Ivins and anthrax - (Aug/07/2008 )
Bruce Ivins - the scientist implicated in the anthrax attacks who killed himself - was a very prolific author/coauthor, publishing his last article just last month.
Visit pubmed and search ivins be
Visit pubmed and search ivins be
Could you tell me the name of paper?
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008 Jul 7. [Epub ahead of print] Links
Efficacy of Oritavancin in a Murine Model of Bacillus anthracis Spore Inhalation Anthrax.
Heine HS, Bassett J, Miller L, Bassett A, Ivins BE, Lehoux D, Arhin FF, Parr TR Jr, Moeck G.
Yanagida M (Mitsuhiro). (S.pombe person) has more papers (52)
And so does Paul nurse, coming in at (43) papers. Bruce Ivins has (37). Me boss, the average university senior scientist has (27).
If you look at Pubmed for Yanagida M and Nurse P, they get even larger number of hits, although I can't be certain that all the papers belong to the same author.
So if you put things into perspective, really prolific authors can have a 1000 papers (although many in low impact journals). My housemates boss (near retiring) has nearly 2000. Carl Djerassi (person who invented the Pill, and worked on synthetic hormones) has 1213 papers.
So I would not call Ivins a very prolific author, although he may have been an important person in his field. There is the point of quality verses quantity.
Odd to find such a pedant here - arguing the definiton of "prolific." Guess the clown has northing else to do with his time but to argue numbers and how many his boss - me boss (sic) - has. Maybe the clown might look at the frequency - and that's in the dictionary as well.
Why so odd?
Science attracts people with certain personality traits. An eye for details, facts, a love for putting ideas together- solving puzzles, and maybe even a certain delight to debate over details. If anything the PhD experience, has certainly altered my thinking, more focused on details. A thing that makes the difference between success and a failed ligation, failure to reproduce a result and a paper, increased noise within the experiment's results.
Come on, I am sure that if I said out loud that The United Kingdom has one of the largest population in the world. A bunch of people would jump up and say that I am wrong. Especially since this is the Net, and everything is a quick Google away.
Likewise, especially since I know examples of people who have truly scary number of papers (1000+) under their name.
It's odd as the term was both casual and NOT central to the discussion. We certainly have no interest in the "wisdom" gleaned from your alleged PhD experience, and I've absolutely no idea wnat the hell litigation has to do with this discussion.
I can only assume you have no idea who Ivins was.
Stop whining and pay attention.
I don't know what Jorge1907's problem is, but I certainly appreciate the collective wisdom of many of the people here, specifically that of Perneseblue. I object to Jorge's insulting tone, which he has used too many times (both with me and with others that I respect) to take this person seriously. I have started, and will continue, to ignore any nasty messages from him, and I would recommend that the rest of the community do likewise. This is my only and last comment on the issue.
Pay attention - the topic was Ivins whose association with the anthrax "attack", imoebding indciment and suiciude were the noteworthy aspects - not the extent to which his numbers of publications establishes the state of being "prolific". Perne's pedantic comparison to the numbers of publications from others is irrelevant and I'll offer typical of that poster. He often wanders off topic.
Is this clear?
To your whining complaint - be aware that science is demanding and silly ideas are rejected sometimes with prejudice. When you get out of the kindergarten of grad school you'll find this to be true.
.may try admin or Bioforum.