A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[Amanda]

Just an idea....

The longer time goes on, the more it looks to me as though Russell Edwards and Jari Louhelainen are just going to keep their heads down and ignore the criticism. If that's the case, I find it difficult to believe they will attend the conference next month (though by now I'm starting to feel that nothing would surprise me).

I certainly don't intend to let this rest, and I get the impression a lot of other people feel the same way. There are quite a lot of avenues that can be explored, but in the short term I doubt that journalists are going to be interested without some new information. Probably we're going to have to think in terms of weeks and months rather than days. (Of course, there is a sense in which a university lecturer refusing to acknowledge and correct a clear error in his work should be a story in itself. But sadly our universities aren't what they used to be.)

Hi Chris,

Just an idea, but you could try calling 'The Sun' newspaper (0845 086 3000).

I know it's a more sensationalist publication but at least it would get the DNA 'mistake' out there as the Sun is bought by millions.

I'm not scientifically savvy enough to explain the whole circumstances to them but coming from you, it would make a professional and noteworthy story.
Maybe worth a shot?
Amanda

[Chris]

Just an idea, but you could try calling 'The Sun' newspaper (0845 086 3000).

I know it's a more sensationalist publication but at least it would get the DNA 'mistake' out there as the Sun is bought by millions.

I'm not scientifically savvy enough to explain the whole circumstances to them but coming from you, it would make a professional and noteworthy story.

Thanks. I just feel that the newspapers that chose not to pick up the Independent story are going to want something new, especially now that story is five days old. We do have other indications that the analysis is questionable (the statement that T1a1 is "very typical" of Russian Jews, for example). But I suspect that kind of technical detail won't be very interesting to a paper like the Sun.

But at least the story was picked up by one large-circulation British tabloid, the Mail (though I'm not actually sure whether it went into the printed edition).

[Chris]

Puzzle

Here's a puzzle for those who have been following the news coverage closely.

The strongest (in fact the only) statistical evidence presented in the book for the significance of either of the DNA matches is the figure of 1 in 290,000 associated with "314.1C".

Has Dr Louhelainen ever referred to this in any of his media utterances, right from the start? If not, can anyone imagine why not?

[mickreed]

The longer time goes on, the more it looks to me as though Russell Edwards and Jari Louhelainen are just going to keep their heads down and ignore the criticism. If that's the case, I find it difficult to believe they will attend the conference next month (though by now I'm starting to feel that nothing would surprise me).

I certainly don't intend to let this rest, and I get the impression a lot of other people feel the same way. There are quite a lot of avenues that can be explored, but in the short term I doubt that journalists are going to be interested without some new information. Probably we're going to have to think in terms of weeks and months rather than days. (Of course, there is a sense in which a university lecturer refusing to acknowledge and correct a clear error in his work should be a story in itself. But sadly our universities aren't what they used to be.)

Hello Chris,

Since I'm a bit of a stirrer, they haven't heard the last of me, either.

My review should be out in the next few days if I understand correctly. I'll post details when I have them.

I also have an article due out in the next couple of days (I think) on an international news analysis site (contributors are all academics) with outlets in Australia, the UK, and the US.

Again, I'll post links when I have them.

As you say Chris, unis ain't what they once were, especially some of the smaller ones.

However, they hate bad publicity, and there's plenty of scope to get them plenty of that. Most of us will have contacts somewhere useful, and I intend to use mine as appropriate.

This might sound spiteful, but it's not. They have made a major stuff up and, seemingly, not only won't accept it, but try to expand on the 'sins'. Anyone can make an error but the way to deal with it is not to claim a million sales.

And, as you say Chris, there's a story in the academic who doesn't fess up. I'm sure there are journalists who'd be interested in that. Indeed, I may know a couple.

Finally, if they don't go to Salisbury, then there will a story there. And if they do go, there will be a story. A good journo or a good stirrer would be able to make one from either scenario.

So, chaps, just fess up and admit you've stuffed up. It ain't that hard. Then we can all get on with our lives

[PaulB]

I think there's a difference, Paul. And sure, nothing is new.

Some aspects of RE's activities may well fit into the 'unreal Jack' theme that you refer to. But RE's site contains numerous references to the 'real Jack, that is AK. He even has a page

http://www.thejacktheripperexperience.co.uk/dont-think-time-knew-name/

In which the 'real Jack' confesses all and then asks us to find out more from RE - the keeper of the truth.

I'm sorry, Paul, but the only aspect of the book that pointed (possibly) to AK was the DNA, and that is wanting. I prefer to respect the opinions of four leading and international DNA experts to that of one whose expertise, while surely considerable, could be unmasked by a few amateurs on Casebook.

It's a case of integrity which should always trump business. The silence since 19 October has been deafening. Until that silence is broken, then I can find nothing to say in RE's support.

And is it acceptable to claim a million sales of the book if it's not right? It may be right, but it seems very unlikely.

I wasn't talking about the book but the selling of merchandise like Jack the Ripper chocolate bars, and I was sayng that whilst some merchandising might be on the gross side or be absurd (I have a Jack the Ripper teapot), it was nevertheless inspired by the fictionalised/mythological Jack. He may be rubbing shoulders with the real one at times, but they are two distinct beings.

As for your question about Russell Edwards' book, surely integrity has never trumped business. If it had then the world might not be in the financial mess its in. But the question is whether or not Russell, Jari and the publishers believe the science is right. If they do, and I actually have every reason to suppose they do, then I can't see any significant moral reason why they shouldn't continue selling the book.

I agree that the silence is deafening, but many book contracts have a clause to the effect that authors are not permitted to do or say nothing that could damage sales of the book or to bring out a compeing volume within a specified time. A response is probably down to the publisher. But even if Jari has checked and double checked his data and is able to rebut his detractors, there is the question of where a rebuttal could be made. Not Casebook for sure, and probably not the newspapers. A slanging match is to be avoided at all costs. So maybe a journal, possibly peer reviewed, and that, of course, takes time. The silence therefore looks damning, but on the other hand may mean quite the opposite.

[Robert]

Paul, your JTR teapot - has the spout dropped off?

[Chris]

But even if Jari has checked and double checked his data and is able to rebut his detractors, there is the question of where a rebuttal could be made. Not Casebook for sure, and probably not the newspapers. A slanging match is to be avoided at all costs. So maybe a journal, possibly peer reviewed, and that, of course, takes time. The silence therefore looks damning, but on the other hand may mean quite the opposite.

If the criticisms were incorrect, he could put a rebuttal online immediately. Or at the very least he could indicate that he is able to rebut the criticisms.

[mickreed]

As for your question about Russell Edwards' book, surely integrity has never trumped business. If it had then the world might not be in the financial mess its in. But the question is whether or not Russell, Jari and the publishers believe the science is right. If they do, and I actually have every reason to suppose they do, then I can't see any significant moral reason why they shouldn't continue selling the book.

I agree that the silence is deafening, but many book contracts have a clause to the effect that authors are not permitted to do or say nothing that could damage sales of the book or to bring out a compeing volume within a specified time. A response is probably down to the publisher. But even if Jari has checked and double checked his data and is able to rebut his detractors, there is the question of where a rebuttal could be made. Not Casebook for sure, and probably not the newspapers. A slanging match is to be avoided at all costs. So maybe a journal, possibly peer reviewed, and that, of course, takes time. The silence therefore looks damning, but on the other hand may mean quite the opposite.

Hello Paul

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I agree that business often trumps ethics, but I don't have to like it, nor support it. I may be utopian, but c'est la vie.

Based on what's in the book, I find it hard to believe that JL can believe the science. If he has more, then it can be put out without a slanging match. Maybe Casebook isn't the venue, but nobody suggested it was. I have no doubt that he would find an opportunity to give us more information quite easy to find.

If he can come up with a peer-reviewed piece then I am sure it will contradict the book.


But, this is not the material for peer review. It's old technology - a simple case of identification. Been done a thousand times.

No, what might be suitable for a peer-reviewed piece would be the process by which the DNA was obtained, but that won't answer the real problem, namely the error of nomenclature, and the implications of that.

I hope I am wrong but I doubt there will be a peer-reviewed article.

[Henry Flower]

Paul B:

As for your question about Russell Edwards' book, surely integrity has never trumped business. If it had then the world might not be in the financial mess its in.

The financial mess the world has been in recently has a great deal to do with economically ignorant progressive ethics trumping sound and established business sense. ie - bad debt: normal standards of creditworthiness being bypassed, by political diktat, for 'ethical' progressive reasons, in order to impose an equality of outcome that had no real economic foundations. An idealistic house of cards that tumbled down and took the world economy with it.

At least, that's what many experts think.

[Henry Flower]

Sorry - that was seriously off topic - how do I remove it please?

[Caligo Umbrator]

I agree that the silence is deafening, but many book contracts have a clause to the effect that authors are not permitted to do or say nothing that could damage sales of the book or to bring out a compeing volume within a specified time. A response is probably down to the publisher. But even if Jari has checked and double checked his data and is able to rebut his detractors, there is the question of where a rebuttal could be made.

Hi, PaulB,

I can see the merit (from a business point of view ) in a publisher preventing an author, through a contractual obligation, from releasing information that directly contradicts the premise of his/her recently published book.
However I find it hard (not impossible, just hard ) to imagine that a publisher would have a contract in place that would prevent a contributer to a publication from confirming or asserting that the information he/she has provided is correct.
The 2 gentlemen have clearly been appearing in the media in promotion and support of the book they are involved in.
So it seems odd that you suggest they are in some way shackled as to what information they can engage themselves in discussion about.



Your, Caligo

[Robert]

Hi Henry

Just click on edit, make alteration and click save.

[Chris]

However I find it hard (not impossible, just hard ) to imagine that a publisher would have a contract in place that would prevent a contributer to a publication from confirming or asserting that the information he/she has provided is correct.

I think the tenor of Dr Louhelainen's responses to people who have raised this directly with him makes it clear it's not the case. The only potential limitation that's been mentioned has to do with the privacy of the DNA donor (and that has no relevance to the specific problem that's been raised, because the sequence variation 314.1C was published in the book).

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi Chris,

Yes, I agree about the privacy of the DNA donor and that's perhaps why I haven't seen the visual of the match that was sent to ER by JL.

Yours, Caligo

[PaulB]

If the criticisms were incorrect, he could put a rebuttal online immediately. Or at the very least he could indicate that he is able to rebut the criticisms.

Indeed he could, and I think it is a huge mistake not to have done so, or to have acknowledged his error if he made one, but, as I said, he may be contractually unable to do the latter or has been prevented from doing so by his university. On the other hand, as I asked, where online or otherwise could he rebut his critics, assuming he'd want to avoid a confrontational argument?