GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-06 > 0992306264
From: "Allan S. Gleason" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Science Magazine letters
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:37:44 -0700
Boy! That is some indictment! I suspect that it is difficult for investigators
in those sciences involving the human creature to remain unemotional and
unbiased. I've read many papers in the physical sciences, (my field was
materials), which were excellent. I will admit that when papers were submitted
from commercial failure analysis labs who sold analyses to the public or
sponsored for-fee "expert witnesses" to testify for one side or the other in
litigation, they tended to be self-serving with the truth. But most scientists
I knew were painstakingly accurate in their work even though they were
relentlessly pursued by the 'publish or perish' syndrome.
But then, Greg, I'm an old retired dude who can afford to be generous and
forgiving to all while you (I see by your email address) are still involved in
the primordial soup of survival in the academic world. I remember being
frustrated - a long time ago.
"Bonner, Gregg" wrote:
> June 1 issue, page 1655, "Human Origins and Ancient Human DNA". A letter
> commenting on the weaknesses of the article published earlier (12 Jan., pg.
> 230), and a reply by the authors.
> This "Aussie Oddity" may provide interesting reading for some of you.
> For me, it just reinforces what I already knew, viz., generally nothing is
> gained by reading scientific articles except an unfounded bias of some sort,
> and that one can not really ever rely on what is published (_especially_ in
> peer-reviewed journals) *except* in cases where there are two competing labs
> which hate each other, and they agree on some point.
> Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1
> Source for Family History Online. Go to: