View From The Trenches
U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu
U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu
Fri Jul 14 11:30:23 EST 1995
I'm sorry I have been a bit lax... it just occurred to me that I
neglected to post 'C's' e-mail reply to me from last Fri. (July
7th). I'm afraid I went out of town and came back writing on
another topic in other newsgroups...
So here's the response I got from 'C' [somewhat edited]:
On Wed, 5 Jul 1995 U27111 at UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU wrote:
> I received another personal e-mail on this matter and as usual
> will share my reply...
> As I respect the anonymity of personal e-mail... I will not post
> the name of the person replying, but just refer to that person's
> comments as 'C'.
> C: I've read some of your posts, some points are valid, well,
> C: many of your points are valid. Your statistics suck!
> What statistics? I have only previously quoted from the article
> "Scientists, institutions downplay misconduct - Accusers hit
> office probing their charges as ineffectual" by Leslie Alan
> Horvitz. The Washington Times, May 3, 1994, pp.A6....
C: you've missed the point here, by the "data" (note the quotes)
C: i ment the generalizations you made based upon your extensive
C: personal experience.
> C: You've worked in how many labs? You've worked with how many
> C: grad students? From these insignificant n values you make
> C:sweeping generalizations.
> BTW, I have never quoted an 'n' number in relationship to my
> personal experience. ????
C: quite so i had to infer your extensive personal experience
> I think you mean I should go work for the guys who built the lens
> on the Hubble... I forget the name of that company. Anybody else
C: yes, that's what i ment.
> C: Now that I've vented, I'm sorry about your mom and I hope you
> C: can find a job that suits you.
> I tend to doubt you *really* mean that... it just sounded good
> to put in? But then again, who am I to judge the sincerity of
> somebody I don't even know?
C: Wrong, i wouldn't have said it if i didn't mean it
>'hope' to find a lab which better suits *me*? Why can't the field
> change to better suit those who are indeed suffering and dying
> instead of research for the purpose of greed, politics and egos?
> And I think *that* is truly the statistics one should look at
> when evaluating the progress [or should I say lack of progress]
> of cancer research in the past 2 decades?
> If is indeed only me and my purposed lack of ability in 'picking
> a good lab'... then how do *you* explain this general lack of
C: Many of the real problems you,ve cited are due to the
C: competitive rather than cooperative atmosphere engendered by our
C: systemf for funding research.
> C: I've met and in one case worked with idiots who shouldn't be
> C: doing science but I've also worked with some people who are
> C: really inspiring.
> And if you put each group in each hand... which one would weigh
> more do you think?
C: the latter but i've got better stories about the former.
Note: Since this e-mail reply, C and I have been having a more
personal discussion which I did not feel appropriate to post.
More information about the Bioforum