* Unanswered questions: debates *

Raeto West 101722.35 at CompuServe.COM
Wed Jul 3 16:30:40 EST 1996


[Note: added by Rae West:
  I've been arranging this discussion, and wish to put on record on my own
behalf, independently of Dr Hillman's that Aspiroz' reply must be one of the
feeblest and most cowardly I've seen.
  I draw the attention of interested people to the capitalised statement, below,
on electron microscopy by Harold Hillman.]

Dr Ricardo Aspiroz:

These questions are properly addressed to cytologists. They are not
"my" questions. I have answered them. Dr Krasel has. You have not.
Obviously you do not share my view that it is the duty of scientists
to try to answer questions in their discipline. You must believe
that yours is a correct attitude of a scientist - I am sorry to disagree.

Harold Hillman.



>To all:
>I, personally, am a bit tired of this discussion; this is going nowhere.
>Furthermore, I think at this point it is time to get off the cellbiol
>group and continue, if so desired, at the individual level. All of us who
>have participated are quite convinced we are right. I'm sorry it's not
>working out.
>Just a final note to Hillman/Fowler: If I remember correctly, this thread
>started when you posed a number of questions and asked for some answers.
>That is well and good. However, I fail to see how it seems to have become
>OUR responsibility to address your issues and meet your "challenges". We,
>sir/madam, have no problem with our views and are not especially
>interested in having you agree with us. It is YOU who initiated this,
>which is why all our responses are in the tone of "you should read this
>or that". Do not expect us to read your publications. You can ask, you
>can offer reprints, but accusing us of not reading your stuff is out of
>place, and will not put us in a good frame of mind.

>I am out of this thread, and I ask all others to follow suit.

>Ricardo Azpiroz



>On 26 Jun 1996, Harold Hillman wrote:


  [some cut]

>>> 2) If I sent you a micrograph with what you call random orientation of a
>>> bilayer, you would, rightly, claim it to be uninterpretable; such
>>> micrographs are only interpretable in the context of serial sections.

  2) *I CHALLENGE YOU* AS I DID ANYONE TO SEND ME AN ELECTRON
   MICROGRAPH WITH THE CELL, NUCLEAR AND MITOCHONDRIAL MEMBRANES,
   THE CRISTAE, THE ENDOPLASMIC RETICULUM, THE SYNAPSES IN A RANDOM
   SELECTION OF ORIENTATIONS. *YOU* CAN PUT ARROWS SHOWING ME AND ALL
   THE OTHER USENET USERS EVERY ORIENTATION IN *ONE* MICROGRAPH.
   I REPEAT THIS CHALLENGE TO ANY ELECTRON MICROSCOPIST IN THE WORLD.


>>> 3) Read about axonal transport of synaptic vesicles. There are VIDEOS
>>> showing vesicles moving down microfilaments. Movement and cytoskeleton,
>>> right before your eyes.

>> 3) Synaptic vesicles can only be seen by electron microscopy of *dead
>> tissues* in which intracellular movements do not occur. Therefore the
>> movement of *vesicles* can not be seen. Sheetz' beautiful videos do not
>> show mitochondria being pulled along. His microtubules can be seen by
>> light microscopy (with a resolution of 200-250 nm under *best*
>> conditions), but microtubules (see Dustin Amos and others) are < 25 nm
>> and are therefore not the same structures.

Harold Hillman.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list