Comments on: Hammering nails in the “junk-DNA” coffin http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/ Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:42:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Eindeloos typende apen - GeenCommentaar http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-758 Sun, 07 Nov 2010 01:46:49 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-758 [...] nogal denigrerend ook wel junk DNA genoemd. Hoewel over de precieze rol van dit niet-coderend DNA het laatste woord nog niet gezegd is, lijken typfouten in dergelijk junk-DNA – zo is de huidige wetenschappelijke consensus [...]

]]> By: How to have your cake, eat it, and then complain « BIOpinionated http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-589 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:26:27 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-589 [...] in question added to junk DNA coffin post. ▶ Comment /* 0) { jQuery('#comments').show('', change_location()); [...]

]]> By: Sergio Stagnaro http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-562 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:41:02 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-562 Scientific judgement…here is the point in Science!I do not recognize ar all the SCIENTIFIC method, based on logical deduction from a general principle, as the ONLY valid. That would be a dogma, in my opinion. Surely, I agree with corroboration or confutation of theories, whose “empirical”, final statements may be “judget”….at the condition that the Master demonstrates to know the utilized method. In Italy, but also elsewhere, there are Editors and Reviewers who judge articles done with methods, they ignore, in spite of negative or positive judgement.
Middle Ages of today’s Medicine, as I wrote!

]]> By: sciphu http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-423 Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:20:28 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-423 A comment from a discussion over at Sandwalk:

Doppelganger said…

Nils,
That you cite Andras Pellionisz’ historical revisionism-littered disaster of a paper in your litany of citations purportedly showing that there is less ‘junk-DNA’ than believed tells me that you don’t pay enough attention to the content of the papers on your list.

and he goes on to say….

I’m not sure that ‘controversial’ really engenders the true feeling most competwent scientsts have when they read his paper.

It is childish, the figures contain typos, it is petty, it contains flat out lies, and the main theme has ZERO support. Why it is publication is a mystery, how it got past review smacks of a Sternberg-Meyer event.

If you want to leave it on your list, feel free. But realize that doing so calls your scientific judgement into question.

]]> By: Sergio Stagnaro http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-357 Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:51:52 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-357 Dear Nils, only now I read with pleasure your kind comment, regarding what I wrote elsewhere [Comment posted 2008-10-29 11:41:24]. You know, I have sent recently a Lettera Aperta (Open Letter) to Italian President On.Silvio Berlusconi. In a few words, I’ve illustrated what accounts for the reason taht the end of CLINICAL Medicine parallels the end of Medicine itself (e.g. Stagnaro Sergio. The Death of Clinical Medicine parallels Medicine End. Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) 2008; 178: 1523-1524, 10 June 2008. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/eletters/178/12/1523).
Notoriously, today’s Medicine is ruled by Economics, so that mass-media “spread” every day Genomics expensive advancements, while CLINICAL progresses, paralleling the first,reliable, not expensive and useful for all individuals, rationalized enrolled in the primary prevention, are trivially silenced. An Italian famous journalist, even this morning, wrote me, once again, he is awaiting from years the consent (requested also today) of his Chief to interview me ……..

]]> By: Sergio Stagnaro MD http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-300 Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:48:50 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-300 Also in Nature.blogs,wherein such as news were been posted, I commented critically news regarding Genomics, as by Sergio Stagnaro
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55106/
[Comment posted 2008-10-29 11:41:24].
I frankly suspect that economics may contribute to hindering scientific advances, clinical in nature, which allow me to state that gene mutations parallel biological systems dysfunctions, bedside evaluated with a simple stethoscope! Earlier, on BMJ blog has been posted a message of mine at the URL: ” http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2008/10/28/laura-james-on-science-and-journalism/#comments
regarding Ministerial Conference of Environment and Health in Madrid. Scientists need publicity, especially for spreading among individuals their own theories, rather than to obtain funding. Unfortunately, paramount theories are not expensive, but are not politically correct. For instance, in the Age of Genomics at the Zenith, who among journalists is authorized to give information that every gene mutation brings about necessarily alteration, i.e., dysfunction, in related biological system, adding that doctors can nowadays bedside evaluate all tissue functions, in reliable way,so that we can gather, since BIRTH, precise information not only with the aid of genomics, but also with a simple stethoscope?
In a few words, in no expensive way, doctors are able to state rapidly if an individual is predisposed to diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, ATS (CVD), CANCER in well-defined biological system, a.s.o.
Such as statements may you read, for instance, on http://www.nature.com, at URLs http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081006/full/news.2008.1152.html?q=2#last-comment
http://blogs.nature.com/nm/spoonful/2008/03/gout_gene.html

That is LIFE!

]]> By: sciphu http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-275 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:43:34 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-275 slpage. So research is not completely suppressed, – which is good. I guess numbers of papers could have been thousands instead of hundreds if it wasn’t discouraged, if you find that funny, then so be it.

I am not a “junk” DNA researcher myself so I’m hardly a martyr nor do I see that my posts in any possible way inflates my ego. Actually I’d say my ego is deflated a bit by now……and that of course may be viewed as pathetic by some.

But, when it comes to desperate writings I’d say your comment fits the description better, since with regards to the amount of DNA being “junk” or not, your comment isn’t relevant at all…

]]> By: slpage http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-274 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:12:07 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-274 Funny – if junk DNA research was suppressed or discouraged by a label, how is it that one can find hundreds of papers opn junk DNA function during this period of ‘suppression”?

Spinning tales of martyrdom and ego-inflation just make some people look desperate and pathetic.

]]> By: sciphu http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-262 Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:41:18 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-262 The video was also featured on Scienceroll: http://tinyurl.com/5rmm8n

]]> By: Pellionisz http://biopinionated.com/2008/10/28/hammering-nails-in-the-junk-dna-coffin/#comment-261 Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:31:39 +0000 http://sciphu.wordpress.com/?p=601#comment-261 I realize that the YouTube link is not working. Here is a link with a “visual leporello” Table of Contents.

The science paper is here

Pellionisz_at_junkdna.com

]]>