Luxury jewelry van cleef Vintage pink gold bangles first shop from fuadiskws's blog
profile longevity study retracted
It sounded like a breakthrough when researchers from Boston University reported that they had identified genes associated with living to 100 or even van cleef and arpels copy clover necklace longer. The findings, reported in the well respected journal Science in July 2010, received a great deal of publicity.Controversy surrounded the study soon after publication. Newsweek was first to report serious questions from outside experts about the methodology. The issue involved a critical technical aspect of the test and the equipment used to analyze DNA.However, Science said in a statement that while there is no indication of misconduct, the study no longer merits publication.In a van cleef and arpels copy butterfly necklace new statement published in Science, the researchers wrote, feel the main scientific findings remain supported by the available data, citing links between specific clusters of genes and longevity, as well as a link between certain gene clusters and specific age related diseases. However, they added, specific details of the new analysis change substantially from those originally van cleef imitation butterfly necklace published online to the point of becoming a new report. Therefore, we retract the original manuscript and will pursue alternative publication of the new findings. Thomas Perls, the leader of the research project, told CNN the new paper has been completed and has already been submitted to another journal. He said he is unable to discuss the specific new findings while the paper is still under review.Read more from the Boston GlobeCNN Senior Producer Caleb Hellerman contributed to this report.A) Scientists are usually very quick to point out flaws in a rival study, so incorrect or flawed studies are debunked all of the time. If a study survives scrutiny, it probably pretty accurate. You know . . . like gravity, or the germ theory of disease, or evolution.B) Knocking science and knowledge just because you don understand the process or the results is pretty dumb. as a general concept has been the most successful human endeavor in history. Science has given us airplanes and the personal computer, space travel and hybridized crops. What field has done more for your life?C) is redundant. It like saying or with poop. Maybe before moving onto science, you should start with grammar.July 25, 2011 at 17:51 Report abuse While many anti science people will use this as an excuse to bash scientists, to me it actually supports the integrity of scientists and the strength of the scientific method.Generally, this is how science works scientists make their best efforts to get the correct answers, and when they discover a flaw in their theory, they re examine. How many science denialists (for example, the anti evolution people) can say the same thing that as they get new evidence, they adjust their views accordingly.It is easy for armchair critics to pick on scientists for not always being right. However, it is important to remember that the fundamental job of a scientist is to identify a question that no one in the world knows the answer to, and try to answer it. This is hard (if the answers were obvious, they would already be known), so of course there will be mistakes along the way. All we can hope is that scientists will be honest enough to backtrack and correct these mistakes. They did here (as they usually do), so should be applauded, not condemned.July 25, 2011 at 17:58 Report abuse It is perhaps the height of irony that such a wonderful example of how the scientific community and process work in the pursuit of knowledge should replica van cleef and arpels pendant necklace be sited as an evidence that science does not work.I suppose it is inevitable. Mankind has acquired sufficient knowledge through the application of scientific process that it is beyond what most people can comprehend. As Arthur C Clarke said sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic Confronted with magic on a daily basis, most people have no idea how it came to be. You must be mentally retarded. How the hell do you think peer review works? Most times, something gets published based on initial studies. THEN, other scientists review the study and attempt to recreate the experiment. Journals are the proving grounds for new research. Once the scientific community reviews the journal, they can either confirm its validity or rip it to shreds.Natural selection has failed you. Please rectify this immediately.July 25, 2011 at 19:56 Report abuse Science is open to abuse everywhere.One of the most published hand surgeons in the world, Dr. Thomas Trumble, was recently exposed as fraudulent, calling into question research which had been the basis for hand surgery for a decade. He was forced to resign his position as the University of Washington and as president of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. But, his research continues to be quoted and used as supporting evidence for treating patients.
It sounded like a breakthrough when researchers from Boston University reported that they had identified genes associated with living to 100 or even van cleef and arpels copy clover necklace longer. The findings, reported in the well respected journal Science in July 2010, received a great deal of publicity.Controversy surrounded the study soon after publication. Newsweek was first to report serious questions from outside experts about the methodology. The issue involved a critical technical aspect of the test and the equipment used to analyze DNA.However, Science said in a statement that while there is no indication of misconduct, the study no longer merits publication.In a van cleef and arpels copy butterfly necklace new statement published in Science, the researchers wrote, feel the main scientific findings remain supported by the available data, citing links between specific clusters of genes and longevity, as well as a link between certain gene clusters and specific age related diseases. However, they added, specific details of the new analysis change substantially from those originally van cleef imitation butterfly necklace published online to the point of becoming a new report. Therefore, we retract the original manuscript and will pursue alternative publication of the new findings. Thomas Perls, the leader of the research project, told CNN the new paper has been completed and has already been submitted to another journal. He said he is unable to discuss the specific new findings while the paper is still under review.Read more from the Boston GlobeCNN Senior Producer Caleb Hellerman contributed to this report.A) Scientists are usually very quick to point out flaws in a rival study, so incorrect or flawed studies are debunked all of the time. If a study survives scrutiny, it probably pretty accurate. You know . . . like gravity, or the germ theory of disease, or evolution.B) Knocking science and knowledge just because you don understand the process or the results is pretty dumb. as a general concept has been the most successful human endeavor in history. Science has given us airplanes and the personal computer, space travel and hybridized crops. What field has done more for your life?C) is redundant. It like saying or with poop. Maybe before moving onto science, you should start with grammar.July 25, 2011 at 17:51 Report abuse While many anti science people will use this as an excuse to bash scientists, to me it actually supports the integrity of scientists and the strength of the scientific method.Generally, this is how science works scientists make their best efforts to get the correct answers, and when they discover a flaw in their theory, they re examine. How many science denialists (for example, the anti evolution people) can say the same thing that as they get new evidence, they adjust their views accordingly.It is easy for armchair critics to pick on scientists for not always being right. However, it is important to remember that the fundamental job of a scientist is to identify a question that no one in the world knows the answer to, and try to answer it. This is hard (if the answers were obvious, they would already be known), so of course there will be mistakes along the way. All we can hope is that scientists will be honest enough to backtrack and correct these mistakes. They did here (as they usually do), so should be applauded, not condemned.July 25, 2011 at 17:58 Report abuse It is perhaps the height of irony that such a wonderful example of how the scientific community and process work in the pursuit of knowledge should replica van cleef and arpels pendant necklace be sited as an evidence that science does not work.I suppose it is inevitable. Mankind has acquired sufficient knowledge through the application of scientific process that it is beyond what most people can comprehend. As Arthur C Clarke said sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic Confronted with magic on a daily basis, most people have no idea how it came to be. You must be mentally retarded. How the hell do you think peer review works? Most times, something gets published based on initial studies. THEN, other scientists review the study and attempt to recreate the experiment. Journals are the proving grounds for new research. Once the scientific community reviews the journal, they can either confirm its validity or rip it to shreds.Natural selection has failed you. Please rectify this immediately.July 25, 2011 at 19:56 Report abuse Science is open to abuse everywhere.One of the most published hand surgeons in the world, Dr. Thomas Trumble, was recently exposed as fraudulent, calling into question research which had been the basis for hand surgery for a decade. He was forced to resign his position as the University of Washington and as president of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. But, his research continues to be quoted and used as supporting evidence for treating patients.
The Wall