Talk:Gilbert Ling

NPOV

Almost all of the Ling's PubMed articles are from a single journal, which is highly suspicious. Those in more prestigious journals appear to be letters, rather than peer reviewed papers. According to The Economist, "most scientists consider Dr Ling's ideas wacky at best."[1] This article presents Dr. Ling as if he were uncontroversial, and as if his theories were generally accepted, or likely. This violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. While it's fine to have articles about scientists on the fringe of their fields, the article needs to accurately reflect the subject. In this case, the article needs to prominently feature criticisms of Dr. Ling. Pburka (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pburka, I do not want to give the impression that his theories are generally accepted as they are far from accepted so I will make it clear in the introduction and in the association induction hypothesis section. As this is a historical biography and Ling has made accepted and valuable historical contributions such as winning the boxer indemnity scholarship, perfecting the Ling-Gerard capillary electrode and contributions to early NMR/MRI I would rather focus on the fact that his association induction hypothesis is controversial as opposed to the man himself. There is a separate article on his theory where you posted similar objections relating to NPOV. In that article I have added a new section for criticisms (which is where they belong) and I will make it clear that his theory is not accepted and that Ling is controversial. Is this acceptable? PaulGWiki (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also Ling has been published in numerous journals such as Nature, Science, Proc Natl Acad Sci and Biophysical Journal (See list)

1. The physical state of water and ions in living cells and a new theory of the energization of biological work performance by ATP.Ling GN.Mol Cell Biochem. 1977 May 3;15(3):159-72. No abstract available.PMID:887079
2. A theory of cell swelling in high concentrations of Kc1 and other chloride salts.Ling GN, Peterson K.Bull Math Biol. 1977;39(6):721-41. No abstract available.PMID:922222
3. Mg++ and K+ distribution in frog muscle and egg: a disproof of the Donnan theory of membrane equilibrium applied to the living cells.Ling GN, Walton C, Ling MR.J Cell Physiol. 1979 Nov;101(2):261-78. No abstract available.PMID:
4. Maintenance of low sodium and high potassium levels in resting muscle cells.Ling GN.J Physiol. 1978 Jul;280:105-23.PMID:308536
5. What component of the living cell is responsible for its semipermeable properties? Polarized water or lipids?Ling GN.Biophys J. 1973 Aug;13(8):807-16.PMID: 4542213
6. Mobility of potassium ion in frog muscle cells, both living and dead.Ling GN, Ochsenfeld MM.Science. 1973 Jul 6;181(4094):78-81.PMID: 4714293
7. The physical state of solutes and water in living cells according to the association-induction hypothesis.Ling GN, Miller C, Ochsenfeld MM.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1973 Mar 30;204:6-50. Review. No abstract available.PMID:4577275
8. Control of cooperative adsorption of solutes and water in living cells by hormones, drugs, and metabolic products.Ling GN, Ochsenfeld MM.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1973 Mar 30;204:325-36. No abstract available.PMID:4513158
9. Metabolic cooperative control of electrolyte levels by adenosine triphosphate in the frog muscle.Gulati J, Ochesenfeld MM, Ling GN.Biophys J. 1971 Dec;11(12):973-80.PMID:5316285
10. The physical state of water in living cells and its physiological significance.Ling GN.Int J Neurosci. 1970 Dec;1(2):129-52. Review. No abstract available.PMID:4949883
11. Diphosphoglycerate and inosine hexaphosphate control of oxygen binding by hemoglobin: a theoretical interpretation of experimental data.Ling GN.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1970 ep;67(1):296-301.PMID:5272319
12. Studies on ion distribution in living cells. II. Cooperative interaction between intracellular potassium and sodium ions.Ling GN, Bohr G.Biophys J. 1970 Jun;10(6):519-38.PMID:5452352
13. Potassium ion: is the bulk of intracellular K+ adsorbed?Ling GN, Cope FW.Science. 1969 Mar 21;163(3873):1335-6.PMID:5765113
14. Measurement of potassium ion activity in the cytoplasm of living cells.Ling GN.Nature. 1969 Jan 25;221(5178):386-7. No abstract available.PMID:5764447
15. A new model for the living cell: a summary of the theory and recent experimental evidence in its support.Ling GN.Int Rev Cytol. 1969;26:1-61. Review. No abstract available.PMID:4899603
16. Is the cell membrane a universal rate-limiting barrier to the movement of water between the living cell and its surrounding medium?Ling GN, Ochsenfeld MM, Karreman .J Gen Physiol. 1967 Jul;50(6):1807-20.PMID:6034769
17. Synergistic activation of beta-galactosidase by Na and Cs.Neville MC, Ling GN.Arch Biochem Biophys. 1967 Mar 20;118(3):596-610. No abstract available.PMID:4860414
18. The extracellular space of voluntary muscle tissues.Ling GN, Kromash MH.J Gen Physiol. 1967 Jan;50(3):677-94.PMID:11526853
19. Cell membrane and cell permeability.Ling GN.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1966 Jul 14;137(2):837-59. No abstract available.PMID:5229833
20. All-or-none adsorption by living cells and model protein-water systems: discussion of the problem of "permease-induction" and determination of secondary and tertiary structures of proteins.Ling GN.Fed Proc. 1966 May-Jun;25(3):958-70. No abstract available.PMID:5941022
21. Studies on ion accumulation in muscle cells.Ling GN, Ochsenfeld MM.J Gen Physiol. 1966 Mar;49(4):819-43.PMID:5943617
22. Studies on the ionic permeability of muscle cells and their models.Ling GN, Ochsenfeld MM.Biophys J. 1965 Nov;5(6):777-807.PMID:5884012
23. The physical state of water in living cell and model systems.Ling GN.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1965 Oct 13;125(2):401-17. No abstract available.PMID:5221079
24. PHYSIOLOGY AND ANATOMY OF THE CELL MEMBRANE: THE PHYSICAL STATE OF WATER IN THE LIVING CELL.LING GN.Fed Proc. 1965 Mar-Apr;24:S103-12. Review. No abstract available.PMID:14314558
25. The membrane theory and other views for solute permeability, distribution, and transport in living cells.Ling GN.Perspect Biol Med. 1965 Autumn;9(1):87-106. No abstract available.PMID:5863048
26. THE ROLE OF INDUCTIVE EFFECT IN COOPERATIVE PHENOMENA OF PROTEINS.LING GN.Biopolym Symp. 1964;13:91-116. No abstract available.PMID:14210481
27. THE ASSOCIATION-INDUCTION HYPOTHESIS.LING GN.Tex Rep Biol Med. 1964;22:244-65. No abstract available.PMID:14157817
28. The interpretation of selective ionic permeability and cellular potentials in terms of the fixed charge induction hypothesis.LING GN.J Gen Physiol. 1960 May;43:149-74. No abstract available.PMID:13858505

The introduction is certainly better now. Unrelated to neutrality concerns, I noticed that this page uses unconventional capitalization. Words like "biochemist", "membrane" and "university" should not be capitalized unless they form part of a proper name or appear at the beginning of a sentence. Pburka (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to now remove the multiple issues tags on the following grounds. Citations - There are now 50 citations from a variety of primary and secondary verifiable sources, 60% are not published by the author and I think this is sufficient citations that are independent. NPOV - I have amended the introduction and the Association induction hypothesis sections to include the words alternative controversial and not generally accepted and have also added a cite to list of known criticisms which gives a better neutral balance. PaulGWiki (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a disregarded theory

OK, my original section title was a bit harsh. These ideas come from the 1950's and 1960's (when there was an actual debate over the nature, and indeed the presence of cellular membranes, ion channels, and pumps) and were largely discarded by the 1970's. With the early use of protein isolation, sequencing and synthesis and the advent of the tools of modern molecular biology, the ion channel and pump proteins have been isolated, sequenced, synthesized and reconstituted into cell membranes and into lipid bilayers. The permeability properties of cells, bilayers, and intracellular organelles can be explained virtually entirely by the activities and regulation of these proteins. Ling currently publishes in a journal of which he is the Chief Editor, who, as stated on the journal website, http://www.physiologicalchemistryandphysics.com/editorial.htm, makes all final editorial decisions. Modern independent reviews devote little to no space to these ideas except for historical purposes. Desoto10 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Desoto10 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Connection to Liquid Crystal Water

I'm currently drafting up a page for liquid crystal water. Ling's findings of polarized-oriented water are essentially the proto-theory for this, so would it be appropriate to connect the two articles? HailTheWarpCore (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I really hope you have some impeccably reliable sources for "liquid crystal water." Most of Gilbert Ling's work is WP:FRINGE science, so a theory based on his theories is, presumably, even less likely to be widely accepted or notable. Pburka (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have concerns, please check my draft, I've tried to be careful to avoid fringe science as much as possible, and stick to peer-reviewed journals or literature reviews. I include Gilbert Ling only because his idea of "polarized-oriented multilayer" water seems to be the same idea as liquid crystal water.HailTheWarpCore (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I noted my concerns a week or so ago on Talk:Liquid crystal, but I'll copy those remarks here.

I'm concerned that "liquid crystal water" (at least as you've described it in your draft) isn't really a thing that exists or is recognized by scientists, save for a very, very tiny minority out on the very distant fringe. It (and related theories) have drawn a modest amount of attention in recent years largely because a small subset of alternative "medicine" promoters (i.e. cranks and charlatans) have seized upon this and other concepts as opportunities to create or bolster "scientific" support for their miracle cure-alls.

I'm not persuaded that the topic is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a Wikipedia article at all, let alone to be linked from this article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of the subsequent edits to your draft have addressed those problems. This seems to remain a topic that is the province of a very tiny group of 'True Believers', and apparently receives no attention or mention outside their minuscule world. The tone of your draft is problematic, in that it presents the tenets and claims of a succession of very low-impact articles and books completely credulously and uncritically. You've gotten wrapped up in trying to comprehensively present this small group's claims without ever asking if those claims have any merit.

It seems that this theory is of so little note in the world of physics that you can't even find independent scientists who have cited this work, even to criticize it. While I won't ask that you find sources that stand up to the rigors of, say, WP:MEDRS, the fact that you haven't been able to cite any indpendent, secondary sources which might place this theory into context should be a massive red flag. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration with Chen-Ning Yang - source, details?

There is a passage in our article which asserts that Ling "collaborated" with Nobel laureate Chen-Ning Yang. It's not clear what, exactly, this collaboration entailed. It's not apparent what actual scientific output – in terms of published, peer-reviewed papers – their work together resulted in. Worse, the source provided (link) for this statement is a page hosted on the Gerson Research Organization site (a group dedicated to quack cancer cures, especially the Gerson therapy and its variations) and simply cites a "personal communication".

Near as I can gather, Ling and Yang came to the United States from China on the same (type of) scholarship in the same year, and were roommates for a while. Absent some actual published scientific work, I can't help but wonder if their "collaboration" wasn't much beyond a couple of college roommates who kept in touch and had the occasional back-of-the-napkin bull session in their later years. It seems like Yang is being mentioned mostly to try to lend credibility-by-association to Ling's theories. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Extensive copy-pasting and copy-vio issues with this article

I have just removed the bulk of the section describing Ling's association-induction hypothesis. The text in our article was essentially a direct copy and paste of text hosted on Ling's website: PDF. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Some more, in the section titled Gerard-Graham-Ling microelectrode:

Wikipedia article text ([2])

In 1942 Judith Graham Pool, G.R Carson and Professor Ralph W. Gerard reported the first use of the fine-tipped glass capillary (micro)electrode to test the resting potentials of frog muscles The Second World War slowed down progress but in 1946 they published in the Journal of Cellular Physiology.[22] [23] However, the electric potential here varied over the range of 41 to 80 mV, too scattered for quantitative determinations. The task of improving the technique of making the microelectrode and of filling the electrode with salt solutions fell to Ling, who as a graduate student under Prof. Ralph W. Gerard, inherited the project.

In 1947, Ling and Gerard produced an even narrower-tipped electrode (Less than 0.2 µm in Diameter) with a taper gentle enough that the tip would not break off and which they filled by immersing the electrode in boiling salt solution, thereby evacuating the air as the capillary tube filled. Thus, the resting potentials reported by Ling and Gerard in 1949 in the Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology[10][23] obtained with this improved technique was 78.4 ± 5.3 mV from 1350 measurements with Ringer's solution filled electrodes, and 97.6 ± 5.7 mV. from 207 measurements with a 3 M KCl-filled electrodes. A tool was thus ready to enable the exact measurements of the electrical potentials activities of a vast variety of living cells as well as subcellular organelles.

External site, purporting to be a glossary copied from Ling's self-published 2001 book ([3]):

In 1942 Judith Graham, A. J. Carlson and R. W. Gerard first reported the use of fine-tipped glass capillary electrode for the measurement of the resting potential of frog muscle cells. War slowed down the progress, so that the electric potential as reported in 1946 in Graham's Ph.D. thesis (and elsewhere) varied over the range of 41 to 80 mV, too scattered for quantitative determinations. The task of improving the technique of making the microelectrode and of filling the electrode with salt solutions fell on G. N. Ling, who as a graduate student under Prof. R.W. Gerard, inherited the project.(inserted line break)
The efforts paid off so that by 1947, the difficulties in obtaining reproducible quantitative data were overcome. Thus, the resting potentials reported by Ling and Gerard in 1949 obtained with the improved technique was 78.4 ± 5.3 mV from 1350 measurements with Ringer's solution filled electrodes, and 97.6+5.7 mV. from 207 measurements with a 3 M KCl-filled electrodes. A tool was thus ready to enable the exact measurements of the electrical potentials activities of a vast variety of living cells as well as subcellular organelles.

The remainder of the text ("In 1947...tube filled.") seems to have been copied from Women of Science: Righting the Record ([4]). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And the next paragraph is a copy-paste from [5]. I'm calling it a day. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)