5 ms·
The study hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, so the title is a bit too confident in its claim.
by asymmetric 2y ago
The study hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, so the title is a bit too confident in its claim.
- robertlagrant 2y agoMaybe Obelisks need an asterisk until peer review?
- fecal_henge 2y agoSplendido.
- lifeisstillgood 2y agoWe should not be so dogmatix in requiring scientific protocol - maybe there are some VitalStatistix we are not yet aware of.
- readthenotes1 2y agoIn case others don't get it: https://asterix.com/en/portfolio/obelix/ https://asterix.com/en/portfolio/obelix/
- moralestapia 2y agoHere's the journal publication (which came later during the year): https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(24)01091-2 https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(24)01091-2 It truly is a new class of genomic elements.
- kelseyfrog 2y agoAnd it's been replicated?
- moralestapia 2y agoIt's using data from the Integrative Human Microbiome Project [1], so, in a sense, hundreds of high-quality biological replicas support their findings. Obelisks were found in a substantial portion of them. They then expanded the search to millions of sequences, which are publicly available, and found ~30k different classes(!) of Obelisk elements. One could argue that the quality of each of these "experiments" may not be as good as IHMP, but still, the signal is more than sufficient to clearly demonstrate the existence and implied significance of these elements. 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31142853/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31142853/
- kelseyfrog 2y ago[flagged]
- ababaian 2y agoWhat's your definition of replication?
- kelseyfrog 2y agoThe standard that people hold soft sciences to when they dismiss them. I'm starting to realize that this may be a justification of their prejudice against these fields rather than a legitimate basis for dismissal.
- JoelMcCracken 2y agoSo basically this study is “we looked at various publicly available data sets of information, and here is a thing we notice that has previously gone unnoticed”. The noticed it in multiple datasets. What would replication look like here besides someone else looking at the dataset and agreeing that they also see the curiosities? Or do you mean someone measuring a new fresh set of data and looking at it? Asking for replication in this case is surprising, because seemingly the entire value is to prompt other research to go figure out what’s going on with these things.
- niam 2y agoMy reading is that the GP moreso takes issue with how social sciences are discussed, and is using an arbitrary replication-less finding in the 'hard sciences' (this one) as a podium to speak from--regardless of why replication doesn't exist for it, or whether that reason makes sense.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago[flagged]
- tokai 2y agoPeer review doesn't do what you think it does.
- martin82 2y agoco-author (top comment?) just said that it is peer reviewed now. Not that it matters at all.