Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere.

T. rex tissue controversy

Comments

  • #2
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭ Galvasean


    So wait, they found bacterial biofilm on a completely different specimen and use it as a springboard to say Schweitzer's findings were not what she said they were? Hmm, I think a bit of cross examination is in order.


  • #3
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭ AtomicHorror


    Galvasean wrote: »
    So wait, they found bacterial biofilm on a completely different specimen and use it as a springboard to say Schweitzer's findings were not what she said they were? Hmm, I think a bit of cross examination is in order.

    Agreed! The main concern though seems to be that they made their isolations from very much comparable samples and weren't able to reproduce Schweitzer's results despite many samples. It's quite possible that Schweitzer's samples just represented a lucky isolation... contamination seems unlikely.


  • #4
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭ Galvasean


    Makes you wonder why they didn't just contact Schweitzer first and collaborate their research rather than run to the presses. I fear palaeontology is starting to get ruined by celebrity and tabloidism.


  • #5
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭ AtomicHorror


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Makes you wonder why they didn't just contact Schweitzer first and collaborate their research rather than run to the presses. I fear palaeontology is starting to get ruined by celebrity and tabloidism.

    That would fly in the face of scientific philosophy somewhat. Your results don't mean quite so much until someone can independently reproduce them.


Advertisement