He mentions that very clearly in the article, and also makes it clear what he stands (and does not stand) to gain financially from Lander's article being discredited.
It's a very provocative title, but the policy recommendation in the article—that we stop issuing Nobel prizes and patents to individuals when discoveries happened over a long process—is pretty fair. And he does credit Lander for acknowledging all the scientists that predated both of their universities' work.
Comments
He mentions that very clearly in the article, and also makes it clear what he stands (and does not stand) to gain financially from Lander's article being discredited.
It's a very provocative title, but the policy recommendation in the article—that we stop issuing Nobel prizes and patents to individuals when discoveries happened over a long process—is pretty fair. And he does credit Lander for acknowledging all the scientists that predated both of their universities' work.
I don’t disagree. But I’m asking, what should happen in the next few months?
Is reconciliation possible? What would it take?