« I just checked. Tech Transfer Offices still suck. Big time. | Home | Pill Pushing »
HOMMAGE TO HOMME
By admin | February 2, 2008
Hey Homme,
It’s me Austen. Yeah the guy you tried to bury back in 2005. Think back—you remember me right? I wanted to talk to you about a project and you called the cops on me because I was hanging around your grad students “without [your] permission.” What kind of fucking Nazi are you?
Here’s to letting the world know what a huge prick you are.Crass? Yes Tasteless? Certainly. But what the fuck do I care? You’re not only a dick, but your science sucks dick as well. And now everyone knows it.
Love Your Pal,
Austen
Retraction
We wish to retract our Report “Computational design of a biologically active enzyme” (1), which describes triose phosphate isomerase activity in a computationally redesigned ribose-binding protein (RBP) from E. coli. Dr. John P. Richard (Department of Chemistry, Department of Biochemistry, The State University of New York at Buffalo), to whom we provided clones encoding the novoTIM activity, has brought to our attention that the triose phosphate isomerase activity observed in our reported preparations can be attributed to a wild-type TIM impurity–seen in preparations that use a continuous rather than stepwise imidazole gradient (as in the original paper) or that add a second sepharose column. Richard’s reanalysis has now also been confirmed by others in the Hellinga laboratory. The interpretations in the original report were based on lack of observed activity in mutant, engineered enzyme that bound substrate, but lacked catalytic residues. Variations in expression levels of designed proteins relative to the amount of contaminating endogenous protein might account for the pattern of observed activities that led to our erroneous conclusions. The in vivo experiments have not been reexamined. We deeply regret that our report of a designed enzyme activity does not live up to closer scrutiny. Nevertheless, we remain optimistic that the problem of structure-based design of enzyme activity will be solved and that novel catalysts will be produced in conjunction with computationally based methods.
Mary A. Dwyer
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Loren L. Looger
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Janelia Farm
Chevy Chase, MD 20815-6789, USA.
Homme W. Hellinga
Department of Biochemistry
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Reference
M. A. Dwyer, L. L. Looger, H. W. Hellinga, Science 304, 1967 (2004).
Topics: Overrated |
February 4th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I agree completely. I know several people that left the lab because of Homme’s unethical approach to science (combined with his sparkling personality), so a huge retraction was almost inevitable. Good science has come out of his lab, but it was in spite of Homme’s leadership, not because of it.
It is my understanding that the lead author on this paper had sever concerns about the data, but Homme insisted on publishing before she could clear things up. He then cherry picked the data that was published and relegated the rest to ‘data not shown’. Once it was revealed that the data was crap, he then tried blaming her and having her PhD revoked. Once the powers-that-be at Duke reviewed her notes, she was cleared of any wrong doing.
If this retraction does drag Homme’s career down the crapper it will restore some balance to the universe and bring me joy, although I feel bad for the honest students and post-docs that might get dragged down with him.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
In the previous comment, a Duke investigation was mentioned. Did this investigation involve Hellinga’s other published work? In any case like this, whatever the cause, suspicion is obviously raised that it may not be an isolated incident.
Also, Hellinga should change his web page.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It is my understanding that this investigation was limited to this study (after all, it was instigated by Homme himself), but I can only assume that there will be further investigations by Duke. After all, the last thing the University wants is to appear complicit with research misconduct.
On a broader note, I would assume that people are also looking into a follow-up paper on this subject that was published in JMB about a year ago.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Yes, the JMB paper will undoubtedly also have to be retracted but the scientific community should demand some more answers. The explanation for the lack of activity of mutant proteins given in the retraction is weak, at best. Furthermore, how did “novoTIMs” that really didn’t have any activity complement defects of TIM- bacteria?
Hopefully Science (the journal) will also investigate what happened and some of the earlier work (such as the 2003 Nature paper by the same authors) should also be examined carefully.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
The scientific community should look closely at *all* of Hellinga’s enzyme design work. More importantly, Duke University should immediately investigate whether Hellinga himself committed serious ethics violations, both in relation to the 2004 Science paper at issue and to an array of other (rumored, alleged) sleazy doings (which range from [allegedly] undercutting collaborators to [allegedly] sitting upon structural data which [allegedly] demonstrate that a “designed” binding protein does indeed bind the protein of interest, but at a site completely unrelated to the “designed” binding site. So far, local under-the-radar suspicions among graduate students and post-docs (many months, if not years, in advance) have rather accurately predicted the underlying problems leading to Hellinga’s recent retraction. Should Duke fail to undertake a thorough and candid examination of these issues, it risks becoming complicit (or more thoroughly complicit than it already is) in Hellinga’s (alleged) corruption.
One should also consider that Hellinga tried (unsucessfully), to press charges of ethics violations against his former graduate student and co-author Mary Dwyer. I am told that her *first* notification of the impending retraction of the 2004 Science paper was via a letter from Duke summoning her to face ethics charges — a truly classy and brave move by Hellinga. It also did not help that he appears to have (allegedly) been rather talkative (especially to the editors of Science) about the fact that his former student was under investigation. Since Hellinga was (allegedly) discussing an internal investigation with entities outside of Duke University, he may have violated some sort of confidentiality agreement. I wonder if he signed one?
In any case, the man’s behavior is both cowardly and despicable. As is that of those professors and Duke Med. Center administrators who have *knowingly* abetted Homme in his crass assult upon science, education, and decency. I hope that D.U.M.C. does the right thing for once and investigates Homme Hellinga with the same thoroughness and speed with which they investigated his student. To take any other course would conclusively demonstrate that here at Duke, education in science is truly broken.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:27 am
THE TIP
It may interest you to know that Homme W. Hellinga, (in my opinion) an arrogant, bombastic charlatan and the much-touted James B. Duke Professor of Biochemistry, recipient of the N.I.H. Pioneer Award, was forced to retract his seminal 2004 Science paper on computational enzyme design. The retraction is published in the Feb. 1, 2008 issue of Science. Maybe Hellinga should have done appropriate controls before he rushed to press. Of course, why be too picky when one can be catapulted to prominence on the basis of sexy data that no one bothers to double-check? Fame, NPR interviews, DARPA funding, and write-ups in the New York Times are surely better than the quiet obscurity of academic research.
This is a rare modern example of the peer review process actually bringing down a jerk who peddles irreproducible data. Prof. Hellinga’s fame and funding will no longer protect him from the wrath of the many, many collaborators, students, and employees he has fucked over. I hope that they eat him alive.
I thought that you might be amused.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I made a few mistakes in my previous post. If we are going to drag Homme’s (alleged) sins out onto a blog, we should at least do it in proper style. In the first paragraph of my previous post, I should substitute “ligand” for “protein” where I wrote ” . . . binding protein does indeed bind . . .” The last sentence of the second paragraph should end with a period, and assault is misspelled in the third paragraph’s discussion of Homme’s “crass assault” upon science.
In a perfect universe, Hellinga would be dragged to an ASBMB meeting, put in a stockade, and pelted with rotting fruit. The event could be turned into a charity fundraiser. Homme has belittled so much (repeatable) science and hurt so many people that there would be no shortage of fruit-throwers. The proceeds should be donated to a good cause, such as Duke Counseling and Psychological Services, an entity which I suspect has helped some of Homme’s (and his vile collaborator/wife’s) victims pull themselves back from the edge of despair.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Hi,
I met Homme back in 2000, when I think he’d just arrived at Duke. Back then, fellow charlatans were kissing his ass to get him to join the “Biogeometry” project, a huge ITR grant that was a total waste of money, but hey, it’s the Federal government, right? At any rate, I judged Homme to be a charlatan. As a scientist, and a skeptic, I’m most skeptical of my own judgements. But I’m happy to see that seven years later, I was right. My instincts told me to stay away. Thank god, I did.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
An ironic blog:
http://researchblogs.duke.edu/unm
February 14th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
^ How cute. Homme is budding off juvenile versions of his pompous, fraudulent self. I assume that he’s resorted to this form of reproduction because someone cut his shmoo off. Lorena? When the rest of Homme’s work is examined under the harsh glare of experimental scrutiny, he will just not be the same homme that he used to be.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
If you are concerned that justice isn’t being done and the facts aren’t being sorted out properly, then I suggest doing as I have done and writing to both the Dean of the Duke medical school, Nancy Andrews, and to the chair of the biochemistry department, Kenneth N. Kreuzer. Unfortunately Dr. Kreuzer appears to be an interim chair and I suspect won’t really want to deal with this (actually no chair will WANT to deal with this). If I don’t get a satisfactory response, a letter to the president of the university may be next.
It sounds as if there are a lot of things these people should know that they may not know.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
It appears that the story is continuing to garner attention.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080213/full/news.2008.569.html
February 15th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
That Nature news piece is ridiculous. It appears as if Hellinga has some friends on the Nature editorial board. Not only does it call the whole thing an “honest mistake” based on the investigation (or lack thereof) of Duke University, but it gives credit to Hellinga for enzyme design based on the fact that Baker’s group has done it. Overall a very poor investigative job.
Some strings are being pulled to try and sweep this under the rug…
February 16th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I am writing my own letter to the appropriate individuals in the Duke Medical Center administration. As the many students and post-docs with knowledge of Homme’s “unethical approach to science” come forward with their suspicions, Duke will have no choice but to investigate. Contact should be made with anyone who has ever been on Hellinga’s payroll. Once this happens, I suspect a pattern will become apparent that rises above mere “sloppy science.” Homme can call in all the favors he wants from his chummy journal editors and Duke administrators, but I am confident that the truth will eventually emerge. Let them try to hold back the coming deluge.
To readers of this blog: If you have first- or second-hand knowledge of unethical scientific practices in Homme’s lab, now is the time to contact Duke. At least two high-ranking med. center administrators have made Hellinga’s promotion a centerpiece of their policies, and presumably will lose face if he is exposed for what he really is. We all know that in such circumstances, academic administrators tend to work harder to cover up the problem than to closely examine its source(s). A number of credible calls for investigation might just force Duke’s hand on this matter. Do you remember the Duke Business School cheating scandal that made national news last year? If Duke tries to cover up Homme’s various questionable practices, it may suffer a blow to its reputation that will affect all of its students and alumni. We must present Duke with the opportunity to avoid such a situation by urging a diligent, unbiased investigation into Homme Hellinga’s science. We must do it now.
February 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The central question to be addressed is whether Hellinga’s algorithm, DEZYMER, has any utility for the rational design of proteins. In examining the body of his research to date, there is a definite trend toward a faith-based approach regarding the relevance of computational predictions to resulting protein structure and function. I would urge the research community to establish the validity of his algorithm by examining the code and requiring NMR or X-ray crystal structure data to substantiate structures. Without third-party validation, there are likely to be more retractions in the future as the algorithm generates more nonsensical artifacts. There is always the potential for bias whenever the theoretical and confirming experimental research are conducted within the same laboratory.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Before delving into the code of Hellinga and coworkers, I’d like to hear about an investigation into his experimental results. For example, a 2003 paper by the same authors [Looger, Dwyer, Smith, & Hellinga (2003) Nature] is in some ways more complex than the enzyme paper and I can easily imagine that the results haven’t been verified by another lab (look how long it took to find out about the designed enzyme - and it could have taken much longer).
Interestingly, the first author on that paper is now a group leader at Janelia Farm and a news article about him [ http://www.hhmi.org/research/groupleaders/looger_bio.html ] reads:
“I see Janelia Farm as a crack team of scientists—almost like a SWAT team—that comes together to solve difficult problems. Everyone is really playing together. Not like in academia, where they say they play together, but in reality it does not always work that way.”
Given what I’ve read here, that last statement takes on new meaning.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
As far as DEZYMER is concerned, why does he keep the source code a closely guarded secret, with his own students and post-docs unable to view/modify it? I assume this research was paid for by tax-payer money. Shouldn’t his source code be available upon request? That is, unless he has something to hide.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Of course he has something to hide. A significant percentage of his published work is “unethically obtained” at best and fraud at worst. Homme is known to pressure his employees/students to “get results” from DEZYMER. Creating selective pressure for data that support a specific model (DEZYMER) is contrary to the scientific method. A number of past and present technicians, post-docs, and graduate students have known about this aspect of Homme’s shady “science” for some time. Being non-faculty peons, few of these people said anything for fear of reprisals; many simply quit or moved on to other labs. Some of those who have left Hellinga’s lab have been subjected (by Homme) to whispering campaigns that question both their sanity and intellectual abilities. It is disgusting.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
grtngs austen
is it possible that you are so bitter about Homme’s retraction, and science publishing in general, because you can’t get any of your own work through the peer-review process? I doubt that you are capable of bringing to completion and publication even the most pedestrian grade science.
perhaps Homme’s rejection of you as a student is so hard to take because, look into the mist, Luke Skywalker: Darth Vader’s faceplate is falling off to reveal (gasp!!) the greasy locks and goatee of Austen 57, wannabe science hi-flyer. And look where are you now……hawking airbrushed tees and corndogs at the state fair?
speaking of forgeries……i think you owe your readership the REAL story of how you got bounced from Duke….
it’s sad that your blog has become like whack job talk radio for current Duke grad students and even PIs (for shame!) who wish to vent their ire against Homme for perceived past insults. While the man is guilty of arrogance, he’s turned out some inspirational science that will continue have a significant impact long after the rest of you douchebags have been relegated to building baking soda and vinegar volcanoes for grammar school kiddies.
and good luck getting off the homeland security watchlist
Austen,
It has been brought to my attention that you have misidentified an anonymous poster on your blog as me, and responded with the following [ABOVE] text.
Please be aware that I have never posted on your blog. In the process of attempting to “out” the original poster you have made a critical error in identity attribution. I do not know what drew you to this conclusion. I recall our interactions as cordial. I helped you with your experiments in the You Lab and was happy to explain things when you had the patience to listen. I grew frustrated with your disregard of lab etiquette and unauthorized use of others’ reagents, and was not afraid to confront you about it - but harbored no animosity towards you.
Obviously I am unhappy about the current situation. Not only do you insult me in crude language, you also lead your readers to believe that the comments made by the previous poster were mine - which they were not! In my opinion, this is slander. I would prefer not to be associated with your blog entry and its comments at all because I view them as unprofessional. Here is what I expect to happen. You will remove your entry ASAP and replace it with a simple apology whose text reads “It has been brought to my attention that I misidentified the poster in my previous response and I apologize sincerely to that individual. I also apologize to my readers whom I misled in my attempt to identify the poster”
Thank you. I wish you the best in your current and future research.
Are you serious? That is not me. Give me the reasons you would leave that up there, and maintain the misinformation if its NOT ME! Give me a call.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
As I understand it, Homme’s main competition, D. Baker’s lab, has a completely transparent program- everyone in the lab can see the source code, modify it, make it better, etc. Kudos to them for taking an academic approach to a similar problem which has resulted in designs that actually work. In other words, they are COLLEGIAL- a word that certain members of the Duke Biochemistry Department do not understand. While many of the faculty in the Biochemistry Department ARE collegial and will undoubtedly receive unfair collateral damage from Homme’s shenanigans, there are others in the department who take an approach to science which is against the spirit of academics. The sad part is that this approach is completely unneccessary. Science is great and it is best approached openly and collaboratively. As such the administration at Duke would be crazy to give a core structural center to such notoriously uncollegial faculty. We can only hope that this event will spur inquiry into the shady science and ongoing mismanagement of the current “shared” X-ray crystallography resource at Duke.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I heartily concur with karma’s comment about the “shared” x-ray source. Its director treats it as a private fief. Hopefully, Duke will shelve its current plans to put control of a yet-unbuilt “structural biology core facility” in the hands of Homme Hellinga and his collaborator (and spouse) Lorena Beese. Instead, it should be run by a committee consisting of the P.I.’s that pay annual fees to use it.
As for collegiality — well, a facade of collegiality may blunt (or even prevent) Duke’s investigation into Homme. I suspect that several of the Biochem. faculty will resent one of their own being investigated at the behest of graduate students, post-docs, and outsiders. Although I hope that I am wrong, I expect that wagons will circle and that Homme will, in the worst case, receive a perfunctory investigation by a sympathetic committee. On the other hand, perhaps it doesn’t matter what Duke does. Hellinga must still face the toughest critics of all — the enzymologists, biophysicists, and structural biologists who will ultimately judge the veracity of his past work by the stringent test of reproducibility.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
As far as a “shared” X-ray crystallography resource, I think it should be noted that many labs wanting to get into structural biology utilizing X-ray crystallography are left no other choice than to give up on collecting data at Duke and collect data at an hourly rate at UNC. Additionally, many other labs are forced to collaborate outside of Duke to utilize structural approaches. Is that not ridiculous to the powers that be? There is a resource at Duke that people can’t or don’t use because of how it is (mis)managed. Worse yet, Duke Structural Biology is known more for the ridiculous manner which current and would be users are treated than for it’s contribution to science. The first mention of Duke crystallography outside of Duke almost invariable shifts conversation to Lorena Beese. What choice is there- give money to the “shared” resource whose books are CLOSED to members and whose machines are in a continually state of disrepair or go somewhere else.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:40 am
Wow, I didn’t realize that someone could compete with Homme for pretentious, arrogant pomposity. Then I read this blog.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:13 am
I guess this isn’t pretentious then:
http://www.austen.cc/2007/11/11/sweaty-thoughts/
February 21st, 2008 at 3:42 am
Hi Austen,
I see from a simple pubmed search that your pomposity is well deserved. Wow! What a stellar publication record! You are a science super star.
I also enjoyed the way you dispatched with that pesky “blank” fellow. It’s always good to lowball the guy taking the high road.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am
It appears as if Hellinga has some friends on the Nature editorial board.
FYI, Nature doesn’t have an external editorial board - all editorial decisions are made by a team of full-time professional editors. And I think it’s worth pointing out that the news team is a distinct entity at Nature - while editors interact with people on the news team all the time, the news team ultimately decides what stories to pursue and how to pursue them.
If you have concerns about the news story, I would encourage you to leave a comment explaining what your concerns are here. As Austen already noted, the comment section of NatureNews is moderated: they will not post comments that are personal or offensive. But they will post comments that are critical of the original Science paper, the retraction, and the news story - see, for example, the comments from Peter Temple, Andrew Wiggin, and D. Truckses.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
@ Joshua: You provide a useful explanation. As a member of your staff pointed out in a posting on a different section of this blog, the standards for defamation liability are much more inclusive in the UK (in which Nature is incorporated) than in the US.
Here, Homme is, by any legal standard, a “public figure.” As such, the burden of proving defamation is quite high. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel. Moreover, libel must be separated from satire — a difficult thing to do. If Homme was to attempt (US) legal action against the owner of this blog, he would subject himself to the enforced testimony of any and all individuals who might have knowledge of the actions alleged herein. Unlike a Duke University investigation, the authority of subpoena would lead to a wide-ranging and thorough airing of facts and observations. Would Hellinga want that? I doubt it. The court’s transcript would make interesting reading.
On a lighter note, I noticed that a recent paper by Hellinga et al. is entitled “Protein fabrication automation.” (Protein Sci. 2007 Mar;16(3):379-90.). Without commenting upon the merits of the paper, I opine that the title is amusingly unfortunate in the context of the current situation.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:19 pm
agreed on austen’s pretentious, arrogant pomposity. he’s like the britney spears of science without ever reaching her levels of success. keep taking your pills son since it’s obvious you’ve gone off your meds AGAIN
February 21st, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Hi From GoD!!!
I’ve seen Austen eats babies… alive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RAWR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He also defiled several of your duke mothers once while he was waiting for his PCR to finish. Then he put his shirt on backwards when he was done. What a dumbass! He put his shirt on backwards!!! WTF kind of idiot would put their shirt on backwards!!!
lol @ duke retards!!! holla at M$!!!
- The Good Lord, May The Force Be With You My Children
February 21st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Dear mistaken children whom I forgive and love deeply,
Stop hatting on hellinga you’all! My Friend HELLING/\ the BADASS has published more fraudulent papers than the rest of you combined (TIMES THREE!). You know how hard it is to design and create fraudulent papers? HARD! And everyone knows that in the US, effort counts more than results, hell the whole school system is based on it.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN 4 LYFE!!!
- The Good Lord, May The Force Be With You My Children
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
Austen,
Why did you change the text of my post, you coward. I wasn’t making fun of you for taking Hellinga to task (he is an evil little man, afterall), but for going after “blank” when “blank” took the high road. Arrogance is bad enough, but it is downright awful to be arrogant when you have nothing to back it up. No, not even your hair (which makes you look like you have a vag.)
February 26th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Wow, this page is now visible without even scrolling if you google “homme hellinga.”
February 28th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I am told that the Duke Med. Center committee which investigated (and ultimately cleared) Homme Hellinga’s student Mary Dwyer for academic misconduct has lost — yes, LOST — her laboratory notes related to Homme’s retracted Science paper. Unfortunately for Hellinga (and whoever might be protecting him in the Duke administration), Mary kept photocopies of the laboratory notebook in question.
This rises to the level of extraordinary scandal. I cannot see how Duke can be trusted to show due diligence in any possible investigation of Hellinga. Perhaps the time has come to contact the N.I.H. Office of Research Integrity, the public media, and members of Congress. Might anyone suggest specific media personalities and/or politicians who are likely to be interested in pursuing an external misconduct investigation?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
That’s beyond outrageous if true. The office of research integrity (AskORI@hhs.gov) would be a good start if you have any concrete knowledge. Erika Hayden (erika.check.hayden@gmail.com), the writer of the short Nature blurb would be another good contact.
It sounds like Ms. Dwyer is smart enough to know that this could get quite ugly. Good luck to her if things are really playing out as described here.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 am
Another retraction has come out, this time in JMB (as predicted earlier in this thread by “Another Fan of Homme”):
RETRACTED: Local Encoding of Computationally Designed Enzyme Activity
The letter of retraction is almost identical to that for the Science paper. It in no way is sufficient to explain the results that Homme presents. My opinion: Fraud. Fraud. Fraud.
@ Duke: Investigate this asshole, investigate him NOW!
March 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Interestingly the “Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal” states an article retraction is defined as,
“Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like.”
March 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/319/5863/569b
March 27th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54502/
March 29th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Hey Austen, chill man! You are accusing people here of libel after you wrote this article? Calling the guy a “fucking Nazi” and “Douchebag”? I would be rather concerned about him coming with his lawyers after you or Duke kicking you out (or are you already out?) for good. Do you realize that this website and all your others are ruining every chance you might have had in science? Do you really think anybody would employ you? What you accuse Homme of is a professional thing and so you should be professional and not personal. What has the police to do with that? What has him calling the cops to do with any retractions?
And your strange projects, well those sound like a lot of ambitious undergrad gas. I have a cool idea too: lets give viruses mini nukes and have them kill cancer. Nice, eh? Only problem: as well as many of your ideas impractical. If I were in your shoes I would stop publishing such stuff on the net and keep silent until my health situation improves to a degree where I wouldn’t harm myself anymore.
Don’t get me wrong, but I could imagine there are many people who perceive you as an arrogant, pretentious asshole. I don’t, but I think your mental problems let you write stuff you shouldn’t write. Any details needed? Do you think anybody cares whether you nearly “drowned” because you can not swim back one mile? If you can’t swim back don’t go there. period. Have you ever wondered whether anybody cares about your “book”? You fabulate about publishing without having anything serious published and after not even 6 months in science. People say you used other peoples chemicals? And you complain about impurities in Hommes paper? Maybe something did the same there
April 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I’ll say this about you, you’ve got stones. What lab were you in when you approached Homme in 2005. Did you have any backlash for doing this post?
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
@RandomMother: I like how you use the “undergrad” adjective. Because you know, undergrads can never have good ideas, like say Huffman Encoding, Boolean Algebra to Circuit Theory, etc. The world is full of brilliant people who can actually do stuff when they are young; you probably just aren’t one of them.