Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265754798

From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:33:18 +0100


With all due respect any healthy field in science has lots of public debate
and cricitism - and wrong people of course. Mistakes are good to get out in
the open, whoever is making them.

One point where Anatole is quite right in my opinion is that our particular
field of interest is young and immature. There is hardly any tradition of
good hard debate, or even of review articles.

The priestly attitude you take below seems like a caricature. I can not
imagine anyone making such a pompous speech in any mature scientific field.
How dare one criticise one's established critiques in public!

You appear to be trying to create an argument which uses moral indignation
instead of reason. Science is not a religion with high priests and heresies.
Please do not divert attention away from science and try to turn this field
into some sort of medieval guild.

Best Regards

From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment of R:U106 DYS425Null Cluster
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:15:39 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>

Again, this is all way way beside the point. The point of the post was
about peer review, to repeat peer review. Don't understand why the content
of this post seems to be confusing you. Lets leave the arguments about the
molecular clock aside, and focus on the topic of concern, peer review and
how those submitting material are expected to behave toward those in this
role. Quite simple really. Respect does not entail publically
criticizing someone who has been a peer reviewer of their recently published
paper. I have never seen this happen before since scientists know that if
they dis a person who have volunteered to be placed in this difficult role,
the credibility of the person submitting work to academic journals drops
precipitously. Just the way it is.

This thread: