Printable View
A new story entry has been added:
Sins of Analytical Chemistry
Quote:
Science, they say, is the truly noble pursuit. Men and women from all national, racial and cultural backgrounds come together to work tirelessly, dedicating their intellects and their training to the improvement of the human condition and the advancement of our knowledge. Regardless of the nature of scientists as individuals, science as a whole can only march towards greater truth and the betterment of the entire world.
Well
Wow, what a fantastic article, AW.
Is there any remotely realistic hypothetical where you could guard against the sort of political biases you wrote about?
The only way to remove bias, in theory, would be to have international traded goods tested and regulated by some international body. This would reduce bias, but since the wealthy nations would be funding the majority of this body, there would still be a bias. But it would be close.Quote:
Originally posted by Zuul
Really, it depends on how much you trust the impartiality of the UN. If you trust it a lot, then this idea could work. If not, then not.
But this idea would be unpopular - nations would not pay to have power taken out of their own hands.
Excellent article, as always, AW. I hadn't thought about the implications for trade in terms of laboratory error. Or even directed results.
In dredging up the Azaria Chamberlain case to make a point, you have committed some of the very sins to which you are referring. The information presented was badly researched (or not researched at all) and in the "I heard it from a bloke who heard it from a bloke"-vein. The irony of this in an article knocking lack of scientific rigour leaves me dumfounded.
* The forensic scientist did not test only for the presence of iron. Where on Earth did you get that idea? What the forensic lab used was an antiserum against haemoglobin F, which was supposed to have been a starting point for narrowing down the investigation, but was instead used as immediate evidence for blood. And then, you leave a dramatic pause to say
"It was paint thinner."
It was not. Did you just make that up? It was a sound-deadener sprayed on the wheel arch of the car, which made its way to the underside of the car's dash. How would your supposed "test for iron" have reacted to paint thinner, anyway?
This small section of your post was extraordinarily sloppy, and negates the credibility of the entire article. This type of writing would be better suited to tabloid journalism than in a scientific environment.
As is often the case, irony runs much thicker than you could possibly know.Quote:
Originally posted by Unregistered
Firstly, in your rush to cal me unscientific you forgot to throw in citations. But for fun I am going to assume you are completely right and I am completely wrong about the case.Quote:
* The forensic scientist did not test only for the presence of iron. Where on Earth did you get that idea? What the forensic lab used was an antiserum against haemoglobin F, which was supposed to have been a starting point for narrowing down the investigation, but was instead used as immediate evidence for blood. And then, you leave a dramatic pause to say
"It was paint thinner."
It was not. Did you just make that up? It was a sound-deadener sprayed on the wheel arch of the car, which made its way to the underside of the car's dash. How would your supposed "test for iron" have reacted to paint thinner, anyway?
Secondly, I didn't just make it up. My source for this was a series of lectures delivered by a university professor who works in analytical chemistry, in particular its relation to the law. If you are interested, I can email you the powerpoint of the presentation in question.
So perhaps the fault is mine for assuming that a professor talking about his area of study would get the details correct. But here's the beauty - if he got these details wrong, that goes some way towards confirming the central thesis of this article - that scientists, as individuals, can make mistakes.
Thirdly, you have a problem with the idea of finding traces of metal in a liquid found inside a car? How interesting.
Really? Thanks!Quote:
This small section of your post was extraordinarily sloppy, and negates the credibility of the entire article. This type of writing would be better suited to tabloid journalism than in a scientific environment.
Sorry, but I don't know how to interpret this as an insult. In the hierarchy of scientific truth, at the top is peer reviewed studies, near the bottom is tabloid journalism and at the very bottom is blog writing. In short, you have elevated me to the same level as paid professionals, sloppy as they may be.
Finally, I will say this - that detail, in no way contradicts the central thesis of the article. It is exactly that, a minor detail, a case study to highlight a general trend. There are plenty of cases like it out there, any of why can be substituted in its place without altering the conclusions of the article. Meanwhile, if that is the only error I have made in all the articles and posts relating to science that I have written then I am way ahead of the average.
This was a fascinating article, I have never really even thought about how we know how accurate lab results are -- much less why people might not want the results to be correct. Thanks, AllWalker.
Whoops, double post.
Whoops! Wrong thread.