3 ms·

I think the important things to know here are: 1. A group of scientist have submitted a manuscript for review with a number of exceptionally (and uncharacteris

I think the important things to know here are: 1. A group of scientist have submitted a manuscript for review with a number of exceptionally (and uncharacteristically) bold claims. 2. A huge amount of scrutiny and additional reproducibility will necessarily need to be conducted before conclusions of this nature can be drawn. 3. This manuscript hasn't even passed the normal muster... a biorxiv post isn't much different than a Medium post. Claims like these require many eyes. EDIT: My sentiment echoed by someone who know more than I https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1223325141364592640?s=20 https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1223325141364592640?s=...

cs702 7y ago
As regards #3, I agree: the more eyes who see this unconfirmed claim, the better. That's the main reason I upvoted the OP. A great outcome would be if reputable scientists see this on HN or Twitter or learn about it through colleagues, and subsequently refute it or dismiss it as bad science.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  > the more eyes who see this unconfirmed claim, the better. Isn't it a waste of those eyes' time if it turns out to be false? When there are plenty of confirmed things they could be reading?
folli 7y ago
#2: replicating their BLAST search is easy: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?CMD=Get&RID=398N4CSR01R https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?CMD=Get&RID=398N4CS... and it shows that the matches of these short inserts are completely by chance and don't constitute any statistically significant relationship.
- cs702 7y ago
  Thank you for posting this here -- and thank you for taking a quick look at that paper and debunking it. I just upvoted your comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22206393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22206393.