View From The Trenches

U27111 at U27111 at
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
> know?

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
> progress?

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.

Thank you.


More information about the Bioforum mailing list