| Search results - "Discovery," |
Later Local Observations Should Respect Earlier Global DiscoveriesA Letter to Science asking to pay respect for earlier global discoveries was rejected by Science. Why would Science continues to glorify some local observations that only lately re-discover what already discovered before and meanwhile ignored the original pioneering discoveries?
Abstract
|
|
From Discovery to Development:The Special Case Requiring Additional CatalystsThis Editorial emphasizes the requirement for additional catalysts if discoveries made by exceptional human individuals- who are thus acting as primary catalysts in the generation of new knowledge- are to be developed into products. These additional catalytic factors are indispensable especially when it comes to developing a technical device on the basis of a theory in physics or a drug on the basis of a concept in biology. History shows that many powerful patrons who shared the vision with the discoverer have played such a catalytic role in facilitating the further development of the initial discoveries mainly through their considerable financial support.
Abstract
|
|
Logical Biology: The Appropriate Place to Communicate Ground-Breaking Biomedical Discoveries
Ground-breaking discoveries are difficult to make and even more difficult to publish if such discoveries are at odds with the dominant view in their research fields. For this kind of discoveries, Logical Biology is the appropriate place because it treats every author equally and judges the manuscript only by its content. We have been paying close attention to the scientific reliability of the observation yet focus even more on the logical soundness of the reasoning.
Abstract
|
|
Nilsson and Science Owe Public More Answers than a Simple RetractionScience recently published a retraction which blamed only a junior author (who refused to sign the untruthful retraction statement) for all the data-manipulation “misconduct”. However, some inside story disclosed so far suggests that the senior corresponding author Nilsson and even Science owe public more answers because they might have committed some high-level misconduct.
Abstract
|
|
A Pioneer Award Has Been Used for Stealing Credit from a True PioneerLiu’s prediction of non-random DNA strand segregation and precise drawings of the retaining of old template DNA strand by the mother cell and receiving of young template DNA strand by the daughter cell has been published for years. Thomas A. Rando of Stanford University knew aboutthe existence of such publications but omitted them entirely in both his research publication and review. His downright distortion of history and his outright credit robbery is a more serious offense than any other experimental data fabrication and falsification misconduct because it is an insult to science and a crime to humanity.
Abstract
|
|
|
|
