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

[Guest]

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.

Sure, until you start to think about actually doing that, and then you quickly realize how untenable that would be. To truly check the math, each peer reviewer would need unrestricted access to all the raw data, have the same software run the same analyses, etc. Basically the reviewers would be doing work that likely took the authors months to complete. Given 30-day turnaround times for reviews, the fact that reviewers do their work gratis and on their own time, the fact that papers publish summarized rather than raw data, journals are at the mercy of the authors to have checked their own math except for those cases in which an obvious gaffe shows up on its own.

[southernyahoo]

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.

Ok, I think we are now talking about the difference between describing a new species and simply proving it exists. We agree that DNA derived from tissue is a specimen of a living creature. We also agree that phylogenetic placement can be done, which describes it with the closest knowns. We don't know that we don't have a collected specimen somewhere because it's bare bones could look very much like something else. Do you think the blue-eyed shrike would have been proven a new species with just it's bones? DNA is a new comer in the standards of describing new species, it is integrated now.

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.

Right, see above, depending on what the DNA says, it could be extremely unethical and immoral to take a specimen for science, so DNA and perhaps photos is the best route to describe it.

Instead of Zoological we might be talking anthropological. Different ball game.

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.

Fair enough, just consider my above thoughts.

[Guest RioBravo]

just speculating here: these (apparently) multiple non-disclosure agreements suggest that Dr. Ketchum is in the process of protecting some proprietary entity. I would suggest that would be a Bigfoot DNA test, similar to the other tests she runs on horses, dogs, etc. Dr. Ketchum is involved in some issue over the "ownership" of such tests, and if would make sense that establishing this would be a part of her thought process if she believes she has identified the unique features of Bigfoot DNA.

From a scientific perspective, I think it would be putting the test before the horse, so to speak, and further, it may make scientific evaluation of her findings more difficult, but from a business perspective, it might seem advisable to protect the value this way, until she can apply for a patent.

Once she has protected her investment she would then move on to the kind of full disclosure that science would demand, and would be in a position to license her test to other labs once the paper has been published.

Just speculating.

This is something I've been wondering about too.

From what I recall, the parties who have submitted material to be tested still own the material, but not the "results," whatever that means.

[Guest]

Ok, I think we are now talking about the difference between describing a new species and simply proving it exists. We agree that DNA derived from tissue is a specimen of a living creature. We also agree that phylogenetic placement can be done, which describes it with the closest knowns. We don't know that we don't have a collected specimen somewhere because it's bare bones could look very much like something else. Do you think the blue-eyed shrike would have been proven a new species with just it's bones? DNA is a new comer in the standards of describing new species, it is integrated now.

Blue-eyed Shrike was collected and curated at least 100 years ago. The recent "discovery" of this species (based on DNA from specimens collected in 1997) is just one of a myriad examples in which an individual population within a described species was found to have sufficient genetic divergence to be considered a separate species (by some authors at least). To make this analogous to what we're told Ketchum has, imagine an analysis of some kind of DNA that when analyzed seems to indicate a close ally to the Boubou Shrikes. We might surmise that the species would look something like a Boubou Shrike, but that's about as far as we could go with it without a specimen we could show that the DNA came from.

[southernyahoo]

Blue-eyed Shrike was collected and curated at least 100 years ago. The recent "discovery" of this species (based on DNA from specimens collected in 1997) is just one of a myriad examples in which an individual population within a described species was found to have sufficient genetic divergence to be considered a separate species (by some authors at least). To make this analogous to what we're told Ketchum has, imagine an analysis of some kind of DNA that when analyzed seems to indicate a close ally to the Boubou Shrikes. We might surmise that the species would look something like a Boubou Shrike, but that's about as far as we could go with it without a specimen we could show that the DNA came from.

Right so we would be starting with a pretty good description from just what the DNA says. When you add in observable facts from morphology of the samples, plus any genetic mutations you are well on your way to proving a new member of that genus exists.

[Guest]

Right so we would be starting with a pretty good description from just what the DNA says. When you add in observable facts from morphology of the samples, plus any genetic mutations you are well on your way to proving a new member of that genus exists.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about shrikes or bigfoots here?

If Ketchum's DNA says we have a new species (and follow-ups confirm no foul-ups) then we have a new species. Assuming its place on our phylogenetic tree makes it "humany", then we can be pretty sure that the animal that provided that DNA looks kind of like us. That "kind of" could be anywhere from looking like a chimp or orang to something like Patty to something like Homo erectus to something like Robin Williams to something like Maureen O'Hara. (I'm hoping for the latter, 'cause I'd love to learn that there's a population of undescribed Maureen O'Haras running around in the woods.)

[Guest]

Sure, until you start to think about actually doing that, and then you quickly realize how untenable that would be. To truly check the math, each peer reviewer would need unrestricted access to all the raw data, have the same software run the same analyses, etc. Basically the reviewers would be doing work that likely took the authors months to complete. Given 30-day turnaround times for reviews, the fact that reviewers do their work gratis and on their own time, the fact that papers publish summarized rather than raw data, journals are at the mercy of the authors to have checked their own math except for those cases in which an obvious gaffe shows up on its own.

So it's a structural problem in the PR process...to wit, too short a time to review and a dependency on pro bono work by the reviewers...interesting.

[Guest]

Sure, until you start to think about actually doing that, and then you quickly realize how untenable that would be. To truly check the math, each peer reviewer would need unrestricted access to all the raw data, have the same software run the same analyses, etc. Basically the reviewers would be doing work that likely took the authors months to complete. Given 30-day turnaround times for reviews, the fact that reviewers do their work gratis and on their own time, the fact that papers publish summarized rather than raw data, journals are at the mercy of the authors to have checked their own math except for those cases in which an obvious gaffe shows up on its own.

So it's a structural problem in the PR process...to wit, too short a time to review and a dependency on pro bono work by the reviewers...interesting.

[Guest]

So it's a structural problem in the PR process...to wit, too short a time to review and a dependency on pro bono work by the reviewers...interesting.

. . . and that stuff about not having the raw data or necessarily the same software - don't forget that stuff.

For perspective, when I review a paper I'll usually invest an hour or two just reading it. Then I'll put it away for a couple of days and set aside time to really go through it. The serious run-through (both determining what might be wrong with it and crafting my comments to the authors and to the editor) usually takes the better part of one work day. It might be 6 hours. So all told, it takes me about 8 hours to review a paper from the time I open it up to the time I submit my comments.

[Guest]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about shrikes or bigfoots here?

If Ketchum's DNA says we have a new species (and follow-ups confirm no foul-ups) then we have a new species. Assuming its place on our phylogenetic tree makes it "humany", then we can be pretty sure that the animal that provided that DNA looks kind of like us. That "kind of" could be anywhere from looking like a chimp or orang to something like Patty to something like Homo erectus to something like Robin Williams to something like Maureen O'Hara. (I'm hoping for the latter, 'cause I'd love to learn that there's a population of undescribed Maureen O'Haras running around in the woods.)

"something like Robin Williams"... that is funny... and true!

Edited August 19, 2011 by GEARMAN

[southernyahoo]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about shrikes or bigfoots here?

Hypothetically anything, You'll either determine by morphology from the samples/ specimens what it is or is not or you will determine through DNA the same.

It helps if there is some morphology that agrees with the DNA. It just makes for a stronger case for the new species.

If Ketchum's DNA says we have a new species (and follow-ups confirm no foul-ups) then we have a new species. Assuming its place on our phylogenetic tree makes it "humany", then we can be pretty sure that the animal that provided that DNA looks kind of like us. That "kind of" could be anywhere from looking like a chimp or orang to something like Patty to something like Homo erectus to something like Robin Williams to something like Maureen O'Hara. (I'm hoping for the latter, 'cause I'd love to learn that there's a population of undescribed Maureen O'Haras running around in the woods.)

Depends on how humany, then the rest is left up to the samples to provide more clues, like mophology and hopefully at some point, isotopic analyses to determine diet and water sources.

[kitakaze]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about shrikes or bigfoots here?

If Ketchum's DNA says we have a new species (and follow-ups confirm no foul-ups) then we have a new species. Assuming its place on our phylogenetic tree makes it "humany", then we can be pretty sure that the animal that provided that DNA looks kind of like us. That "kind of" could be anywhere from looking like a chimp or orang to something like Patty to something like Homo erectus to something like Robin Williams to something like Maureen O'Hara. (I'm hoping for the latter, 'cause I'd love to learn that there's a population of undescribed Maureen O'Haras running around in the woods.)

O'hara could certainly make an abundance of hair look far more appealing than Williams could...

[Guest gershake]

Are you kidding me? That's one of the best beards of all time.

[Guest parnassus]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about shrikes or bigfoots here?

If Ketchum's DNA says we have a new species (and follow-ups confirm no foul-ups) then we have a new species. Assuming its place on our phylogenetic tree makes it "humany", then we can be pretty sure that the animal that provided that DNA looks kind of like us. That "kind of" could be anywhere from looking like a chimp or orang to something like Patty to something like Homo erectus to something like Robin Williams to something like Maureen O'Hara. (I'm hoping for the latter, 'cause I'd love to learn that there's a population of undescribed Maureen O'Haras running around in the woods.)

How about a Hupa version of Maureen OHara? I think perhaps what Ketchum saw was a human haplotype (Native American) that wasn't in her initial screening panel, and that set off all the excitement.

Edited August 20, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest RayG]

We've all been subjected to the Skeptic "shuck and jive" at one time or another on evidence.

Oh the irony.

Speaking of shuck and jive, just let a skeptic ask why no specimen has ever been produced, or why no road-kill. Almost any excuse will do, even paranormal ones. Still no bigfoot though.

RayG