Sascha, could I quote you on some of this, or are these sentiments
you'dprefer to keep private?
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:42 PM, sascha vongehr <vongehr@usc.edu>
wrote:
Hi Barrett, nice to 'meet' you Seb!
Protein folding and DNA chemistry (cutting, copying, re-joining
strands)> all depend crucially on the shape of the macro molecules,
i.e. on the exact
right bonding angles with which the structures evolved in the
first place.
It was clear to me right away that the claim of arsenic
substituting for
phosphorus in the DNA itself was totally impossible. It could
conceivably> happen on another, arsenic rich planet if the whole of
biological evolution
were centered around it all along there, but once something like
the DNA is
frozen in as a legacy system this deeply inside of the huge
apparatus around
it, there is no way it could change.
How could this ever go into Science? I think it is favors and
maybe even
voluntary quota over enforcement gone wrong. The name of the
organism> itself, GFAJ, stands for “give Felise a job”. The whole
incident is just one
more proof that much of the success in science is, and ever more
so, about
friends and favors between people who hope to gain from other
people who may
return them favors, everybody looking out for who may become the
next media
star for fifteen minutes. Science has become Hollywood – there is
no bad
publicity! In days back, critic on your article may have
discredited you,
somebody may have not given you a job. Today, criticism, if it
comes late
enough, gives you yet more citations, and that gives yet more
‘friends’ and
funding and job security. Felise and friends know how to sell
her, she has a
job and her papers are cited – that is all that counts for her
and for many
who pretend they regret what happened while still though
benefiting. But you
cannot publish
this kind of criticism, because obviously only a misogynist
could think
anything bad about Felise getting a job.
And while she and many others like her have a job, many scientist
who> uphold scientific integrity and would never publish such
rubbish, let alone
hype such like a media whore, do not get one, because they have
not got the
publications. In times past, maybe somebody would have put a stop
to this
arsenic paper at some point. Now, everybody realizes you need the
short term
gain from such bubbles rising if you ever want to get a chance at
a better
job - job 'stability' today is about constantly changing into
something> better, so short term goals are all that counts. There
is no time for
sitting down and using your head critically – you need to act
fast, now, or
somebody else will take your spot. No fear, you can even gain if
the bubble
pops – you do not need to jump off in time like you would need to
sell your
dot.com stocks or housing complex at the right moment. Publish or
perish> transforms the whole science community into showbiz. Lady
Gaga goes on and
on – popping her bubble
merely provides for her next bubble.
A critical mind in fast times like these is a negative nay-say
that poops
on our game. Nobody even asks such uncomfortable to be around
critics –
political correctness is about optimism, positive thinking, hope,
and> rooting for our team. A woman with a great discovery, that is
great – period
- all critic is just envious guys while she is a great role model
for women
in science, so lets get the universities PR department and NASA
and Science
and Nature editors and whatever else can be involved, and lets
spin the
story. It literally does not matter whether the science is sound
– not to
anybody involved in the process. Everybody gains short term and
short term
gains multiply toward long-term advantage. Of course, the
public’s trust
into science and science itself is eroded away. So what?
The important aspect of this story is: It is blogs that started
criticizing> while science internally totally failed.
The arsenic story is merely the tip of the ice-berg. In
nanoscience, we
make a living publishing crap – we have to – there is no other
way. All my
papers in high impact journals are basically elaborate frauds. I
tried to
publish some criticism about certain methods – it is career
suicide. You
cannot be a skeptical inquirer inside the sciences. They will
‘kill’ you. I
have only been able to publish two (2 !!!) good scientific papers
in the
last five years (all the rest is crap), they got only published
in very low
impact factor journals (one Chinese, so nobody reads it), and
they are
completely ignored. Every of the papers was about at least five
times> rejected, some over several years now, most of my other good
critical work
is plainly constantly rejected by all journals – no way to
publish them at
all (one for example on the Memristor 'discovery', also in Nature
and all
over the media, then the sexy part of the story was not a woman
but a very
old man, Leo Chua). My highest
impact journal paper just appeared and even spawned a book
chapter, too.
This may give me a job next year. The paper and the book chapter are
describing a completely useless method!
In fact, this is one reason why I am having a blog now myself. It is
impossible to be a good scientist inside academia, and at some
point I will
let my own bubble burst with a big ol' bang - but as of now, I
cannot do so.
I first have to somehow make sure that the burst translates into
my next
bubble.
S
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Sascha Vongehr (风洒沙)
Department of Philosophy and
National Key Laboratory of Solid-State Microstructures
Dept of Materials Science and Engineering
Nanjing University, Kexue Jishu Guan 324, Hankou Lu 22,
Nanjing, Gulou District, Jiangsu Province 210093, P.R. China
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme
Alternate mail: vongehr8@yahoo.com
http://cn.LinkedIn.com/in/SaschaVongehr
----- Original Message -----
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:58 am
Subject: NASA press conference
To: sascha vongehr <vongehr@usc.edu>, Seb Gillen
<sebgillen@gmail.com>>
Sascha-
For my next Skeptical Inquirer column, I'll be writing about the
flawedmanner in which both NASA and the media handled the press
conferenceregarding the allegedly "arsenic-based" lifeforms,
and I
wanted to see if
you had any thoughts on the matter and if you could take a look at
my column
when it's done to ensure that I have accurately assessed the
situation (I
know biology isn't your main thing and I'll run it by a biologist
as well,
but wanted to get your take). Also, wanted to introduce you to Seb
Gillen,who will be helping to administrate the Science Journalism
Program. I'm
going to have Seb serve as a sort of liaison between PM and
yourself since
your China residency makes it difficult for you to attend
meetings;> > he can
provide you with additional info on all this and keep you up to
date until
such time as I am ready to speak to you further about how you can
specifically get more involved.
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302