A problem with the "Eddowes Shawl" DNA match

[PaulB]

Russell Edwards's website would be one obvious possibility. Or his own university webpages. Or he could issue a press release through the PR company that represents him. I don't understand the difficulty.

I regret that it is not for me to attempt to fathom the iscrutable workings of a publisher's mind, and God knows I have spent what seems like a lifetime trying todo so, but I doubt that anyone would find a simple "I'm right and you lot are wrong" very satisfactory and to say more might, if it isn't accepted, generate more argument and adverse criticism. But I am only speculating.

[PaulB]

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

A publisher wouldn't have a contractual clause preventing Jari from stating that his information is correct, but it is best to remember that publishers are first and foremost businesses and they will do what's best for sales. I worked with them long enough! Cut through the idealism of publishing and books are just boxes of soapflakes and the salesfolk may be reckoning that the negative criticism will be over in a week, but that a response - any response - could generate further argument and further negative criticism. The thinking may be to keep one's head below the parapet and secure what rights deals are on the table, then take another look at the options.

[mickreed]

The university's, publishers or Edwards website springs to mind Paul.

A simple acknowledgement, a "yes I am aware, but cannot comment just yet", would suffice.

Monty

With the addition, perhaps, of some sort of timeline for comments to be made.

[PaulB]

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

No, it's chipped though.

[PaulB]

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.

I didn't say I approved of business trumping ethics, I just said that it did. My suggestion that he was maybe writing a paper for peer review was simply speculation as to why there has been no reply to the criticism. For all I know he's holding back for the paperback.

[Monty]

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?

The university's, publishers or Edwards website springs to mind Paul.

A simple acknowledgement, a "yes I am aware, but cannot comment just yet", would suffice.

Monty

[Chris]

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?

Russell Edwards's website would be one obvious possibility. Or his own university webpages. Or he could issue a press release through the PR company that represents him. I don't understand the difficulty.

[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?

[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

[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).

[Robert]

Hi Henry

Just click on edit, make alteration and click save.

[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

[Henry Flower]

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

[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.

[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.