X-posted: Ancient DNA publishing 2

From
Date
Cc
Reply-To
Mark Marshall makes great points, with which I agree, about the ancient DNA
results to date.  I too have these same questions.  We differ on one point:
publication.

I have no problem with people publishing their results, even if they are
wrong.  In fact, I believe that is the way the scientific method is
supposed to work.  Many people would not have known about any of this if
the initial results or interpretations were not published.  As I read the
papers, each one has proposed the hypothesis that DNA from ancient sources
has survived, at least in part.  The hypothesis clearly needs additional
testing and close examination, as Mark proposes, of the methods and
techniques.  Other labs must try it, and other labs must try to find
alternative ways to test the hypothesis.  Labs are doing that, including
our work here.  By these processes, science will advance.

That's not new:  Darwin (Descent of Man, Chap. 21) said, "False facts are
highly injurious to the progress of science for they endure long;  but
false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one
takes a salutray pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is
done, one path toward error is closed and the road to truth is often at the
same time opened."

As yet we have no false facts, but we do have some views supported by some
evidence, and, at this point, we should all be taking pleasure in trying to
disprove them.

I hope Mark will publish his results too.  I'd sure like to see them!!



Jere H. Lipps,  Director
Museum of Paleontology
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720 USA

Voice:  510-642-9006.  Fax:  510-642-1822
Internet:  jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu