This is one of my favorite reads this week, going into the human cost of a claim that won’t replicate. technically clear thru-line. the ending is awesome !
Although I agree in that this articel reads like a detective story, thereby meticulously highlighting the personal animosities between Chica Schaller and Werner Müller, I cannot let the subtitle go uncommented, since it is implying that „head activator ruined the career of W. Müller“.
Actually, it was Werner Müller, who – mainly for personal reasons and the subject in this process not being head activator - actively tried to impede Chica Schaller’s career. Since he was not successful in doing so, this fell back to him. Although he had to pay lots of money for it, his career and, maybe even more importantly, his position and his standing, have not been affected.
Werner Müller was not the first and only one who „felt the duty“ to cast the peptide into doubt and also in the Schaller lab innumerable scientific discussions and experiments took place attempting to understand the biochemistry of this „mysterious“ peptide.
Collecting assessments of the events at that time the storyteller writes: ….Fisher began not to “believe anything that came from her lab.” This cited statement reflects an highly unprofessional attitude, discrediting further scientific contributions which came from the Schaller lab: work on epithelial cells, work on SorCS receptors, work on the role of cAMP/CREB in hydra, work on GPCRs, purification, sequence analysis and cloning of PPOD, pedin and pedibin, to name some. The cited statement clearly demonstrates an incredible ignorance thus impressively affirming the final conclusion in the comment of „Neural Foundry“.
Sabine, you're correct regarding the Fisher quote: He was referring to his time studying hydra himself, and his journal club during this period. The quote is not meant to extend to Chica's later work. We have clarified the sentence to make this clear.
Brady, I appreciate your attempt to downplay the statement. Nevertheless, the restriction cannot be applied: Several of the scientific contributions I mentioned in my first comment, have been published during the time at which the interviewee was working on hydra. Apart from this, the attitude behind the statement as such remains to be highly unprofessional, speaking for itself.
This is one of my favorite reads this week, going into the human cost of a claim that won’t replicate. technically clear thru-line. the ending is awesome !
Although I agree in that this articel reads like a detective story, thereby meticulously highlighting the personal animosities between Chica Schaller and Werner Müller, I cannot let the subtitle go uncommented, since it is implying that „head activator ruined the career of W. Müller“.
Actually, it was Werner Müller, who – mainly for personal reasons and the subject in this process not being head activator - actively tried to impede Chica Schaller’s career. Since he was not successful in doing so, this fell back to him. Although he had to pay lots of money for it, his career and, maybe even more importantly, his position and his standing, have not been affected.
Werner Müller was not the first and only one who „felt the duty“ to cast the peptide into doubt and also in the Schaller lab innumerable scientific discussions and experiments took place attempting to understand the biochemistry of this „mysterious“ peptide.
Collecting assessments of the events at that time the storyteller writes: ….Fisher began not to “believe anything that came from her lab.” This cited statement reflects an highly unprofessional attitude, discrediting further scientific contributions which came from the Schaller lab: work on epithelial cells, work on SorCS receptors, work on the role of cAMP/CREB in hydra, work on GPCRs, purification, sequence analysis and cloning of PPOD, pedin and pedibin, to name some. The cited statement clearly demonstrates an incredible ignorance thus impressively affirming the final conclusion in the comment of „Neural Foundry“.
Sabine, you're correct regarding the Fisher quote: He was referring to his time studying hydra himself, and his journal club during this period. The quote is not meant to extend to Chica's later work. We have clarified the sentence to make this clear.
Brady, I appreciate your attempt to downplay the statement. Nevertheless, the restriction cannot be applied: Several of the scientific contributions I mentioned in my first comment, have been published during the time at which the interviewee was working on hydra. Apart from this, the attitude behind the statement as such remains to be highly unprofessional, speaking for itself.
I mean this in the best possible way, this article reads like a Bobbybroccoli documentary, eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ett_8wLJ87U