/sci/ - Science & Math

Some anon concluded yesterday what probably happened was the other test-tube still had residual DNA and it grew when the chemical (forgot what it was called) was added.

>>2352673
DNA polymerase

>>2352673
>Nobel prize winner
>Uses dirty test tubes

Interstellar space travel here we come! can't wait to infect other galaxies.

>>2352673

Montaigne lost his marbles, check the paper. Institute for Biophysics, Neuss is mislabeled as Institute for Biophotonics and that's just the start.

He's 80 years old. It's more likely that he's having trouble using the toilet on his own, than it is that he discovered something groundbreaking.

>>2352674
>>2352679
I'm just repeating what that anon said

It has yet to be accepted by a peer reviewed journal. It's a total load.

ITT: People who know nothing about PCR arguing that DNA can teleport.

He used PCR to propagate more DNA molecules. The idea behind using PCR is that you can take ridiculously small amounts of DNA and from that, make a whole lot of copies. I think in his paper he simply diluted down his stock DNA in the second test tube. Of course you would still see amplification, the DNA is still there. All he is doing is confirming that PCR works.

>>2352669
Third time shitty troll has posted this shit

1) Paper was just published

2) Paper is bad science and will be refuted
(happens all the time)

3) He didnt win the Nobel for this shit

>>2352729
This happens all the time.

>genius scientist who changed the world
>he has a new idea
>people dumber than him don't like what he's saying because it could change the status quo
>OH HE'S OLD AND DUMB NOW IGNORE HIM

This is why I stopped coming to /sci/, a bunch of close minded undergrads.

>>2352748
>Second test tube contains only water
>Pseudo-skeptic thinks it contains diluted dna

It's been accepted for peer review

>>2352761
<It's been accepted for peer review

That sounds incredibly sad. Does the science community not accept some works before they are reviewed?

>>2352761
By which journal?

>>2352781
I forget but it's mentioned in the new scientist article

>>2352761

>"The technical conditions for EMS induction is summarized by the following list:

>- High dilutions in water

>"For this all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase) were added to the tube of signalized water. The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler"

5/10

>>2352778
Yes. By being peer reviewed by someone in that field it adds a little validity.

>>2352761
>has never seen or run PCR and doesn't know how common contaminations are.

>It's been accepted for peer review

LOL. His last two papers have been published in , where Montagnier is chairman of the editorial board.
Moreover, it was submitted on 3 Jan and accepted on 6 Jan. That spells that it wasn't properly reviewed.
Moreover, the study uses a device developed by Jacques Benveniste, who was accused of fraud when different labs couldn't replicate his results.

You are just butthurt that things like this always turn out to be scams

>>2352778

FYI: There are levels of peer-review

>>2352791

And for all the trolls asking for source, it was straight from his paper.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.5166v1.pdf

>>2352797
published in Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences

>>2352708
Few things remain with old age. But your wisdom never fades.

>>2352805

Unless of course he has dementia.

>>2352757

post ONE example of a 70+ year old making groundbreaking discoveries

>>2352805
wisdom is useless (even detrimental) in a search to find a fresh way of looking at something

>>2352778

WTF?

>MFW peer-review is one of the bases of science.

>>2352834
0/10

>>2352856
see >>2352821

>>2352797
>Implying he didn't repeat the experiment to rule out contamination

>>2352883
His paper said he didn't. If you publish a paper controls are mentioned.

>>2352856
See
>>2352856


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

>>2352883
>implying that contaminations disappear just because you repeat the PCR
>doesn't know anything about PCR

>>2352901
>He doesn't know how experiments work
>He doesn't know how papers are published

>Oddly, the original DNA sample had to be diluted many times over for the experiment to work
HOMEOPATHY!

>>2352734
I hate people who always say it must be peer reviewed.

fucking sheep, bow down to authority.

>>2352925
Implying I haven't been published as an undergrad

youmad.jpg

>>2352907
>Implying all convictions based on pcr are contaminations
>Has zero lab experience

>>2352937
>Implying a post on your facebook wall counts as being published

You guys need to realize /sci/ is one of the most close-minded boards on 4chan.
Almost everyone here is an atheist. They don't respect others beliefs.
Most here are eugenicists and also require everything to be peer reviewed.

science is dead

>>2352950
>HerpDerp I believe in teleporting DNA

>>2352903

>born July 15, 1922
>Among his achievements are the discovery of the muon neutrino in 1962 and the bottom quark in 1977.

77-22=?

>>2352938
> never heard about negative controls
> thinks that persisting contaminations in certain labs means all pcr-based convictions are contaminations
> has problems with basic logic and reading comprehension

enjoy having your papers rejected by reviewers

>>2352934

peer review judges the quality of work, not the outcome. gb2 foxnews

>>2352954
I know. It's so closed minded to require someone in a similar field to review it to make sure it's not a load of crap.

If we didn't have peer review, Joe Schmoe could publish any article he wanted and people would accept it as fact.

Just like those scientists that said they figured out cold fusion, he went straight to the press, not to someone else to peer review.

>>2352954

Science dies when anyone can say anything they want with the same weight as anything else. It's like saying the sun is made of vanilla pudding is just as true as the sun is larger than the Earth. Completely useless.

>>2352954

>They don't respect others beliefs.

Hell yeah I don't. Imagine Galileo did. you're just a religious bigot and lost ca 1500, gtfo.

>>2352974
>>2352960
>Can't refute
>Ignore facts that prove your belief wrong
>Ad hominems, ad hominems everywhere

>>2352983
Since one has proof and the other doesn't it wouldn't make any difference

>>2352981
>Just like those scientists that said they figured out cold fusion, he went straight to the press, not to someone else to peer review.

That was due to pressure from the university so they could secure patents before anyone else had even tried

>>2353056
> thinks it won't be turned down if it's submitted to any other journal than the one Montagnier is editing
>thinks publishing something in arxiv makes it a fact

think again

ITT: people who think that Nobel prize winners would sink so low to publish something that is not certainly true

>>2353082
>Fixated on an imaginary flaw that was considered, tested for and proved to have no impact
>Can't conceive that there are other ways that the results could have been gained without resorting to teleportation
>Has no imagination
>Will never even accomplish anything of anecdotal importance