Dr. Duncan Clark
Duncan at nospam.demon.co.uk
Thu Aug 24 05:11:31 EST 2000
In article <roWo5.1289$A_.27610 at news1.online.no>, Dag Rune Gjellesvik
<dagrg at online.no> writes
>Dr. Duncan Clark <Duncan at nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote >
>> Why should there be a problem? Assuming they are really Bacillus then
>> you have possibly found something new.
>Don't be too quick concluding about new findings contrary to current
>literature. My experience is that you should double- triple- quadruplecheck
>your results from different angles before you conclude your findings to be
I fully agree. But one kind of assumes that these results have been
checked again and again etc. My main query would be are these definitely
>In most cases, your results are artifacts. REAL new
>discoveries are getting more and more rare.
>Maybe a pessimistic view, but when you REALLY find something new - be proud
Being the eternal optimist, where bugs and enzymes are concerned, I keep
an open mind until I see the proof either way. Given that some 40-50% of
archael genes in sequenced genomes are unknown I suspect a lot of
discoveries are yet to be made. How really new, novel and exciting these
will be will depend solely on the field you are in. What is new and
exciting in your preferred field is generally of little interest to
people in other fields. The fickleness of science.
>As to the lipases: maybe they precipitate, or your medium don't induce cells
>to secrete the lipases? Just guessing.
Maybe readers of bionet-microbiology or bionet-proteins may be able to
The problem with being on the cutting edge is that you occasionally get
sliced from time to time....
More information about the Methods