This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tutelary (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 25 February 2014 (→Role of Marthe Gautier in the discovery of trisomy 21?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:34, 25 February 2014 by Tutelary (talk | contribs) (→Role of Marthe Gautier in the discovery of trisomy 21?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. |
Untitled
Bibliographical details of Concentration Can expanded to include publisher and ISBN. Also incorporated Tiniest Humans (1977) into bibliography, and linked to an online edition.
User Calibanu 13:08, 12 April 2006.
I added the fact that the initial discovery of the extra chromosome was a Marthe Gautier's discovery (see the La recherche article).
Role of Marthe Gautier in the discovery of trisomy 21?
There seems to be substantial and very credible evidence that trisomy 21 was actually discovered by Marthe Gautier, and that Jerome Lejeune inappropriately claimed credit for this. See this interview (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/130306) and this newspaper article (http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2014/02/03/trisomie-une-pionniere-intimidee_4359331_1650684.html).
If these allegations are correct than this very hagiographic article about Dr. Lejeune needs extensive revision.Rosieredfield (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this article needs extensive revision, however it seems to me that the question of his and Marthe's exact role in the discovery remains controversial and, thus, we should aim to reflect the disputed nature of the discovery in the article rather than adopting one view or the other uncritically. JackAidley (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree - I haven't been able to find definitive evidence either way. (I would like to find out whether the French human geneticists (FFGH) did any investigation before deciding to give Gautier the award.) Rosieredfield (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've toned down some of the adulatory language and reorganized the material a bit. And here are links to two news-type articles in scientific journals about this controversy: one in Nature and one in Science Rosieredfield (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. There needs to be more reliable sources. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. From what I can see, RenewAmerica.com is not a reliable source per Misplaced Pages:Verifibility and the other site you linked is behind a pay wall. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Access_to_sources, could you provide access to that site so we may better attempt to verify this claim?
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- Automatically assessed biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class France articles
- Low-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- Start-Class Catholicism articles
- Low-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles