Nice headline but he was fed one
sample out of a great many independent samples and it may well be
that he was the one been tested. I would never release a quality ore
sample to any third party without putting that person under contract
and policing the use of the information. What is more, I would
insist that their work be publishable with their name attached.
So our boy has been engaged and
did he return to Ketcham and share his findings? Of course not, he
had his cheap story and headline.
At the same time the report that
was returned states opossum and other. Precisely what is 'other' in
the exact science of DNA? In geology it usually means that I am too
lazy to crawl three hundred feet down a cliff face to sample the
rock. With DNA, it is unidentified. And just how did this lab work
compare to Ketchum's work?
Perhaps I should put this under a
headline like World Famous Journalist Searching for Bigfoot.
I
had the ‘Bigfoot DNA’ tested in a highly reputable lab.
Here’s what I found.
Monday, July 1, 2013
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/07/i-had-the-bigfoot-dna-tested-in-a-highly-reputable-lab-heres-what-i-found/
Back in February I
savaged the release of a research paper that claimed to prove
the existence of Bigfoot by providing a DNA sequence from the
species.
The paper contained
details of DNA from the “Sasquatch genomes,” which the authors
characterized as novel and non-human.
Following the paper’s
publication I solicited the views of several geneticists on
the work. From their reading of the scientific paper — published in
a journal that had been started just the week before — they said at
best the evidence was inconclusive.
In summarizing my
views of the work, led by Nacogdoches geneticist Melba Ketchum, I was
blunt and brutal:
If Ketchum really had
the goods she would have co-authored the paper with reputable
scientists and gotten the work published in a reputable scientific
journal. Instead she’s playing to an audience that doesn’t
understand how science works, that wants to believe Bigfoot exists
and is willing to send her some cash to further their delusions.
A funny thing happened
later that week — Ketchum called me. We spoke for nearly an hour,
and after the bad things I had written about her research, I was
impressed that she bore no grudge and wanted to nonetheless engage
with me. It was a good and constructive conversation.
I am first and
foremost a journalist, and I figured if there was even a 1 percent
chance that the Bigfoot evidence was real, it was worth my time to
check the story out.
So I agreed to be an
intermediary between Ketchum and a highly reputable geneticist in
Texas, whom I trusted and knew personally. I also knew that this
geneticist was first and foremost a scientist, and if there was even
a 1 percent chance the Bigfoot evidence was real, he’d want check
out the story. I asked, and he was willing to approach the evidence
with an open mind.
(Why am I maintaining
my source’s anonymity? Because some of his peers would question his
engagement on such a topic, believing it unworthy of valuable
research time. But make no mistake, he is a top-notch scientist at
the top of his field.)
The deal was this: I
would hold off writing anything until this geneticist had his lab
test the DNA samples obtained by Ketchum that were purportedly a
novel and non-human species. If the evidence backed up Ketchum’s
claims, I had a blockbuster story. My geneticist source would have a
hand in making the scientific discovery of the decade, or perhaps the
century. Ketchum would be vindicated.
In short, we would all
have been winners.
Alas, I met my
geneticist friend this past week and I asked about the Bigfoot DNA.
It was, he told me, a mix of opossum and other species. No
find of the century.
I’m honestly really
disappointed. A world with Bigfoot would be a little softer. A little
more fun. But in my world science is the arbiter of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment