User talk:Tryptofish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Check RfAs.
Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.
User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Neurology

Happy New Year, Tryptofish![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Donner60! That's very kind of you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome![edit]

Hi Tryptofish, Thanks for the welcome! My students and I look forward to interacting! โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfsinger (talk โ€ข contribs) 00:14, January 4, 2017 (UTC)

@Bfsinger: You are very welcome! I obviously edit under a pseudonym, but in real life I've been a professor doing drug abuse-related research, so your class is in my interest area. By the way, I noticed that you accidentally removed your own talk notice at at least two of the pages. I restored it, but you should probably check other pages where I haven't looked. Also, you and your students can (and should) sign your talk page comments by typing --~~~~ or clicking the icon that looks like a pencil at the top of the edit screen. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

About anonymity[edit]

(talk page stalker) Oh my, now I'm really super duper impressed. I never understood why so many intellects on WP have chosen anonymity but then again, my question may hold the answer. ๐Ÿค” Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 17:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, since you brought it up, there's actually a story behind that. During the most active time of my research career, the Unabomber was on the loose. Law enforcement people quietly contacted scientists whom they thought could be vulnerable, to warn them to be careful. They contacted me that way. When you run a research lab, there are packages being delivered almost every day: stuff like Petri dishes and pipets. I told the students in my lab that if any unusual package showed up, they should not touch it, but instead come and find me. It was unnerving. Fortunately, of course, nothing actually happened. What I came away with from that experience is a heightened awareness that there are a lot of people out there on "Teh Internets", and a few of them may be nutcases. So I decided right from the start of my editing here to remain anonymous. And let's face it, if you edit here for any length of time, you'll end up pissing somebody off. Early in my editing here, I argued that the image at the right, here, should not be deleted, and I got death threats for doing so, from trolls who object to anything that comes from Japanese comic books, because, well, it comes from Japanese comic books. Nutcases, indeed. Anyway โ€“ I also like to leave my identity out of it because, when I edit scientific pages, I believe that it would be wrong for me to give the appearance of "pulling rank". Plus, of course, I really am a fish! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course I too edit under a pseudonym. My user name very often leads people to think I am female whereas I think you both (Tryptofish and Atsme) know I am male. I am constantly surprised at the way editor's approaches to me change when they find I am male rather than female. I am glad I opened my account under a pseudonym. One distinct advantage of this is that I can cite my own research, which I always do with other references to support the findings so it is not COI, without drawing accusations of UNDUE or COI. In my opinion, all new users, but especially new expert users, should be very strongly encouraged to open their account anonymously. This can always be changed later and avoids letting the genie out the bottle. DrChrissy (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I've assiduously never indicated my gender, and I often find assumptions by other editors to be amusing. About the COI thing, I never cite anything that I wrote, and I avoid citing anything written by my collaborators or friends. I've bowed out of editing pages where I might be tempted to edit from a COI. For example, a while back, some of the pages about the science underlying schizophrenia cited work that I know for a fact to be discredited, by a scientist with whom I have had public disagreements. I would have loved to correct that material and cite work that was done by some friends of mine, but I walked away instead, although I did leave a talk page note indicating what I was doing, in the hopes that other editors would take it from there. I really would discourage any editor from citing their own work, and using anonymity for that purpose strikes me as a misuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not set out to use anonymity to cite my own work. My username is actually what my partner at the time used to call me because she knew it annoyed the hell out of me! I have read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing yourself and I am 100% certain I have not violated that. I think perhaps you have adopted a black and white rule for yourself (which is of course perfectly acceptable), whereas I edit within what PAG's allow. DrChrissy (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Because you had posted that way on my talk, I felt the responsibility to say those things. But that's a very helpful answer, and I'm fine with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Good to hear - and a belated Happy New Year to you! DrChrissy (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks and the same to you! Just as you left that message, I was coming back to add something that I think could be helpful. In citing one's own publications without falling afoul of COI, it can be useful to consider whether or not the citation simply provides sourcing for material, which is helpful, or whether citing it serves to draw attention to it or to advantage it over other sources with which it disagrees. It can be situation-dependent. Thus, in my example, I was considering the fact that I have an interest in a disputed topic, for which different sources present opposing sides. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course you are correct. I consider myself to be a content editor. I do edit in disputed topics sometimes such as Pain in fish, but I have never worked in this area in real life other than researching for that article here on WP. I try to work with other experienced editors in such articles such as yourself and Epipelagic, and always attempt to make a balanced article presenting both, or multiple, points of view. DrChrissy (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and this has been a good discussion. (But pain in fish? Ahhhh!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Before I get all excited...[edit]

...have you seen this? If so, your thoughts...if not, watch it when you can, then share your thoughts. X-) Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 16:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. The basic concept looks legit to me. I'm a little skeptical that recovery would occur as rapidly as they claim, but it is plausible that stem cells from the same person (maybe not stem cells from anyone else) could regrow wounded skin. I have no idea whether the "gun" mechanism of application is ideal or not, and it might not be. It's also possible that the stem cells need more than just being sprayed into place: for example, they might need some sort of growth factors, or some sort of physical protection or support. Note that they say that the device has not yet undergone regulatory review. But as a concept, yes, stem cells should be able to regrow wounds like that. If any of my other talk page participants can add to what I said, please do. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly has the "wow" factor. Imagine if former burn victims who are badly scarred could regrow skin. I can't help but think of Dax Cowart, knowing what he went through after watching his documentary. What an amazing man. I first learned of Dax through a dear friend of mine who went to law school with him, and named his daughter after him. Then there was a family friend named Jeep who was another severe burn victim. He and a few of his buddies were at their deer lease when the accident occurred. Jeep attempted to light the pilot on a gas heater and it exploded on him with the first strike of the lighter. He was burned over 90% of his body. He spent nearly a year in and out of hospitals getting skin grafts and spending time in rehab. He was actually on the road to recovery when he was diagnosed with leukemia, and died about 6 mos after diagnosis. There was talk that he may have contracted the disease via blood transfusion. Doctors thought that because of the severity of his condition and very low immune response, his system was unable to fight the "foreign" introduction. He was a young man, too - middle 30s, very active and in excellent health before the accident. Anyway, that pretty much explains my interest in the technology. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 23:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed, those are compelling stories, and there certainly is a continuing need for medical research. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ok here are 2 cents. they have no scientific publications on their website here which is not a good sign (this is the same kind of thing that Theranos did - lots of hoopla but no publications). So there is no way to evaluate their science; their claims are extraordinary and I would look for strong publications to back that up, but they don't exist. so that is a bad sign. They are doing a nice job with PR for their investors (to keep the stock price up) for what that is worth. they have two products in development - "cellmist" which is a stem cell suspension derived from the person (autologous) and the spraying device. They are going after a 510K for their device now, but not to spray the stem cells - rather just for irrigation, per this. It will take a lot for them to establish/standardize the process for making the "cellmist"; regulators will want to see that, and they will need to use the standardized process to make the "cellmist" used in clinical trials to show safety and efficacy. Then they will have to figure out how to make that work commercially if the product is going to remain on the market and be widely used. Trying to sell autologous preparations is a challenging business model - you cannot manufacture the drug ahead of time - you either need to courier the tissue to some central location where you process it, and then courier it back, or you need to develop a separate device that does the processing that people buy and use locally. Lots of challenges with the latter. For a couple of examples of such products see Strimvelis and Sipuleucel-T - Dendreon went bankrupt trying to make money off the latter. It will be a few years (like 4 or 5 at least) before this would be available on the market. They went public through a reverse merger in January 2014 per their annual report from FY2013, filed in March 2014 so you can buy shares if you believe what they are pitching now. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! That's a very thorough analysis, way more than I had done. I share your opinion that this faces major hurdles and is insufficiently vetted (sorry Atsme). One thing for sure: I'm not buying any shares! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
yer welcome. all that said, it is exciting and what the biotech business is all about... trying to gin up interest while you try to make good things happen in the real world. i hope they succeed. they have some serious people on their management team and some significant partnerships so it is not total bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, thank you!! I will proceed with cautious optimism (and lots of prayers!). Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 18:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all for an interesting discussion! I've slept on it, and it occurs to me that the video seems rather dodgy to me, in that they seem to show a great deal of healing after what sounds like just a couple of days. Problem is, I don't think cells can divide and assemble into tissue that fast, on that scale. If there is anything I learned over the course of my own career, it's that Murphy's Law is a genuine law of nature, when it comes to getting a research project to work. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't think of any place on WP that I've learned more than right here, Tryp, and I just wanted to say THANK YOU to you and your tps. You are a special Wikipedian. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 22:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that really means a lot to me, thanks! And I'm not even a reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for John Hughes (neuroscientist)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 23 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Hughes (neuroscientist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the British neuroscientist John Hughes shared the 1978 Lasker Award for co-discovering opioid peptides in the brain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hughes (neuroscientist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Hughes (neuroscientist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 12:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject![edit]

Hello, Tryptofish! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me, but I'm actually not that interested in that topic. Just got involved in it by way of following up on GMO issues. But good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)