I started writing this review in 2022, after learning about The Nobel Duel at the Frontiers in Reproduction course (Prof. Stephen Hammes mentioned it to me). At the time, both Schally and Guillemin were still alive! I worked on the review off and on for nearly 3 years. It’s a rather complex story, and I went down a lot of scientific rabbit holes in the process (such as looking into 1960s peptide purification methods).
Overall, I think the main lesson I learned is that the rivalry between Schally and Guillemin was avoidable. In other words, their “winner takes all” scientific environment was a necessary component of the rivalry, but by itself it wasn’t sufficient. After all, plenty of other endocrinologists didn’t have massive feuds. The rivalry was really driven by the combination of the scientific environment with the personalities and communication styles of the two men. If Schally and Guillemin had had a candid conversation in 1961 and agreed to work in separate areas (or, less likely, to work as equal partners), the whole feud would have never happened.
So today, if you’re feeling like someone isn’t giving you credit for your work, or is being unfair to you, reach out and talk to them before things escalate too far. Of course, this may not work, but it’s better than sending nasty letters (or these days, emails or tweets) back and forth. There will always be competition in science, but duels can be avoided.
Would you say the same of Watson-Crick/Pauling and Watson-Crick/Candlin? One was pure rivalry. The other was (to my mind) just a dick move.
Fred Hoyle famously had feuds. A lot of the Astro community couldn't work with him. I think it even extended to his grad students. He was an amazing educator and got side-tracked into bizarre theories which every now and then turn out to have a germ of truth (you could say that about extra-terrestrial sources of life in regard to precursor chemicals in the asteroid belt)
I don't think Watson/Crick vs. Pauling rose to the same level of animosity as this did. I'm not familiar with "Candlin", who was he/she? Or did you mean Franklin?
I think Newton vs. Leibniz would be a good comparison for the rivalry described in The Nobel Duel.
I am a biochemist and neuroscientist and also thought it was fantastic read. It's rare that someone manages to cater to both audiences this well. Kudos!
You are probably being downvoted because your comment is not very helpful, and also a bit rude (ending with "dude").
It would be more helpful to provide some information on why you think this person is not using R1. For example:
You are not using DeepSeek-R1, but a much smaller LLM that was merely fine-tuned with data taken from R1, in a process called "distillation". DeepSeek-R1 is huge (671B parameters), and is not something one can expect to run on their laptop.
I set a personal goal in trying to be more helpful, and after two years of effort, this is what comes out naturally. The most helpful thing that I do is probably not posting senseless things.
I do sometimes ask ChatGPT to revise my comments though (not for these two).
Not at all, try to support the US economy on a bicycle? Without zoning laws and motoring infrastructure you will have a city of Florence, walkable - sure, but you are in a crowd of cars, pedestrians, cyclists, mopeds, etc.
In many locales, bikes are legally allowed to run red lights, if there’s no cross traffic coming. Bikes do have to yield to pedestrians, I’m not sure why you think otherwise.
I, as a reviewer, made a similar mistake once! The author's initial version seemed to contradict one of their earlier papers but I was missing some context.
I also made this mistake! I recommended the author to read an adjacent work, which turned out to be by the very same author. He had just forgot to include it his work.
I’ve had it happen to me. Paper rejected because it was copying and not citing a prior message to a mailing list… the message from the mailing list was mine, and the paper was me turning it into a proper publication.
I started writing this review in 2022, after learning about The Nobel Duel at the Frontiers in Reproduction course (Prof. Stephen Hammes mentioned it to me). At the time, both Schally and Guillemin were still alive! I worked on the review off and on for nearly 3 years. It’s a rather complex story, and I went down a lot of scientific rabbit holes in the process (such as looking into 1960s peptide purification methods).
Overall, I think the main lesson I learned is that the rivalry between Schally and Guillemin was avoidable. In other words, their “winner takes all” scientific environment was a necessary component of the rivalry, but by itself it wasn’t sufficient. After all, plenty of other endocrinologists didn’t have massive feuds. The rivalry was really driven by the combination of the scientific environment with the personalities and communication styles of the two men. If Schally and Guillemin had had a candid conversation in 1961 and agreed to work in separate areas (or, less likely, to work as equal partners), the whole feud would have never happened.
So today, if you’re feeling like someone isn’t giving you credit for your work, or is being unfair to you, reach out and talk to them before things escalate too far. Of course, this may not work, but it’s better than sending nasty letters (or these days, emails or tweets) back and forth. There will always be competition in science, but duels can be avoided.