• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Astrobiology >Molecular Signals from Ancient Materials: Challenges to Deep-Biosphere and Paleoenvironmental Research— A Response to the Comments of Sinninghe Damste and Coolen
【24h】

Molecular Signals from Ancient Materials: Challenges to Deep-Biosphere and Paleoenvironmental Research— A Response to the Comments of Sinninghe Damste and Coolen

机译：来自古代材料的分子信号：对深生物圈和古环境研究的挑战—对Sinninghe Damste和Coolen评论的回应

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Sinninghe Damste and Coolen (2006) raise a number of interesting points in their commentary of our recent article published in this journal (Inagaki et al., 2005), and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to their commentary. In fact, if one reads the lengthy discussion of our article, it should be obvious that response and discussion were what we hoped to evoke by the publication of our article in Astrobiology. This being said, we have a philosophical difference with our colleagues as regards publication of results. It would seem from their comments that they feel quite strongly that one should not publish data unless they (1) are easily understood and (2) are in agreement with the current data and ideas. It is their position that the claims made in our paper can be viewed as "unrealistic claims of fossil DNA in old sediments" and thus should not have been published. This is clearly an opinion to which they are entitled, but in our view, data are data, and must be dealt with. In the discussion of our paper, we considered many potentially troublesome aspects of the findings, none of which led us to the conclusion that the data were "unrealistic" or even extraordinary. The reward will lie in the proper interpretation of these data, not in their dismissal. Thus, we disagree with the basic premise of our colleagues: that these findings are extraordinary. The preservation that was achieved may be better than usual, but the findings are simply data that we have to try to interpret. These philosophical issues aside, what are the issues of importance here?
机译：Sinninghe Damste和Coolen（2006）在他们对本刊发表的最新文章的评论中提出了许多有趣的观点（Inagaki等，2005），我们感谢有机会回应他们的评论。实际上，如果阅读了篇幅冗长的讨论，很明显，我们希望通过发表《天体生物学》引起人们的反响和讨论。话虽这么说，我们与同事在结果发表方面存在哲学上的差异。从他们的评论看来，他们非常强烈地认为不应发布数据，除非他们（1）易于理解并且（2）与当前的数据和思想相符。他们的立场是，我们的论文中的主张可以被视为“对旧沉积物中化石DNA的不切实际的主张”，因此不应该公开。这显然是他们有权获得的意见，但是在我们看来，数据是数据，必须加以处理。在对本文的讨论中，我们考虑了研究结果的许多潜在麻烦方面，没有一个方面使我们得出结论，即数据“不切实际”或什至非同寻常。奖励将在于对这些数据的正确解释，而不是被解雇。因此，我们不同意我们同事的基本前提：这些发现是非同寻常的。达到的保存效果可能比平时更好，但是发现只是我们必须尝试解释的数据。除了这些哲学问题，这里还有哪些重要问题？

著录项

  • 来源
    《Astrobiology》 |2006年第2期|p.303-307|共5页
  • 作者

    FUMIO INAGAKI; KENNETH H. NEALSON;

  • 作者单位

    Subground Animalcule Retrieval (SUGAR) Program, Extremobiosphere Research, Center, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), Yokosuka, Japan;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 航天（宇宙航行）;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号