My PI wont follow the evidence - (Jul/29/2009 )
I see - you took a poll of PI's. What was the % = "most"?
But your mind reading ad hominem aside - of course no one wants to be challenged but it's much worse to be shot down by ones colleagues publically/in print than by a lab tech in ones own lab. The reputation at risk is the PI's. If the lab tech with little at risk is offended - he or she should leave and allow the PI to flounder. However, there is just a chance that the PI - with so much to loose and with much greater experience and knowledge of the subject - might judge "strong data" in techician speak to be less than compelling.
Scientific thought is not a process of taking a poll of the techncians in ones lab.
GeorgeWolff on Aug 4 2009, 05:27 PM said:
Touché....
...anecdotal, mostly, around the water cooler, but aren't you a prime example? Lovely ad hominem. I'm not a PI - please stay on subject and drop ther personal insults.
GeorgeWolff on Aug 4 2009, 05:27 PM said:
But your mind reading ad hominem aside - of course no one wants to be challenged but it's much worse to be shot down by ones colleagues publically/in print than by a lab tech in ones own lab. The reputation at risk is the PI's. If the lab tech with little at risk is offended - he or she should leave and allow the PI to flounder. However, there is just a chance that the PI - with so much to loose and with much greater experience and knowledge of the subject - might judge "strong data" in techician speak to be less than compelling.
Scientific thought is not a process of taking a poll of the techncians in ones lab.
But it is also not being fanatical about your ideas that you wouldn't allow a mere minion to question them. You're emphatic about science not being a belief system yet a scientist could be as unyielding as any religious extremist. And the challenge has to come from whom? Those that you only consider your equal....is this science then?
PS...And don't talk about ad hominems bec you're as good as in giving them...
casandra on Aug 4 2009, 11:34 PM said:
GeorgeWolff on Aug 4 2009, 05:27 PM said:
Touché....
...anecdotal, mostly, around the water cooler, but aren't you a prime example?I think too that "many" PIs don't want to be challenged by technicians. Students are okay, but technicians should do their job, otherwise they are a misappointment. If they want to challenge hypotheses and participate in the scientific interpretation and discussion, they should study.
Perhaps it's not a bad idea of "some" PIs (don't ask about %) to let them do their work and don't explain the whole picture or tell nothing about the background of the experiments. If they know only a part of the whole issue then they have not much chance to think too deep into it.
And for the challenge there are other PIs, professors, PhDs, other colleagues on meetings...for me it is enough.
GeorgeWolff on Aug 4 2009, 05:36 PM said:
But it's not a personal insult...shldn't you consider it a compliment that you could be mistaken for a PI..what with all your knowledge and experience...let's both relax now...esp since you're not a PI after all....
As I see it, the PI has a few things to bear in mind - first he could lose money for the cost of the experiments (and this could be a big factor these days). Ego could also be a problem, I suppose depending on your point of view it could be a weakness to submit to the tech.
But I see no risk of reputation to the PI - it will be his decision to publish - if the results show follow the tech's line of thought then great (with more evidence I suppose), send it out to publish.If the results aren't as expected then all he's lost is some money, and his ego is intact (and he might even be appreciated more by the tech for allowing free thought in the lab).
Please consider the following - Pauling's regret to the end of his days was his failure to discover the double helix as well as the error published in PNAS. Overconfidence and prob arrogance of an accomplished Nobel combined to leave him in obscurity despite his great scientific work - even x DNA. The obscure were elevated to continuing fame. If our lab tech friend had cautioned Pauling, he might have been ignored as was Chargaff and Pauling would have taken the same fall. But it's more likely that the lab tech would not have offered the same depth of insight.
In February of 1953, “A proposed structure for the nucleic acids” was published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In this paper, which would turn out to be one of the most famous mistakes in 20th-century science, Linus Pauling and his collaborator on protein structures, Robert Corey, both at the California Institute of Technology, argued for a triple-helical structure for DNA. A few months later, James Watson and Francis Crick published the correct structure of DNA, a double helix, in Nature and later shared the Nobel Prize (1962) with Maurice Wilkins for this epochal discovery.
How did Pauling make such an error? He was the world’s pre-eminent chemist and x-ray crystallographer, a technique that he employed successfully for decades to elucidate the structure of hundreds of inorganic substances like mica and topaz and then used to crack the structure of huge protein molecules in a revolutionary series of stunning papers published in 1951. Even earlier, Pauling and Max Delbruck in 1940 introduced a mechanism for gene replication, and in a lecture in 1948 Pauling proposed that genes might consist of mutually complementary molecules. Pauling knew about Oswald Avery’s extraordinary work in 1944 that indicated that nucleic acids were capable of transmitting genetic information, but he still believed, as did many scientists, that the hereditary key was protein. While sailing to England in late 1947, Pauling met Erwin Chargaff, who told him about his observations of the ratios of subunits of nucleic acids to one another. This clue to DNA structure was not heeded by Pauling, who found Chargaff’s personality disagreeable.
GeorgeWolff on Aug 4 2009, 05:59 PM said:
In February of 1953, “A proposed structure for the nucleic acids” was published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In this paper, which would turn out to be one of the most famous mistakes in 20th-century science, Linus Pauling and his collaborator on protein structures, Robert Corey, both at the California Institute of Technology, argued for a triple-helical structure for DNA. A few months later, James Watson and Francis Crick published the correct structure of DNA, a double helix, in Nature and later shared the Nobel Prize (1962) with Maurice Wilkins for this epochal discovery.
How did Pauling make such an error? He was the world’s pre-eminent chemist and x-ray crystallographer, a technique that he employed successfully for decades to elucidate the structure of hundreds of inorganic substances like mica and topaz and then used to crack the structure of huge protein molecules in a revolutionary series of stunning papers published in 1951. Even earlier, Pauling and Max Delbruck in 1940 introduced a mechanism for gene replication, and in a lecture in 1948 Pauling proposed that genes might consist of mutually complementary molecules. Pauling knew about Oswald Avery’s extraordinary work in 1944 that indicated that nucleic acids were capable of transmitting genetic information, but he still believed, as did many scientists, that the hereditary key was protein. While sailing to England in late 1947, Pauling met Erwin Chargaff, who told him about his observations of the ratios of subunits of nucleic acids to one another. This clue to DNA structure was not heeded by Pauling, who found Chargaff’s personality disagreeable.
So where does that lab technician part come in? That he wouldn't have provided deeper insight that would have saved Pauling from his fall? Had he had the insight, it wouldn't really matter since Pauling didn't even consider Chargaff's? Can you explain more the relevance of this to this discussion?
I regret my point is too obscure for you.