Re: Article: Small Molecule Interactions Were Central To The
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 17:50:10 -0400 (EDT)
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
And hopefully as the professional community comes around, they will
not rewrite history and pretend I wasn't saying this for years now.
The professional community for the most part is unaware that you have been
saying it for years. If your place in history is important to you,
you should probably try to get your ideas published in a more permanent,
prestigious, and widely read format than an internet newsgroup. The
effort required to do this is non-trivial, but your competitors for
a place in history are making the effort and getting their ideas
expressed in a form that their peers understand. Don't expect ideas
expressed in a forum like this, even if correct, to be treated by
history on an equal footing with those of people who have polished
their communications, submitted to peer review, and made the effort
to engage their critics.
JE:-
Unfortunately the "professional community" can be clearly demonstrated to be
isolated, protectionist and self serving because of a chronic lack of
competition. Protectionism has become the rule rather than the exception
providing extensive waste. The continued evasion of Waddington's Post-Neo
Darwinian model is a good example. However the battle between Watson and
Venter to complete the sequencing of the human genome is a modern classic.
Venter had to resign from Watson's overly expensive government funded
project and start his own private company in order to apply a much more
efficient methodology. In the end, none other than the then President of the
USA (Clinton) himself had to mediate between Watson and Venter to stop a
national scandal. In a nutshell:
http://www.dnai.org/text/mediashowcase/index2.html?id=427
The intellectual community has always divided itself into just two camps
which can be loosely labeled: "altruistic" Vs "selfish". Those in the
altruistic camp insist on government funded monopolies restricting
competition. They perceive the "selfish" camp as ignorant profit hungry
private companies. Sadly, even today, these two camps form the basis of the
political left and right (respectively) with all the emotional clap trap
that goes along with it. Both are in serious error. In reality it is the
increased mutualisation of individuals that is required and being attempted
by both. Empirically, in most but not in all cases, the private sector can
be tested to achieve this much more efficiently.
What the sciences require for the internet era is a middle way formalized
publishing system. Again I urge sbe readers to take history into their own
hands and debate the start of their own sbe peer review journal. My vision
of it I put forward some time ago. Papers would be submitted (I suggest
anonymously to increase objectivity) for sbe reader's to debate. A panel of
elected sbe readers could be selected to vote for or against the electronic
publication of that paper after public discussion. If voted for the paper
would be deposited in an open electronic archive for reference. A formal
citation of that paper would then become available. As the achieve grows sbe
discussion would improve because different positions can now be _formally_
referenced and would not have to be repeated. The costs would be minimal but
the gains could be enormous. In the end Josh may even be able to paid :-)
Regards
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Dilemma
- Next by Date: Re: An EPTly self-sufficient comment
- Previous by thread: Dilemma
- Next by thread: can descendants of single couple multiply into large viable population ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
