4 ms·

Fuck this narrative of rivalry. Scientists working in the same field have put out a study that disagrees with the first study. This is not a severe blow, it do

Fuck this narrative of rivalry. Scientists working in the same field have put out a study that disagrees with the first study. This is not a severe blow, it does not debunk the first study, it does not imply some sort of rivalry. Science is cooperative. We all want to find the truth.

tosseraccount 11y ago
PNAS Paper (the firs paper) is here : http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1510461112.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1510461112.abst... : "Evidence for extensive horizontal gene transfer from the draft genome of a tardigrade". The gene transfer angle is the most prominent thrust of the paper: "Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), or the transfer of genes between species, has been recognized recently as more pervasive than previously suspected. Here, we report evidence for an unprecedented degree of HGT into an animal genome, based on a draft genome of a tardigrade, Hypsibius dujardini." Non target contamination in sequencing DNA and RNA is common. Attributing "horizontal gene transfer" due to the "noise" is a mistake. The second group actually does debunk the initial paper's main point. Perhaps establishment science need to move the peer review from before publication to after.
- jkyle 11y ago
  > Perhaps establishment science need to move the peer review from before publication to after. The after publication 'peer review' is when colleagues attempt to replicate your findings. It's a series of gates to credibility and general acceptance, not a single door.
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> Science is cooperative. We all want to find the truth. You'd think so, but no. Scientists want to get funded, and getting their work invalidated like this is a problem. So is making enemies among those that will review your articles in the near future. That's why contradictions are usually softened and hidden behind praises of unrelated parts of the work - they're all in it together and they need to cooperate in order to keep getting grants. You'll usually find honest criticism in informal conversations, not published for all to see.

tosseraccount 11y ago

PNAS Paper (the firs paper) is here : http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1510461112.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1510461112.abst... : "Evidence for extensive horizontal gene transfer from the draft genome of a tardigrade". The gene transfer angle is the most prominent thrust of the paper: "Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), or the transfer of genes between species, has been recognized recently as more pervasive than previously suspected. Here, we report evidence for an unprecedented degree of HGT into an animal genome, based on a draft genome of a tardigrade, Hypsibius dujardini." Non target contamination in sequencing DNA and RNA is common. Attributing "horizontal gene transfer" due to the "noise" is a mistake. The second group actually does debunk the initial paper's main point. Perhaps establishment science need to move the peer review from before publication to after.

jkyle 11y ago
> Perhaps establishment science need to move the peer review from before publication to after. The after publication 'peer review' is when colleagues attempt to replicate your findings. It's a series of gates to credibility and general acceptance, not a single door.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

> Science is cooperative. We all want to find the truth. You'd think so, but no. Scientists want to get funded, and getting their work invalidated like this is a problem. So is making enemies among those that will review your articles in the near future. That's why contradictions are usually softened and hidden behind praises of unrelated parts of the work - they're all in it together and they need to cooperate in order to keep getting grants. You'll usually find honest criticism in informal conversations, not published for all to see.