Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

[slabdog]

I wouldn't go quite that far slabdog. I'd say it could be "definitive proof", but that we won't know for sure until at least a couple of independent replications of the published work have been pursued.

Mulder's right in that having the DNA is, in and of itself, a specimen from a living creature and, therefore, "proof" of that creature.

Well then....I happily stand corrected!

No pressure Melba and General....

[Guest]

I wouldn't go quite that far slabdog. I'd say it could be "definitive proof", but that we won't know for sure until at least a couple of independent replications of the published work have been pursued.

Mulder's right in that having the DNA is, in and of itself, a specimen from a living creature and, therefore, "proof" of that creature. Before such a finding could really be mainstreamed (as in "ICZN" mainstreamed), however, we'd want to see the work independently replicated to rule out: (1) possibility of some kind of hoaxed DNA (very long longshot, but scientific results have been hoaxed in the past and the peer-review system is poorly-adapted to detect it); (2) data tampering to achieve the stunning result (similar to #1, but involves manipulating the data which is a heck of a lot easier than manipulating the DNA samples); and (3) systematic error in the analysis that innocently led to the result.

If subsequent studies showed no evidence that 1–3 were involved in the initial work, then that should provide sufficient evidence for that first paper to have established proof of this new species. If we still lack a specimen (i.e., something to which one could tie a museum tag) at that point, maybe we could politely ask the people at the habituation site in VT (source of the DNA, right?) to submit a nice photo of one of the danged things so we can see what they look like.

So, Sas, what would this "independent replication" involve? Another set of labs examining control samples from the Ketchum samples, or would it have to be a "ground up" recollection of fresh samples from the field?

If the former, isn't that what the peer review process is supposed to involve? Checking the lab proceedures, math, etc to rule out error or fraud?

[southernyahoo]

If you don't understand my position then perhaps you're having a problem with the word "unprecedented." It's not that a journal couldn't accept such a paper, it's that the decision to do so would be unprecedented. That would be evidence of a lower evidentiary standard for publication, not a higher one.

Yes I understand precedent, and that it does not dictate reality. Since it is perfectly feasable that trace biological samples could be found that yeild DNA , even from the most elusive mammals on the planet, it is not a precedent that new species cannot be found this way.

Your position seems conflicted in that hypothetically if you were a submitter of a manuscript and an editor you would be convinced your data supported your conclusion but would also reject it based on precedent because it's about bigfoot and you don't have a type specimen. So essentially you would sit on proof if you had it, even though you do believe DNA can prove it.

Thats kinda Crazy.

Of course, but that doesn't mean it'll get published. I'd imagine some journals would jump at the chance to publish such a paper and others would not.

Thats probably true, I wouldn't expect this to be for just any journal.

That's certainly what I would want to see in that first paper if I was the editor considering it. But what you described is NOT independent replication of that first paper.

So describe what the replication is. Is it a complete different set of authors, submitters, samples and testers, or can any of it be reused?

[southernyahoo]

Mulder's right in that having the DNA is, in and of itself, a specimen from a living creature and, therefore, "proof" of that creature.

You might want to frame that Mulder.....

[Guest mitchw]

If the Erickson Project was able to film BFs cutting their fingers on shards of glass where food offerings had been placed, and the collected blood is part of the Ketchum, then we'd have a 'situation.' No?

[indiefoot]

If someone were to plunk a BF down on some university exam table, the first thing I would expect them to do, after they changed under garments, would be to do a complete DNA workup. That would tell them they weren't looking at some homo sapiens with a horrible birth defect. Hopefully, Dr. Ketchum is three fouths of the way there. JMO

There reportedly is plenty of recently living material to do further testing.

[southernyahoo]

Yahoo, re your No. 2:

Science is pretty much of a collaborative effort. There are very few "slam dunks." Almost all published papers incorporate suggestions and requirements that come from other scientists/reviewers/editors. Many are presented orally at scientific meetings before publication, to get feedback, eliminate mistakes, and improve the eventual publication. That is the process. This goes a long way toward preventing mistakes from being published, in the scientific literature and then in the lay press, and that is an important function.

The more important the issue, and the less experienced the authors, the more important this process is.

If I believed bigfoot exists, I would not want another public fiasco. If the scientific value is there, it will come out in a few months, and with proper documentation. But Dr. Melba Ketchum making unreviewed claims to a lay audience (if that is what she intends to do) about a monster inhabiting woodlots across the country is a recipe for a trainwreck. The inevitable problems (yes, there are issues in virtually every paper) in her work will then become the central issue. Better that she get all the wrinkles out with the scientific community, so that when it does go public she will have the heavy hitters on her side, rather than firing broadsides at her.

Delayed gratification is one of the distinguishing characteristics of higher life forms.

Yes I expect that acceptance won't be all in one big bang, we're just trying to make this first crucial step in mainstream science.

[Guest]

Here is a podcast of relevant interest concerning DNA testing and Bigfoot: http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/09/07/02/

[Guest]

You might want to frame that Mulder.....

Now now, southern...we actually have a dialogue going here...let's not jinx it...

[gigantor]

So, Sas, what would this "independent replication" involve? Another set of labs examining control samples from the Ketchum samples, or would it have to be a "ground up" recollection of fresh samples from the field?

If the former, isn't that what the peer review process is supposed to involve? Checking the lab proceedures, math, etc to rule out error or fraud?

Mulder, peer review may check the methods used, but they don't check the "math", errors in the procedures or the validity of the conclusion. My understanding is that peer review just means that the paper appears to follow the scientific method, no conflict of interest, etc.

Many papers that have been peer reviewed turned out to be incorrect. It is not a guarantee that the conclusion is correct.In fact, it can't be so unless the reviewers reproduce the experiments, etc.

Edited August 19, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest]

Mulder, peer review may check the methods used, but they don't check the "math", errors in the procedures or the validity of the conclusion. My understanding is that peer review just means that the paper appears to follow the scientific method, no conflict of interest, etc.

Many papers that have been peer reviewed turned out to be incorrect. It is not a guarantee that the conclusion is correct.In fact, it can't be so unless the reviewers reproduce the experiments, etc.

So, again I ask, will that involve "auditing" the Ketchum results? Or will any potential "confirmation study" have to start gathering fresh samples from the field and re-do the entire affair?

[southernyahoo]

Here is a podcast of relevant interest concerning DNA testing and Bigfoot: http://www.skeptic.c...rtalk/09/07/02/

I've listened to it and will again, this is my criticism of what he's done.

1. He has not stated what type of tests he ran on alledged BF samples.

2. He has not stated that he did a thorough morphology exam (with documentation) prior to testing the samples, or that he's done the DNA testing to the extent that he could delineate members of the genus homo or that he even compared what he did extract, to them, other than human.`

3. He deflects any responsibility in doing that by dragging out the proponent argument that BF is said to be decendent of Gigantopithecus Blacki.

He may be respected at what he does, but he's not conducting research in a manner that would prove bigfoot.

[Guest]

So, Sas, what would this "independent replication" involve? Another set of labs examining control samples from the Ketchum samples,

That's one way to do it.

. . . or would it have to be a "ground up" recollection of fresh samples from the field?

That's another way to do it.

Short of the old "logging truck scenario" rendering such investigations moot, I'd imagine that the kind of conservative types who sit on nomenclatural committees would like to see examples of both of the types of studies you described before adding the new species to their official list.

If the former, isn't that what the peer review process is supposed to involve? Checking the lab proceedures, math, etc to rule out error or fraud?

No, the peer review process for publication is dependent on what the authors describe in their manuscript. It is assumed that what is in the manuscript is represented truthfully. This is why there are some high-profile examples of journals publishing papers later determined to have been bogus.

Peer reviewers do not re-analyze the work. Sometimes there are telltale signs of a math or statistical error, but just as often there aren't. So fraud and analysis error are difficult to uncover. Peer reviewers focus on things like:

*is the paper well-written and concise?

*is there sufficient detail provided in the methods that would allow an independent researcher to replicate the research?

*were the methods employed in line with the current state of the art for the data collected?

*do the authors' conclusions make sense given the results they obtained?

*has the work been published elsewhere?

*is the topic of prime relevance to the material the journal publishes?

[Guest]

No, the peer review process for publication is dependent on what the authors describe in their manuscript. It is assumed that what is in the manuscript is represented truthfully. This is why there are some high-profile examples of journals publishing papers later determined to have been bogus.

Peer reviewers do not re-analyze the work. Sometimes there are telltale signs of a math or statistical error, but just as often there aren't. So fraud and analysis error are difficult to uncover. Peer reviewers focus on things like:

*is the paper well-written and concise?

*is there sufficient detail provided in the methods that would allow an independent researcher to replicate the research?

*were the methods employed in line with the current state of the art for the data collected?

*do the authors' conclusions make sense given the results they obtained?

*has the work been published elsewhere?

*is the topic of prime relevance to the material the journal publishes?

Well, it's just me, but if I were asked to PR a paper, I wouldn't put my imprimatur on it unless I had "checked the math" on it. Just seems common sense to me that would be the right thing to do. It's possible I might miss something and someone else catches it, but doing so should catch any basic errors of fact or logic (which you agree do occur sometimes).

[Guest]

Yes I understand precedent, and that it does not dictate reality. Since it is perfectly feasable that trace biological samples could be found that yeild DNA , even from the most elusive mammals on the planet, it is not a precedent that new species cannot be found this way.

I'll gladly retract my statement that describing a new species of multicellular organism based solely on a DNA signature is unprecedented if you can find me some examples from the literature that this has happened. I don't know of any.

Your position seems conflicted in that hypothetically if you were a submitter of a manuscript and an editor you would be convinced your data supported your conclusion but would also reject it based on precedent because it's about bigfoot and you don't have a type specimen. So essentially you would sit on proof if you had it, even though you do believe DNA can prove it.

Thats kinda Crazy.

If the hot mess you described was my position, I'd agree that it would be crazy.

First, "bigfoot" is irrelevant. We could be talking about trying to describe a new species of marmot based solely by its DNA, and what I've written would still apply: if the description of the new marmot species was published, it would be a zoological first.

Next, let me remind you of the conflicting motivations of author and editor. The author is under tremendous pressure to publish; the editor under tremendous pressure to reject. I just had a discussion the other day with a friend of mine who is an associate editor (not even the chief editor) for a fairly well known (though still kind of middle-of-the-road) ecological journal. He said that his rejection rate is 85%. In other words, only 1 or 2 of every 10 manuscripts he reviews does he recommend for publication to the chief editor. If we authors let rejection rates like that bother us, we'd never submit anything. So we don't let them bother us, and we submit stuff anyway. The best paper I've ever written is sitting in a folder here in my desk, unpublished. I think it was rejected by three journals over the course of four years before I gave up on it and moved on.

So, from an author's perspective, if I had what we're led to believe Ketchum has, I would submit it. From an editor's perspective, I'd be very suspicious that there was DNA to analyze but no physical specimen described.