How Scientists Cheat - Reply to Richard Grant

John Hewitt john.hewitt1 at virign.net
Mon Sep 11 15:27:52 EST 2000


Richard,
Thank you for reading my site
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/  "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists
Cheat" and your postings.  No, the spelling of virgin is wrong.  I don't
know how that happened because Outlook express just picks up the E-mail
address as it works.  I am john.hewitt1 at virgin.net

I do not have a copy of the '79 paper, certainly not in electronic form.
You will have to go to the Radcliffe. (I am assuming you are in Oxford from
the D. Phil.)  Really, I advise my chapter 7 because the main thing the
paper contains that the chapter does not is mathematics.  I did not
originally intend to include a quantitative analysis but a referee preferred
it.  If the maths does interest you, then there was another paper published
a couple of years later, also in J. Theor. Biol.  I cannot remember the
author's name but he was from Washington State and he slightly improved on
my analysis.

However, the main problem with any maths. is uncertainty, both in the
characteristics of the waves and the in physical parameters that need to be
inserted into equations.  I feel these are so large that maths. is
essentially just an illustration of mechanism.  In these matters, it seems
to me that the first thing is to establish mechanism at a phenomenological
level.

You remark that it is "Interesting that you think I would want to defend the
orthodoxy."  I don't have any reason for thinking that.  It is really just
the mindset from which I am coming - it has no bearing upon you at all.

I shall look forward to seeing what you think.  I realise it might take a
little while but when you do post, do let me know about it.

Sincerely

John Hewitt




Richard P. Grant <rgrant at netscape.net> wrote in message
news:rgrant-F341F3.08355411092000 at nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> (A copy of this article has been forwarded by email)
>
> In article <Znvu5.2109$8r4.25119 at news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "John
> Hewitt" <john.hewitt1 at virign.net> wrote:
>                       ^^^^^^
> (John, I don't know if the spelling of 'virgin.net' is deliberate, but
> that may be why you have not received replies to your posting)
>
> > Instead, I
> > suggest that readers who want to pursue the discussion should post to
the
> > newsgroup but simultaneously copy their posting by E-mail direct to me,
> > mentioning the newsgroup involved.  That way I will indeed come back and
> > reply to them.
> >
>
> That's understandable.  You will appreciate that people may be afraid of
> entering a private discussion if someone seems keen to keep that
> discussion out of the 'public marketplace'.  That was the reason for my
> question.
>
> > am mainly interested in discussing cell surface dynamics but I do not
> > know
> > your own circumstances, interests or the extent to which you could
defend
> > orthodox reporting in this field.
> >
>
> Interesting that you think I would want to defend the orthodoxy.  To be
> honest, although I am familiar with the work of most of the people with
> whom you take issue in your book (your website, actually), my previous
> interest in cell motility has tended to focus on protein-protein events
> immediately inside the membrane and on signalling via the integrin/FAK
> pathway.  However, as I am soon supposed to be looking at certain forms
> of motility, I shall have to catch up with the field.
>
> <snip>
> > votes.  I hope we can agree these things as a framework for discussion.
>
> That seems fair.  Just give me a while to come up to speed.
>
> > Look at this evidence.  If you, or anyone else, wants to take the other
> > side then I am quite willing to hold a public discussion with you -
> > subject
> > to the rules of rationality. Name the place.
>
> I'd like to see a copy of your 1979 paper, if you have that in
> electronic form anywhere.
>
> Richard
>
> --
> Richard P. Grant MAD Phil        http://www.gerbil.org.uk/









More information about the Cellbiol mailing list