I must also admit some confusion on "good science" as the quest to disprove
hypotheses. Was Temin really trying to disprove the "central dogma" or
was he just a young virologist interested in knowing everything he could
about these interesting retroviruses? His hypothesis, I would assume, was
NOT that DNA makes RNA makes Protein, but rather that the virus with
which he was working was going through a DNA intermediate during its'
replication. He set about to support his hypothesis by designing
experiments to REVEAL the presence of an enzyme which could transcribe
RNA into DNA, not to disprove the idea that this virus was making DNA, he
already had lots of evidence and people to tell him that. So which
hypothesis was he trying to prove or disprove and was it good science and
if it was bad science, how come he got a prize?
Michael L. Perdue, Ph.D.
Athens, Georgia 30605
mperdue at asrr.arsusda.gov