? If she was trying to publish a paper on Vet Medicine she would have a group of Peers. She is a DVM with Human DNA research. One who created her own primers and patented them? Who is a peer for that kind of aisle crossing work? There may not be a single peer out there that fits the bill. Good point, I would imagine "peers" from several disciplines would need to weigh in on the results after it is published regardless of whether it is in a science journal or something less stringent. My hope is that the conclusions that have been leaked are played down so that it can garner this kind of attention sooner than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 This probably sums up the hold issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 crabshack, being honest, that might apply to all of us on both sides of the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts