Timothée, Tom Toud and Enro collaborated to write a must read about Fleury’s case.
I left a somehow lengthy comment there and I think that this is a must read for whoever is interested by Fleury’s theory and case.
I’m the first one to be sad with the rip-off of Fleury’s website. At sept 11, replying at his lab manager I wrote:
Je vous assure que je ne vois aucune raison à ce que le sujet soit discuté en « conseil d’unité » et certainement pas à ce que le site soit fermé, et ce n’est là qu’un simple constat sans vouloir influencer votre conduite. La seule information que le contenu n’est pas endossé officiellement, par vous, en tant que directrice de l’unité, le CNRS, ou l’Université, suffit amplement pour que je ne commette pas une bévue en vous considérant comme solidaires de facto des positions de M. Fleury.
All I asked for is to know whether the content of the website was supported or not by the lab as such. Not even a disclaimer.
It is not only about the freedom of speech I support for anybody. It’s also about my broken links. It’s also about exposure and discussion.
I would have give up with the Fleury case and theory as early as january 2007. He continued the discussion even in thread that had nothing to do with him. The discussion about his theory, that’s it.
Well, I don’t think that there is any scientific theory, and I don’t think either that a physicist should use the word as a journalist. If a physicist claim a theory he must have thoroughly test his hypotheses, experimentally, and be able to produce results when results are asked. This isn’t the case with Fleury. So, the term theory is inadequate. Hypothesis would be the best one, theoretical model or model the one the editor in chief of Organogenesis accepted. I think it’s misleading, including for Fleury who thinks he can base in such an hypothetical construct a theory.
I asked repeatedly for a submission in a scientific journal, and indicated that pre-publication servers existed (even provided links).
On the other hand, I asked Fleury for evidence. You know, when you claim the presence of a physical object you must be able to prove it. In the particular case, a photo of the four vortices claimed to induce limbs in tetrapods. We got schemas, of « stream lines », we lack photos of cell vortices. All I got is a change of the subject (focusing on the saddle point). Two and a half years after the publication of his model he is is still unable to produce the major and probably easier proof of his sayings, a photo of the four vortices. So, one could use it to see if they are placed as he pretends to be able to induce limbs budding, as claimed.
But, videos of two vortices are available. Not four. I suspect he will have a quite hard time to find two supplementary ones. Much more harder to show they are placed over the lateral plate cells, part of the mesoderm, the mesoderm not existing yet at the stage the two vortices are observed (pre-PS formation)!
And also, the « sandwich » used as a starting point for his modelisation may not be quite a sandwich after all, not as described. But he didn’t replied simply by identifying what the upper « plate » would be.
There are a lot of loose end here. And no direct responses, yet. Not even for the fundamental pieces of the hypothesis.
I still insist that his website should be left as it was. To be able to show that.
Filed under: vincent fleury