so many…

Second anniversary and still no evidence of L2/R2. If you see any please contact immediately Dr Vincent Fleury.

L2/R2, suite

Toujours manquants à l’appel !

P’tit jeu

Ce petit jeu vous est proposé en association avec “coincoin“, l’un des commentateurs du blog de Tom Roud.

L’une des deux images est passée par Photoshop, l’autre est le résultat d’une manipulation de biologistes, sans Photoshop, mais avec un électroporateur, ce qui parfois peut produire des effets analogues, mais sur de la matière vivante plutôt qu’avec des pixels.

Les deux versions sont notées A et B. Il s’agit de réfléchir un petit moment sur ce qu’elles représentent, sur la raison de leur présence sur ce blog et essayer de deviner laquelle j’ai trafiquée.

Prenez votre temps, ne soyez pas pressés.

Quand vous aurez choisi quelle est l’image trafiquée, vous trouverez la réponse ici. Et vous pourrez admirer l’original là.

Qu’est-ce que vous avez gagné ? Le plaisir d’avoir eu raison. Qu’est-ce que vous auriez pu perdre ? Une théorie ? J’en sais rien

Avec mes remerciement à “coincoin” pour m’avoir indiqué ce papier, que j’avais complètement loupé (et il semble que je ne suis pas le seul).

EPMAG

vox populi, vox rei

OK, the full review was found too much aggressive toward the author and the referees and the editor. Concerning the staff of Organogenesis I must say that they done the worst job, I’m aware of, while reviewing and accepting this paper.

I hope that no biologist was involved in the review process and that the editor that handled the paper didn’t read it carefully. If some bioscientist read the paper carefully and didn’t found the flaws all I can suggest is a battery of cognitive tests, ASAP.
The “sandwich” is one of the horrible examples of ignorance the author displayed and the review process didn’t corrected. Shame on them.
Credibility of the journal may be evaluated as the inverse of the number of flaws you will be able to spot.

The model is flawed. No crack propagation to explain the PS progress (the basal lamina is present below it ’till stage 3), prepaterning of the PS before it’s formation (recent data), no “four vortices” visible on the epiblast, no vortices in the mesoderm, mesodermal cells migration patterns falsely described, etc.

As MarkCC put it [edit Agathi; he never read things completely?]:

Invalid models do not produce valid results. Stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Do not get your paper published in a decent journal. Do get laughed at by people who aren’t clueless jackasses.

I’ll add:

• Journals that publish such papers do not pass go, do not collect subscriptions and aren’t available from decent libraries. Even if the editorial board have the illusion of publishing interesting stuff, on the basis of inappropriate review.
• Invalid models can’t produce anything valid, especially theories.
  Down the drain gone Fleury’s theory.

I’ll keep this paper easily accessible, as it’s the only one I have seen where the author states that the problem discussed isn’t analytically tractable while he claims an analytically exact description of it. (do you need to be an expert to find that suspicious?)

People that offered “time will tell” as the final remark should reconsider their standards. One shouldn’t leave flawed theories persist in scientific grounds as they disqualify not only their authors but also their environment, including those tolerant by ignorance. That explain why just after posting my memo to the library, to avoid a subscription to Organogenesis, I cleaned my blogroll at C&C. I don’t like to link to “time will tell” users.

I consider that I done my share. F*ck V”I”F, his flawed model, his silly theory, his genetics and evolution denialism, and those stupid enough to consider them, either to build more stupid theories on them, e.g. Jean Staune, or respectfully, believing that tolerance of stupidity is equivalent to good manners.

got mail

A friend contacted me after reading the draft of the review of EPMAG. With permission:

As you say, no need to be an expert to be sure that no embryologist reviewed the paper. Too much BS in there. And who cares about the exactitude of the mathematical formulas if they apply to a fictional space? [...]

Let the guy at his illusions and Organogenesis think they got some genius with a revolutionary theory, delusion seems to be “in” these days. If in the future you find a citation of it, then it will be time to publish a full paper; waiting for this moment don’t help him correct his errors, the “sandwich” episode was funny but now he is aware that he must change the description. Leave him in ignorance. Ignoranus, that’s the word you spotted the other day, isn’t it? V”I”F Mon Français n’es[t] pas mauvais

He got a point here. Even if his French isn’t perfect

It may be interesting to let thing go further to make a “strike”. Any other opinions available? Use mail, I wouldn’t set up a poll just for that

Three questions; should I:

• polish the draft and let it go public
• keep the draft private and document with extracts from the paper (public is without to respect copyrights)
• keep the “time will tell” attitude, despite the fact that I found it unethical? (the guy is presenting his “work” to students, please consider that before answering)

FSM

Flying Spaghetti Monster apparition, in Google search about vortices:

.
Pastafarism in the sky, yeah! (clic the photo for source and more)

Protégé : An Elasto-Plastic Model of Avian Gastrulation: an opinion

Cet article est protégé par mot de passe. Pour le lire, veuillez saisir votre mot de passe ci-dessous :

Mot de passe :

77 yo

77 years ago, Wetzel nicely described and depicted cell movements at the chick embryo epiblast. And this is from his 1929 paper¹

mortise

Et tu, Gastrulation? Then fall, Caesar!

Which work of Shakespeare was the original quote from?

Get your own quotes:

 

he did it again!

That’s weird, he do know that his paper EPMAG is just a set of hypotheses and if he learned anything about chick development since he wrote it he should know that there are a lot of errors in it, and he should spend some time preparing a corrigendum for EPMAG, Organogenesis.

We had kind of a discussion here to prove that even the editor in chief of Organogenesis consider the paper as an hypothesis, but Vincent Fleury still present it as a published work that could support his theory: No, definitively no.

Do you think that such a conduct is ethical? Don’t consider scientific ethics in particular, just general ones.

Well, well, well, there was a lot of fuzz about that point and it would be stupid to go through it without learning something. What I learned is that Fleury didn’t learned anything.