I remember the furor in the medical literature that followed the paper of Benveniste et al (in Nature). I do not want to criticize the former editor of Nature (where the article was published after almost 1 year of revisions and rigorous peer review) but the whole "affair" left a bad taste. The paper was accepted by Nature but shortly after its publication a "committee" of scientists, editor and a magician went to the lab to observe the experiments. The comments of the former Editor of Nature (mentioned by Howard Shapiro) could have been made without the committee. I wonder whether it is of value to "open the box" again in this list. Adrian Vladutiu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:26:12 EST