User talk:Antony-22/Archive 4

1058:

time, but now it is totally discarded. So it is with the double helix. One day budding young scientists will be incredulous that we could take that structure so seriously ! I once asked a Physics lecturer at Keele University (who has written about the double helix) how he would explain the several papers which describe the spontaneous unwinding of solid fibres of DNA from duplex to triplex strands. He said he couldn't explain it, but, if we waited long enough, new results would come to light and he would wait for that ! In other words, in science, inconvenient results could be set aside because at some future date an explanation might offer itself ! He seemed happy with that. Let not the Truth disturb your sleep !

826:

the administration it took place under is problematic because the executive in the US does not actually set the policies as the name implies. Also use of the term "administration" is contrary to other articles which refer to a person's time as US president as their "Presidency". I have renamed the subarticles to something which is sightly more long and awkward but is more descriptive (definitely open to changes, I just can`t think of anything more succinct at present).

1456: 1914: 31: 1811: 1708: 1601: 1501: 667: 563: 272: 172: 397: 896: 1362: 475: 109: 355:, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term. 1016:. If there were a dedicated article on side-by-side models, focusing on the historical context and the reasons why these models were abandoned by the scientific community, perhaps a paragraph or so about pros and cons including your and Wu's work would be warranted, if it were neutral and in proper context. As I mentioned, it can be 1143:

etc., etc. An Indian crystallographer (Gautham) sent a whole catalogue of personal complaints about me and my intellectual incompetence to Current Science. They may have been right, it's hardly for me to say, but they all missed the crucial point: I may be stupid, ignorant, etc., etc., but I may still be right !

1146:

Richard Dickerson sent an email to my friend Gordon Rodley, copy to me, after I had explained to Richard how his work supported an SBS model, telling Gordon "TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ME." Poor Richard, he said, correctly, that if I were right, his whole life's work would be brought to nothing. That

938:

This was all brought graphically to mind a few years ago when Wu Senior sent me a long email setting out the saga of the threats made against him by his employer for publishing, sometimes with his son, work on the structure of DNA which would have forced people to think about DNA structures (always a

1138:

I first made my SBS structure public in 1985 (to Watson Fuller). I used the published work of later DNA crystallographers to challenge the Watson-Crick structure deduced largely from a few low resolution smudges (Diagram 51). Later crystallograpic work from the same schools showed that these smudges

934:

Wiki tends to allow science entries, it seems to me, which convey the impression that the science content is immutable, is set in stone and will never be falsified. This is really rather a simplification but it suits those who have an established reputation and a published body of work. Naturally

930:

As you know, Science is in continual flux; that is, what is regarded as "true" is often not "true" for very long. The latest example is the looming dispute over whether neutrinos can travel faster than "c". If they can, there is unlikely to be unanimity of view among the the scientific fraternity

825:

Since you seem to be the primary editor of these articles I thought I would just message you directly rather than on the relevant talk pages. I don't think the main article or the two sub-articles for Obama and Bush should be named and organized as they are. Naming and organizing US space policy by

1142:

I have attempted to list as many as possible in my last paper (2009) "Reflections on the Secondary Structure of DNA ... " From early days I have been abused for my work. Professor Pearl, who I have never met, sent me an e-mail calling me "stupid". A Cambridge crystallographer called me "ignorant",

1057:

Hi Anthony ! I found you again ! Just a few little thoughts. One of the problems in Science, it seems to me, is that our understanding of the scientific world is not really a matter of counting hands or votes. Do you remember the Phlogiston Theory ? We all thought that was great stuff at the

1306:

You must be using a rather wide screen, as it leaves little room for text beside them. If the article were huge, or side by side were not problematic for non-wide/large devices (which IIRC policy says not to assume), moving them to that section would indeed make sense. But otherwise they just run

1150:

However, I have only recently recovered from a mantle cell lymphatic cancer which my doctors say will return, so I am now thinking how to spend the next few years most usefully (I do not at all feel sorry for myself as I have had a fair innings with lots of fun in science and I am now nearly 70).

1134:

I guess you know the difference between Truth & Verifiability, but I think I don't ! To me it seems that if a phenomenon is verifiable, then it is empirically true. However, I now find myself preoccupied with a different aspect of DNA structure. If you mean that a source is of satisfactory

958:

The situation with DNA is bad. I mention my publications because no-one else does. My work is largely a compilation of that of others, going back to the 1950s, but it threatens the established view. It is unfortunate that Wiki allies itself with established views because these are liable to

1154:

But it does mean that I have realised in the last few days that I really don't need to bash on with paranemic DNA and endure any more abuse or indifference. No-one is much interested, for various reasons, and all the crucial work is already set out in my first book, my later papers, and in an

1543: 759:

I was going through this article. You have put Kanzius cancer therapy under current applications of nanotubes, but apparently, the link that takes you to the page on Kanzius cancer therapy, says that its still in experimental phase and that in 2012, clinical trials will begin.

1147:

is the center of the problem. All the double helix types understand perfectly that their life's work is threatened. I do sympathise with them and I have patiently and gently set out the case in vast detail since I first realised that the dh didn't exist in vivo (in 1981).

1007:

Hi Clive, I appreciate your candor and I know that Knowledge (XXG) policies can seem daunting to newcomers. Because the double-helical model is nearly universally accepted, and there are very few contemporary (i.e. post-1990) sources supporting a side-by-side model, the

350:

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Knowledge (XXG) Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up

518: 1109:, not whether editors think it is true." Anything written about side-by-side nucleic acid models needs to reflect the literature rather than individual opinion, and be put in historical context, and of course is subject to change by other editors. 1280:

I actually thought that this layout interfered with the flow less; it's more vertically compact and doesn't run down the length of the entire article. I moved it down to the "Closure" section because that's the text that it's most relevant to.

1408:

If I've dealt with your concerns you could mark it as passed, or you could make any further comments you might have. If you don't, someone else will come along to close it, but given the backlog it's probably helpful to note if it passes now.

1264:

Hi, I was wondering why you've moved the images to be side by side and further down the page? Your placement would make sense if the article were much longer, but now it seems to interfere with the flow of the content much more than previously.

1161:

I am not bitter about all this, but I am going to pursue other interests for the next few years. If you do not hear from me again please do not be offended or hurt. I do appreciate the time and effort you have given to the topic.

369:

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Knowledge (XXG) assignments and managing courses are most effective.

421:

I am not quite expert enough to send barnstars (using those templates) but i wanted to show my appreciation that you continued to work on this page even though I was preoccupied. I just learned about this feature called

1139:

had been interpreted to define a supercell. There are many supercells now identified by DNA crystallographers themselves in their own papers, as I guess you know, and most of them are listed in the Protein Data Bank.

445:

group of articles. I think it would be useful for us to go to the library and grab a bunch of books on the subject, and write from those. There definitely a lot of missinf/unreferenced bits in those articles.

1863: 1650: 1375: 1536: 1519: 942:

The US academia has a reputation for enforcing conformity upon the young and proof of this is easily found in the biochemical notes available on the net from many university biology/biochemistry courses.

924:

Thank you for your time & effort in setting out some Knowledge (XXG) rules. Your remarks rather semm to cast me as some kind of bad boy but, naturally, I see the whole matter quite differently.

1851: 1155:

electonic book due out soon. This work is largely unread and unappreciated, but "c'est la vie", as they say. I certainly cannot muster the energy any more to set out the case anew for Wiki.

794:

I'll take a look at it. I didn't add this text myself, but I think you are probably right and it should be moved to future applications. I see you're a new user; it's always acceptable to

402:

Thank you for all of your work on the United States Public Policy page!!! I'd love to continue our collaboration we had started last fall. Also very glad that you are a Campus Ambassador!

1242: 1329:

I'm on a standard, non-widescreen monitor at 1280x1024 resolution. I think it looks fine on my monitor, but if you think that a vertical layout would be better feel free to change it.

303: 290: 199: 190: 113: 1753: 709: 842: 798:

and make the change yourself. Let me know if you have any questions about editing. :-) Just out of curiosity, how did you become aware of me as a person to ask about this?

148:

Thank you for your welcome, and now I'm translating some chemistry English item to Chinese, e.g. Fullerene, organic solar cells and related. While, I'm not familar with wiki.

1158:

There are many DNA researchers who will waste their whole lives on a structure which I have failed to persuade them does not exist in vivo, and may well not exist at all.

122: 1469: 366:

Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

1033:. This issue has been extensively covered by the media, and the article discusses both sides given the abundance of reliable sources discussing both sides. 946:

I could go on and on, but I'd better bring this matter to a focus. Wiki should insist that its scientific contributors do several things they don't do yet:

1527: 533: 359: 1480: 1462: 1455: 609: 488: 599: 939:

painful process). Apparently these threats included loss of tenure ! All this in the Land of the Free and in the world of Academic Freedom !!

1476: 1227: 903: 884: 1633: 1191: 1086: 981: 1531: 993:"it threatens the established view": In that case, we shouldn't treat it in Knowledge (XXG) as if it were the established view. - Dank ( 1641: 782: 1856: 1829: 1628: 1619: 1366: 1246: 699: 1553: 362:. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. 352: 1420: 1340: 1292: 1214: 1120: 1044: 931:

for some time. How will Wiki cope with that ? There will be a whole brouhaha between the establishment and the young Turks.

856: 809: 457: 378: 298: 1977: 1882: