Filed under: vincent fleury | Saisissez votre mot de passe pour accéder aux commentaires.
Et tu, Gastrulation? Then fall, Caesar!
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.
A Book Review: « Lifecode: From egg to embryo by self-organization », Mark Chu-Carroll
Review of Stu Pivar’s book Lifecode, Jerry Bergman at Denyse O’Leary’s blog
What would be the mysterious stage corresponding to figure 15b of EPMAG ? None of the schemas is staged,, so it is quite difficult. Well, not quite eight shaped, more pear shaped in fact, and I don’t dare to let the red dashed line. Seems like there is a problem here with the description. Not a small one.
Filed under: F*ck | Commentaires fermés sur 15b
Filed under: e-mails | Commentaires fermés sur Protégé : @ TR