In article <lowell-130494165250 at zelinski.com>, lowell at zelinski.com (Lowell
> > Nonomura AM. Benson AA.
> > Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
> > America. 89(20):9794-8, 1992 Oct 15.
>> I have this article - and have read it. I thought it was one of the
> poorest scientific articles I've every read.
>> Does anyone out there agree?
>> p.s. the best part was the disclaimer at the bottom of the first column
> indicating that the article must be mark as an "advertisement"
What was bad about it? I read a lot of poor scientifc articles. This one
was definitely curious, but I can't say they made any obvious errors nor
any claims that went far beyond the data. Others have made such claims
wiht reference to this paper.
Every paper im PNAS is marked "advertisement" because authors have to pay
page charges. It is still rigorously peer reviewed.
By the way, I think that running out and spraying methnol on roses in the
summer would be silly, but that is the kind of thing the journalists picked
up on. Whether I agree or disagree with the uses to which people might put
this information does not affect my opinion of the science it contains.