On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:36, George M. Sheldrick wrote:
Dominika is entirely correct, the F and (especially) sigma(F) values
are clearly inconsistent with my naive suggestion that columns could
have been swapped accidentally in an mtz file.
Since the sigma(f) issue has been raised, let me elaborate on that.
Faking observations is difficult. Faking the experimental
uncertainties is even more difficult.
If one would fake a dataset, there would almost always be an implicit
imprint of the procedure.
I am told for example that some journals now use a company that
claims they can see gels and
pictures that were 'photo-shopped'. That is - i am told by friends -
the reason that some journals
ask for 400 dpi pictures, while the Nature printers can do about 120
dpi in real life.
Thus, I analyzed the distribution of the experimental sigmas in three
structures:
1E3M and two structures of mine at the same resolution (1CTN, 1E3M)
The results are in:
http://xtal.nki.nl/nature-debate/
Thats also a response to Tom Hurley's email ... I think we are
obliged to look at this case and
show to all crystallographers that read the board what the evidence
are. This has no lawful consequences.
I think the debate is healthy and I have not seen anyone asking to
lynch or crucify anybody.
As long as the discussion is about evidence and not passing ethical
or other judgement, I think its good
to go on. Also its a good lesson for everybody to learn:
========================================================================
=======
*** "Keep your images, you gels, your logbooks. Its your obligation.
Make sure all your colleagues do so".****
========================================================================
=======
(especially if you are the PI you carry the primary responsibility
for all primary data that support your publication to be available on
request)
If you do not keep to that principle, some mean mob might lynch you,
even if you are right. So, be correct in your approaches.
I am making the web site public with my analysis for people to see
one more evidence that there are
doubts and Murthy et al should provide primary data, as many others
have said. Statements of certain innocence
or certain guilt, should indeed not be public.
So, i will wait now for the data - as simple as that.
Tassos
