Arsenic Security

[Dave Aitel <dave.aitel () gmail com>]

Excerpt from Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2295724/pagenum/2):

There was no bright line dividing what these scientists wrote in
scientific journals and what turned up in other forms of online
communication. Earlier this week, Silver went to the annual meeting of
the American Society of Microbiology in New Orleans to explain why he
thought the arsenic paper was so flawed. Several scientists in the
audience shared his talk with their followers in a series of tweets,
such as, "Silver - the 1 experiment to run would of been - acid
hydrolysis of the DNA and radio labelled arsenic - if it was in the
DNA it would show!" The tweets could use some copy-editing and
context, but they were effective for spreading the word.
There were two groups of people glaringly absent from this online
discussion. One group included the supporters of the arsenic
researchers. I have found only one third-party defense of the work
online, in a review in the journal Bioessays. The other group
comprises the authors of the paper themselves. When I asked them to
comment for my previous Slate article on the controversy, they said
they would only do so in a peer-reviewed journal. Yet they did not
actually take a vow of silence. Co-author Ronald Oremland participated
in another press conference at the American Geophysical Union in
December, where he declared, ""I don't want to get involved in what
can end up in a Jerry Springer situation, with people throwing
chairs."
Both NASA and the authors tried to play the bloggers-in-their-pajamas
card, but it was a losing hand. For one thing, the people who were
talking on blogs and Twitter were not in their pajamas. Many of them
were in lab coats. They were practicing scientists who wanted to have
an open debate. For another, the arsenic scientists didn't exactly
flee the media spotlight. The lead author, Felisa Wolfe-Simon,
delivered a high-profile TED lecture in March. Three months later, she
appeared in a full-page profile in the June issue of Glamour entitled,
"This Rising Star's Four Rules For You."


This response is exactly what people in the academic security field
turn to first - a "I'll discuss this only on my own terms" defense.

In reviewing the w00t papers I ended up feeling the same way. Each and
every paper, in its bizarre hard to read two column, no hyperlink
format, would have been better as a wiki or mailing list thread-like
discussion piece. When they come out, we will see what they say to be
reviewed here in public, and if they participate.

-dave
_______________________________________________
Dailydave mailing list
Dailydave () lists immunityinc com
https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave