With unclear results. You be the judge. Here is the comment stream:
Has ID done much to advance our understanding of information theory? I can’t see much evidence that computer scientists and mathematicians are picking up and using these ideas.
As for the Biologic Institute, they list 4 publications from 2014, 2 of them in Bio-Complexity: in the same time period I published 8 papers. That’s really not a lot for the investment put in: there are 5 people listed as working at the Biologic Institute: 3 of them are on one paper from this year, the other 3 papers are by members with affiliations elsewhere. Over the last couple of years the results seem similar. Frankly, any research institute should be able to do better than 1 paper for every 5 scientific staff.
Note: Commenters have weighed in on various claims made by various other commenters, but the News desk was principally interested in the claim about lack of productivity. We’d heard elsewhere that the rate at Biologic Institute was not unreasonably slow, given the constraints of private funding and targeted hostility. So…
Bob O’H at 3, I ran your comments by a researcher who said, “If Bob O H is part of a large group, and gets his name appended to all papers produced by that group he could have 8 papers. No single researcher can turn out that many at a time by himself. Not in biology.”
On the other hand, you could be unusually productive. You may perhaps be willing to provide a list of the papers.
In any event, it seems that the Biologic Institute list contains only some of the publications of some of the fellows (“a selected list”) – presumably the ones of most general interest to readers and supporters.
News – my list of papers is here. Most of it is done in collaboration, but I’m only one person, whereas the Biologic Institute is much larger than me. I’d also point out that the BI is “a large group”, so I’d expect it to be producing many more papers than I do.
If the list is only of select publications, can you get a complete list of publications from them?
So the knowledgeable person was requested to look at the linked list, and got back.
Bob O’H at 16: I ran your list by someone who knows a bit of the background of BI, and their response was:
He’s ducking the issue. He has many more than 5 collaborators. I can’t even say how many without looking up the papers themselves (when there are more than three they get listed as et al). So he needs to compare apples to apples. At the BI, 2 papers are divided by 5 people to his 8 papers divided by at least 23 people.
If he wants to count apples.
We’ll see what he comes up with next.
Of course he doesn’t want to count apples! He wants to discredit and obliterate the Biologic Institute.
Like many of Darwin’s followers, he tends to inflate his own cred and disparage that of others. Here’s a prediction in no danger of being disconfirmed: No matter what happens in the coming years, that’ll continue. And there are always “aren’t I good?” girls, anxious to applaud.
As you can tell, it’s a slow news weekend. Luck of the dates this year. Got some good stuff coming up very soon though.
Follow UD News at Twitter!