Talk:Mae-Wan Ho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Moved from article per BLP guidelines

"(former head of so-and-so) after either having been fired for incompetence or resigning because of personal reasons. [specify] [citation needed]." Which of the two reasons, if any, is mentioned in a source? --194.145.161.227 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It might be Neutral Now

?? Is it neutral enough now?

Ttguy 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. Please feel free to put any comments or questions on my talk page. Thanks. -- GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does she or does she not think organisims do not obey thermodynamics?

I have never asked Ho what she believes. However, her papers quoted in the article seem to imply that she thinks she has come up with some new explaination for - as she calls it - "the engigma of living things" with respect to thermodynamics. From reading her stuff I really do believe that she thinks she has made some big discovery about how organisms work.

I would suggest that these quotes shows she does not understand how thermodynamics does not apply to living things:

"This effectively frees the organism from thermodynamic constraints " "Stored coherent energy sets the organism free from the immediate constraints of both the first and the second law of thermodynamics"

Alfonzo Green, you obviously know why living things do obey the laws of thermodynamics but nothing I have read from Ho indicates she does. Can you quote something that shows she understands this issue?

She invents this term "Stored coherent energy" as if it is some new discovery. All it is the chemical energy of cells stored in such chemicals as ATP and NADPH. Ttguy (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is some more from the intro to Ho M.-W. (1997) Towards a theory of the organism Integr Physiol Behav Sci 32:343-363

"Organisms are so enigmatic from the physical, thermodynamic point of view that Lord Kelvin, co-inventor of the second law of thermodynamics, specifically excluded them from its dominion (Ehrenberg, 1967, Scientific American 217:103-). As distinct from heat engines, which require a constant energy supply in order to do work, organisms are able to work without a constant energy supply, and moreover, can mobilize energy *at will*, whenever and wherever required, and in a perfectly coordinated way. Similarly, Schrodinger (1944 What is life? Cambridge UP) was impressed with the ability of organisms to develop and evolve as a coherent *whole*, and in the direction of increasing organization, in defiance of the second law. He suggested that they feed upon "negative entropy" to free themselves from all the entropy they cannot help producing. [Snip] "... the idea that open systems can "self-organise" under energy flow became more concrete in the discovery of *disipative structures* (Prigogine, 1967: Introduction to thermodynamics of irreversible processes. John Whiley) that depend on the flow and dissipation of energy, such as the Benard convection cells and the laser (Haken 1977: Synergetics. Springer Verlag). In both cases, energy input results in a phase transition to global dynamic order in which all the molecules or atoms in the system move coherently.
From these and other considerations, I have identified Schrodinger's "negative entropy" as "stored mobilizable energy in a space-time structured system" (Ho 1993 The rainbow and the worm: The physics of organisms, World Scientific; Ho 1994 Towards and indigenous western science - the organism as a coherent space-time structure In: New Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Institute of Noetic Sciences; Ho 1995: Bioenergetics, S327 Living Processes, An open University Third Level Science Course, Open University Press) which begins to offer a possible solution to the enigma of living organization.
In this article, I outline a theory of the organism as a dynamically and energetically closed domain of cyclic nondissipative processes coupled to irreversible dissipative processes. This effectively frees the organism from thermodynamic constraints so that it is poised for rapid, specific intercommunication, enabling it to function as a coherent whole. In the ideal, the organism is a quantum superposition of coherent activities over all space-time domains, with instantaneous (nonlocal) noiseless intercommunication throughout the system."

Note the typical pseudoscientific attempts to use quantum theory on the macro scale!!! Note how she thinks she has discovered "stored mobilizable engergy". Ie she has discovered ATP and NADPH Ttguy (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought for sure she could not possibly really mean the above, but I investigated and it turns out that she says a lot of stuff like this. Here she says "Memory is delocalized throughout the body, and yet can be accessed in toto from any local part" and means it just like it sounds. She also believes every part of the body is in literally instant faster than light purposeful meaningful communication with every other part of the body. I find it amazing that anyone could believe this stuff. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

These quantum=get-out-of-jail-free claims seem to be fairly common among pseudoscientists of her ilk. There's similar claims over on Rupert Sheldrake. Are there any reliable sources distinguishing such claims from Quantum biology, which although "speculative" appears to have at least some appearance of respectability? Alternatively, if QB is just more of this stuff, its lack of scientific merit needs to be highlighted on that article. HrafnTalkStalk 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See Quantum mysticism, Argument from ignorance, and God of the gaps. "I don't know X so the answer to X is Y, which is so mysterious that no one really understands it either." It is emotionally satisfying to tie all of one's ignorances into one big mystery that "explains" the meaning of life and gives one purpose and comfort about death. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always called it Quanta ex machina. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ho's CV does not support the assertion she has research experinece in molecular genetics

EPadmirateur says Pls look at her CV, for instance, PMID 2962903 and PMID 6808832.

I have done an extensive analysis of her CV infact. See [1] So I know quite a bit about her publications. The PMID 6808832 is not molecular genetics it is biochemistry and population genetics. PMID 2962903 is the only research paper in the field of molecular genetics (one that reports actual experimental results and is not a review or criticim of other people reasearch) that Ho has published. And this paper is the cloning and DNA sequencing of a single gene. The paper has 7 authors from 4 different instutions so it is anyones guess who actually did the cloning and DNA sequencing.

Even if Ho did the cloning and sequencing I hardly think that, in 30 years of employment, this constitutes extensive experience in molecular genetics.

The claim to Ho's experince in molecular genetics comes from the good Dr herself - eg [2]. Just because she claims it does not make it so. Her CV does not suport the claim. So it goes.

This is purely original research and your personal opinion based on it. Let's just say that she states what her research areas are. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to burning rabbit corneas

This statement in the article violates the policy on biography of living persons particularly criticism and praise in that it takes a fact that is not relevant to the subject's notability and has the effect of discrediting her. The policy states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability..." (emphasis added). --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Her association with this sort of research goes straight to the heart of what she is reputably noted for - "Science in Society" where she claims to promote responsible use of Science. This article goes to her credibility to claim this.Ttguy (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The one journal paper is her only work in the "field" of corneal therapies, as one of several co-authors of the paper. On the other hand she writes books and numerous papers about genetic engineering, evolution and AIDS: that's what she's notable for. --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It is irelevant that this is one paper and there are many authors. That she would put her name to such a paper goes straight to her credibility as a promoter of the responsible use of science. If you can take one paper in molecular genetics as evidence for her expertise in this area then I can take this one article as evidence of her hypocracy. Ttguy (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The way to settle the dispute about what's important, is to find a third-party reliable source that shows it's important (so we know it's not just true, but is notable). Until then, it should stay out. Also, we must reject the notion that existing bad sourcing justifies more bad sourcing. If anybody thinks one item is poorly sourced, then they should remove it, not add something else badly sourced. This whole article is horribly sourced. It needs some serious third-party sourcing, or it should be deleted. I haven't nominated the article for deletion, because I suspect a modest amount of work by an informed person, could produce the required sources. --Rob (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Hey, you guys are really funny. Try to take a little bit distance and read the above two sections again. In both, the argument is that because Ho was only a lesser-important author on some paper it should not be included versus that it should be included because she's an author. But it's quite original that you take opposite positions in these two paragraphs, depending on what suits your own position best... Doesn't sound very NPOV to me... Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accredited

I disagree with the reader add on, but some people may not be familiar with the British university rank system, but "accredited?" Shall we add that before Harvard, Cambridge, Cal, and Yale in every article where it mentions someone attended them? -0-Blechnic (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of Harvard, Cambridge, Cal, and Yale. I never heard of Open University. And the "open" makes it sound like maybe it isn't accredited. Further, the article on it doesn't say so either. So I tried to find out. After a few minutes looking I found out. When I do research to find data not included in wikipedia, I like to include it so the next guy doesn't have to repeat my research. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
See University#Classification -- "Across the world there are very differing standards of legal definition of the term "university" and formal accreditation of institutions. For example at one end of the scale there is no legal definition of the term in the United States.[citation needed] At the other, in the United Kingdom an institution can only use the term if it has been granted by the Privy Council, under the terms of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.[15]" UK "universities" aren't accredited/unaccredited -- to be allowed to call yourself a "university" you need permission from the Privy Council. "Accredited" is an Americanism that has no place in an article on a UK academic. HrafnTalkStalk 07:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it perhaps be possible to keep this discussion from descending into sillyness? It suffices to look up Open University in Wikipedia itself to see that it is a reputable British university. As Hrafn says, European universities do not necessarily follow the US system. --Crusio (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Telling people to calm down is only certain to irritate people who aren't already hysterical, although it's done often on Wikipedia, it's generally not with positive results--let's get back to issues. The discussion may appear silly, but it also appears it is necessary. While you may have never heard of Open University, WAS, looking it up on the web will show you it is a very well known university. My problem with "accredited" is that including this information makes it appear as if you are attacking the professor's affiliation because it is such an out of place thing to include when describing where someone teaches. Accreditation is a concern when you are getting a degree, not something one usually wonders about in an article about a person, although I suppose you might mention if someone taught at a non-accredited university. I hadn't considered that "accreditation" is an Americanism, Hrafn, but thanks for pointing that out. It really seemed odd to see Open University described as "accredited," in a biography. --Blechnic (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My point was stronger than that -- in the UK to legally call yourself a "university" you have to have permission from the highest authority in the land (short of the Queen herself), the Privy Council, in order to do so. Thus in the UK, a university is a university, end of story. If this fact confuses Americans then that's far too tangential a confusion to be dealt with on a biography article. HrafnTalkStalk 08:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third party coverage

Some coverage by third parties has recently been added:

Seeds of discontent at C4:

This was explained to every contributor, including Dr Mae-Wan Ho, a leading scientific authority with critical views on genetic modification.

Exploitation on the agenda at ethics forum:

Dr Mae-Wan Ho, a geneticist and biophysicist at the Open University, said these forums are exactly what is needed to ensure that work in the developing world was fairly carried out.

"Research must always involve scientists and local people working in equal, open partnership. A lot of scientists are arrogant because they feel ordinary people know nothing," she said.

"There's a huge amount of clinical trials going on in the world. A huge number are already known to be dangerous. It's like the MMR controversy 10-fold in the developing world."

GM genes 'jump species barrier':

Dr Mae-Wan Ho, geneticist at Open University and a critic of GM technology, has no doubts about the dangers. She said: 'These findings are very worrying and provide the first real evidence of what many have feared. Everybody is keen to exploit GM technology, but nobody is looking at the risk of horizontal gene transfer.

'We are playing about with genetic structures that existed for millions of years and the experiment is running out of control.'

One of the biggest concerns is if the anti-biotic resistant gene used in some GM crops crossed over to bacteria. 'If this happened it would leave us unable to treat major illnesses like meningitis and E coli .'

Who's listening?:

Scientific opinion appears much more favourable to the new technology to judge from submissions to the national GM review promoted by the government. But they are by no means unanimous. The review's website, www.sciencedebate.org.uk, carries evidence ranging from "Transgenic cotton a winner in India" by Professor Chris Leaver, head of plant science at Oxford, to "Chronicle of an ecological disaster foretold" by Dr Mae-Wan Ho, of Hong Kong University, and Professor Joe Cummins, of the University of Western Ontario.

None of these articles are on Mae-Wan Ho, they range from bare mention (one instance) to single sentence on her opinion (one instance), to single sentence on her opinion plus 2-3 quotes (two instances). While its a considerable improvement, I don't think it yet rises to the level of "significant coverage". I would further question whether a telejournalist is a sufficiently authoritative source for declaring Mae-Wan Ho "a leading scientific authority". HrafnTalkStalk 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you discussing the AfD? Please go to its page. --Blechnic (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, I still see a ton of problems

... with using the talk page of a living person for personally skewering them, and with removing my unrelated comments from the talk page. "Pseudoscientists of her ilk" belongs nowhere on this talk page or in this article, but, hell, if Wikipedia administrators are supporting users blatantly skewering living persons, who am I to question policy? To hell with this inviting people to use a talk page to slam someone, facilitating it, and actively engaging it. --Blechnic (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just what I thought, the policy says adding unsourced crap "to any Wikipedia page," the italics in the original. I was right to remove this in the first place, but of course, when I use policy I get blocked for it, so I bow down to administrator's facilitating this as a slam page. --Blechnic (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you prefer if I had stated it as "academics who publish in the journal Rivista di Biologia, edited by creationist Giuseppe Sermonti and notorious for accepting pseudoscience." It amounts to the same thing, I just tend not to be so verbose & formal on talkpages. HrafnTalkStalk 03:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer you get over her or rather your desire to abuse her BLP on Wikipedia for your personal issues with her. Why don't you cut it out? You're not in the least bit accomplishing what you think you're accomplishing: successfully using Wikipedia to skewer her. The attempt shows a lot more about you than her, by the way. --Blechnic (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)