Premature publication?

At least some scientists are complaining that the Leicester team announced its results prematurely, giving a press conference before publishing their results in a peer-reviewed journal:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50699669/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.USLGRj1dCSo

The primary concern is about the identification of the remains as Richard's based on mitochondrial DNA (though they didn't say so, about 17 percent of Europeans would share the "Jasmine" strain of DNA), but the same objection would apply to some of their other findings, as we've discussed on this list.

At any rate, it seems that we're not the only ones who think that the Leicester team were too hasty in presenting their conclusions. (Wonder what those same professionals think of a documentary hosted by that renowned scientific and historical expert, Simon Farnaby? (Nothing against Simon, bless his heart, but I don't think he helped the Leicester team's professional image.

Carol

Saw that article and thought it was faintly asinine.  The point, as Leicester stressed, is not that the DNA proves anything but that it's consistent with all the other findings.  As for publication before the press-conference, I really don't think that would have been realistic given (a) the huge level of interest and (b) the fact that we're talking about multiple strands of evidence across a whole range of fields.  And five months is hardly over-hasty.

Re the documentary, I doubt the University had any more control over it than the RIII Society.  They could, of course, have declined to co-operate, but that would probably have jeopardised the entire enterprise - which, we mustn't forget, was put together with limited funds and severe time constraints, possibly explaining aspects of the dig which have recently drawn criticism.

I think we're in danger of not just looking a gift horse in the mouth here, but kicking it in the teeth.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 0:36
Subject: Premature publication?


 
At least some scientists are complaining that the Leicester team announced its results prematurely, giving a press conference before publishing their results in a peer-reviewed journal:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50699669/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.USLGRj1dCSo

The primary concern is about the identification of the remains as Richard's based on mitochondrial DNA (though they didn't say so, about 17 percent of Europeans would share the "Jasmine" strain of DNA), but the same objection would apply to some of their other findings, as we've discussed on this list.

At any rate, it seems that we're not the only ones who think that the Leicester team were too hasty in presenting their conclusions. (Wonder what those same professionals think of a documentary hosted by that renowned scientific and historical expert, Simon Farnaby? (Nothing against Simon, bless his heart, but I don't think he helped the Leicester team's professional image.

Carol

It looks like they didn't have much choice.

This is what Richard Taylor posted on twitter, when asked if the "University of Leicester milked the RichardIII discovery, and bypassed traditional academic procedures", "... choice wasn't between peer review or press conference. Alternative to PC was half-baked leak. Media pressure was intense"

Here you can find Prof. Lin Foxhall's response:
http://leicesterexchanges.com/2013/02/14/spotlight/

Renate



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> At least some scientists are complaining that the Leicester team announced its results prematurely, giving a press conference before publishing their results in a peer-reviewed journal:
>
> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50699669/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.USLGRj1dCSo
>
> The primary concern is about the identification of the remains as Richard's based on mitochondrial DNA (though they didn't say so, about 17 percent of Europeans would share the "Jasmine" strain of DNA), but the same objection would apply to some of their other findings, as we've discussed on this list.
>
> At any rate, it seems that we're not the only ones who think that the Leicester team were too hasty in presenting their conclusions. (Wonder what those same professionals think of a documentary hosted by that renowned scientific and historical expert, Simon Farnaby? (Nothing against Simon, bless his heart, but I don't think he helped the Leicester team's professional image.
>
> Carol
>

Renate wrote:
>
> It looks like they didn't have much choice.
>
> This is what Richard Taylor posted on twitter, when asked if the "University of Leicester milked the RichardIII discovery, and bypassed traditional academic procedures", "... choice wasn't between peer review or press conference. Alternative to PC was half-baked leak. Media pressure was intense"
>
> Here you can find Prof. Lin Foxhall's response:
> http://leicesterexchanges.com/2013/02/14/spotlight/

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for that link. For what it's worth, I think that most of us respect Dr. Foxhall and her contributions (she's the one who made and emphasized the distinction between kyphosis and scoliosis in the earliest reports) and it's unfortunate that she received so little attention in the documentary (as department head, she should have received more attention than Jo Appleby). It's not the press conference that concerns us, though. It's that documentary. I suspect that Dr. Foxhall regrets it, too. Maybe the next one will be more like what the first one ought to have been.

Carol

Here's a couple of links from the UL site. The first explains a lot about
why they released the info when they did. Very illustrative in the
comments, seems like several from the University staff are commenting.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/genealogy.html

This a great explanation of Ibsen's line.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/familytree.html

These are all about the DNA & genealogy. I haven't had time to look for
anything there about the archealogy, I'd like to look and see what is said
if anything about Appleby's cracking Richard's skull.

The best bits are in the comments on this DNA stuff, so if it is out there
the best bits may be in the comments If anyone has time to get there before
me, please let us know.

T

tvm for the links, fascinating information... like you said the comments to the articles were very interesting too.
Ray..., in Connecticut.


-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Buckaloo <tandjules@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tue, Feb 19, 2013 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: Premature publication?




Here's a couple of links from the UL site. The first explains a lot about
why they released the info when they did. Very illustrative in the
comments, seems like several from the University staff are commenting.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/genealogy.html

This a great explanation of Ibsen's line.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/familytree.html

These are all about the DNA & genealogy. I haven't had time to look for
anything there about the archealogy, I'd like to look and see what is said
if anything about Appleby's cracking Richard's skull.

The best bits are in the comments on this DNA stuff, so if it is out there
the best bits may be in the comments If anyone has time to get there before
me, please let us know.

T

DNA analysis was, of course, developed at Leicester University - there really wasn't a better place for Richard to be buried.

----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Buckaloo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Premature publication?



Here's a couple of links from the UL site. The first explains a lot about
why they released the info when they did. Very illustrative in the
comments, seems like several from the University staff are commenting.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/genealogy.html

This a great explanation of Ibsen's line.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/familytree.html

These are all about the DNA & genealogy. I haven't had time to look for
anything there about the archealogy, I'd like to look and see what is said
if anything about Appleby's cracking Richard's skull.

The best bits are in the comments on this DNA stuff, so if it is out there
the best bits may be in the comments If anyone has time to get there before
me, please let us know.

T