Re: minimums

From
Date
Cc
Reply-To
Greg makes some good suggestions, but I am still very concerned about
dictating how science should be done (within the sci method) and published.
If the general community dictated that others must agree, or confirm, or
whatever, other scientists results, then continental drift, plate
tectonics, killer asteroids, and a multitude of other good, provocative
ideas never would have been pursued.  Much to our detriment.  Even
cold-fusion, if it remains a failure, helped a whole lot of people think
more critically about the issues, and the debate informed a lot of people,
including this paleontologist, about a lot of other issues.  The
publication of that material was good for science, but bad for the
taxpayers of Utah (but that's not science).

>It was good to see some healthy debate but still there are unresolved
>issues. It seems to me that an issue central to this is' "what should we
>publish"? That is what is acceptable or to put it another way, what are
>the minimum requirements for publication?

The minimum requirement for me is for someone to write it up, and a couple
of experts to review it.  If I am not mistaken, all the papers we are
concerned with here were published in so-called peer reviewed journals
(Science and Nature, although sometimes it does seem as though it is easier
to get stuff in those places if you know someone or have a hot topic--is
the review process short-circuited?).

I would be interested in what
>the new Ancient Biomolecules editorial policy (written and unwritten) is on
>this matter (sorry Terry).

As I read their policy on there flyer, it states only "All articles are
professionally refereed and are accepted for publication only if the
results are fully substantiated."  I'd sure like to know how they will do
the latter.  Certainly, killer asteroids, sea floor spreading, and a myriad
of other ideas would never have made that cut.  Killer asteroids, for
example, cannot be confirmed even today if you ask one camp, but easily so
if you ask another.  Let the publication process run its course and we will
learn a good deal more and, as Darwin noted, science will advance more
quickly.  We know so much more about asteroids, impacts, mineralogy,
regional geology, extinctions, etc., because of one hypothesis that was
published before it could be confirmed in any great detail.  I am sure that
the a-DNA papers will do the same, even if they are wrong.  Look at all
this debate--it will be good.
>
>Lets face it the publication imperative is what drives our efforts at
>funding.

Oh, I would say that ego, excitement, priority, perhaps an urge to let
everyone know also drive it.  Funding does not always play a big role.

>Some of the proposals mentioned in the recent letter present very
>good and clearly thought ways of verifying ancient DNA data and saving it
>from a cold-fusion fate. I think though these comments tended towards what
>is the "ideal" research plan (which despite what I have written below is
>what I think should be aimed for if possible), impractical in many ways.
>With regards to satisfying the funding bodies much of what was said is
>either time consuming (no publications = no funding) or expensive
>(difficult to get funding for). Some things were also impractical in some
>cases. For instance regarding other labs replicating others work, my
>research involves human skeletal remains which must remain in the country
>and separate permission sought for anyone else to work on my samples.
>
>My concern is that some research would be stifled by demanding that
>certain hoops need to be gone through (I do see the reason for them by
>the way).

Absolutely.  A careful worker will not rush to publication with poor and
undefensible data and hypotheses.  Careless workers are usually easily
discovered.  Wrong but sincere ones may take a little more work.

>Many ancient DNA labs are small operations and the time and money
>needed to arrange complicated collaborations, if someone is willing to do
>so, may not be an option. Like Jere Lipps I would prefer to see research
>done and published even if wrong.

>The effort of the individual would best
>be spent satisfying Lindahl's , ummm, postulates (modified to my way of
>thinking below, most notably leaving out his idea to show the chemical
>state of (every?) ancient DNA extraction(s)... well he is a chemist).

While I agree that Lindahl's observation are correct for DNA on table tops
at room temperature, there are many geological situations that could
possibly meet his objections.  I agree with Greg:  "He is a chemist." and
would add: "and not a geologist or taphonomist."  His paper and all these
papers published without substantiation have led me to think about and
sample a lot of geologic environments.  Maybe that's progress?
>
>Report negative results
>
>Report instances of contamination and explain why the contamination
>happened and where it came from (requires controls).
>
>Reproducibility (I see as something possible to achieve in one lab) of
>data and exclusion of contamination/ Taq errors as the source of the data.
>
>Show that the data makes sense. One has to think about the final outcome
>so that the data itself reveals its own authenticity. Easy when
>phylogetic information is available but difficult (a la dinosaurs or
>sexing) when it is not.

Not bad suggestions for a careful worker.  A careless one won't care, but
maybe the reviewers will!
>
>
>I think we need to have a set of minimum standards. The minimum would
>not provide barriers to research but would demand enough information and
>rigor so that the work could be examined critically and replicated.
>
>Greg
>
>
>[Bombers in '95]
>
>        -------------------------------------------
>                        GREG ADCOCK
>
>        Dept. of Archaeology and Natural History
>        R.S.P.A.S.
>        Australian National University
>        A.C.T. 0200
>        Australia
>
>        E-mail gjadcock@coombs.anu.edu.au
>        Ph 61- (0)6- 249-3373 or 246 5100
>        Fax 249 4917
>        --------------------------------------------

Jere


Jere H. Lipps, Professor and Director
Department of Integrative Biology and
Museum of Paleontology
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720 USA

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