Skip to main content

Yes, It's Old News, But

... a scientific scandal, involving a woman who received a chemistry Ph.D. at august Columbia University, and was a candidate for a Ph.D. in molecular biology at Heidelberg University in Germany, only recently came to my attention. Here's a photo of the Columbia Quad.

Image result for columbia university

The story is so fascinating that even the date of the investigative documents involved (2010) can't keep me from going over the ground here.

 Here's a link, for those who want to go further into the matter than I plan to go here:

Because federal grant money was involved, the HHS Department's Office of Research Integrity did a thorough review of the matter.

The culprit, Bengu Sezen, claimed to have developed a way of selectively activating C-H bonds. Think of the words "hydrocarbon" and "carbohydrates" and you have two good reasons for caring about the C-H bonds.

The selective activation of C-H bonds continues to be an active field of research. Alas, Sezen's claims to progress were an utter dead end.

One picturesque detail to arise out of the fraud: Sezen used correction fluid, ordinary "white out," to fake laboratory results, removing certain peaks in a spectrum read-out that didn't meet her hypothesis.

What fascinates me? Well, to begin, that white out. That's something I know. I don't really know what "to selectively activate C-H bonds" means. I'm not sure why it is considered tough to do so. I have no idea what the spectrum resulting from an experiment on the subject should look like. I'm a terrible ignoramus. BUT ... I know what correction fluid looks like and have used more than my share!

That this is a scandal about work on C-H bonds also reminds me in an odd way of the Velikovsky controversy of the '60s. Regular readers of this blog may know that the Velikovsky controversy is something of a "thing" for me.

One point I remember from reading about IV's theories: the passing of a celestial body close to Earth was supposed to explain the raining of "manna" while the Jews were in the wilderness. Why? Well ... one skeptic explained, such an event (if it had occurred) might explain the entry of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, and Velikovsky might simply have confused hydrocarbons with carbohydrates. One C-H bond with another. So he might have thought he had a naturalistic explanation BOTH of the manna AND of "fire and brimstone" from the heavens. Killing both of those birds with the same astronomical stone.

Okay, too much free association.


Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…