Talk:Luca Turin

Obvious bias against Vibrational Theory

Reading a Wikpedia article about Vibrational theory of olfaction, which - (as THIS article, too) - IS heavily biased AGAINST this Theory, I'm in feeling that both articles are written or from "Queen of Flies", Leslie Birgit Vosshall, herself - or someone very close to her - just to obsessively ridicule Vibrational theory, and Turin himself - at any cost; Why ? Because she does not understand quantum physics. This way wikipedia becomes just a playgorund for psycho-complexed and probleamtic creatures, circumflexing the fact revealed by herself in 2014. : Number of potentialy potent olfactory moleculas /10(at)12/, for Homo Sapiens Sapiens is at least in dis-comparison and unable situation to be explained - such incrongruency of at least 10(at)7 : 1 (7 orders of decade magnitude), so it is abolutely impossible to explain how this can be, with "shape theory" in sight, and without taking in picture - Vibrational theory of olfaction, in Big Way ... (B-T-W, have anyone REALLY read this 1952. RIDICULOUS book of John Amoore : "Molecular Basis of Odor" ?)

Link to Turin's Blog

Given that Turin's blog is defunct now, and has been since 2006, would it not be better to link directly to the PDF of the archives? JeremyCherfas (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are most certainly right. Just change the link, it's a wiki.--DrJunge (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, but I don't like to barge in and edit articles that I am not expert on and have not previously contributed to. JeremyCherfas (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for the vibration theory of olfaction

Edits by Anon (12/28) Changed "unsigned editorial" from a journal back to "editorial". Changed "so defensive" to "defensive." A few days ago I added the quote from Nature Neuroscience, and I just wonder if wikipedia is the right forum to discuss the motives of the editors of a pretty decent journal. It seems likely to me that this page is meticulously curated by the subject, so what's the point in trying to keep it honest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.130.139 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to establish I'm not the subject of this page! I got very interested in Turin and his theory when I read The Emperor of Scent and have read most of the literature since. I added the word "unsigned" because (1) Miriam Solomon notes that it was unsigned in the paper I reference, and (2) it's an extraordinary quote and my editorial instinct is to include an attribution, as I described in my talk comment at the bottom of this page. That there is no attribution for such a scathing remark I thought unusual, as did Solomon. I also added her explanation of the motives of Nature Neuroscience because the story of Turin's paper's rejection at Nature takes up much of The Emperor of Scent but is not really mentioned here. Without that context, the Nature Neuroscience quote might seem inexplicably harsh to a reader who doesn't know the story. To show that Nature is not always so disparaging of unorthodox ideas (imagine the effect of that editorial on the thousands of researchers trying to get their work noticed and published!), I've just added a mention of the recent Nature coverage of the paper in Physical Review Letters that lends support to vibration theory. Nature is an excellent journal, one of the best in the world, and has taken daring risks on publishing new research, as well as rejecting some it clearly, in hindsight, should have accepted (Hawking's black hole radiation, the Cherenkov effect, etc.). The article from 2006 shows that whatever their feeling in 2004, they have changed their minds on whether the vibration theory of smell is to be taken seriously. I also agree with you that a Wikipedia entry on Luca Turin should not be the forum for an argument about the motives of unknown Nature editors. Coverage of the criticism of the peer review process belongs at the entry peer review. However, the quote you include makes mention of coverage by "uncritical journalists." That media coverage was explicitly critical of the way Nature operates, so the quote itself draws attention to that fact. And yes, let's keep the page honest! I don't think Dr. Turin would object. By the way, if you log in to Wikipedia with a username, you can sign your talk comments with four tildes. I am open to any suggestions and hope to keep the page neutral and fair. Brooklyntbone (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: undo of anon's edit by JHeald (anon= BDov777 btw) Stating that "those early 2004 experiments by Turin's detractors were anything but conclusive" does not directly address or contradict the edit I made. Specifically, the Keller & Vosshall (2004) study, published in a peer reviewed, high impact journal (Nature Neuroscience), tested key predictions of the Turin theory and failed to support it. That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, it means that there is literally no experimental support. Furthermore, the 2007 Horsfield paper is not experimental data, but theoretical calculation. Saying that the theory is "gaining support from experimentalists" is a bit misleading without an experiment to show for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BDov777 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of quite convincing demonstrations Turin has made over the years of phenomena that the vibration theory does explain. I've smelt some of the evidence, at one of his talks, with my own nose! I don't think he's ever claimed it's the whole story though -- just by thinking about the proposed mechanism, you would expect some steric factors too. Keller & Vosshall (IMO) showed that in one particular case it's not quite as simple as Turin's simplest theory would indicate. But a blanket statement that "the Turin theory is not supported by biological experiments" is overcooking it. Jheald 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough-- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, after all. BDov777 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is some supporting evidence from experimentalists. I've added that info and described the Vosshall paper in more detail. I was not sure whether to mention that Turin himself presented strong evidence in support of his theory in his original paper, among which were (1) the well documented strong sulfurous smell of boranes, which have no sulfur in them but incorporate a vibration close to the S-H bond, and (2) the high number of enantiomers that smell the same, and an experimentally tested vibrational explanation of one famous pair that does not. I also added a mention of a paper by Charles Sell, a leading fragrance chemist and believer in shape theory who clashed with Turin at one point. If satisfied prediction is the confirmation of a theory, shape theory looks to be suffering badly, judging by Sell's recent humbling selection of the many structure-odor relations that fly in the face of the reigning theory. He concludes that shape theory will never be able to predict odor from structure reliably. Brooklyntbone (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I tried to find an exact attribution for a quote someone added earlier from Nature Neuroscience. The quote just seemed too harsh to leave anonymous. Surprisingly, I found the editorial was actually published unsigned, so I've made note of that and added material that might explain the surprisingly contentious tone to readers unfamiliar with the story. Brooklyntbone (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please rectify the links that state I am American, American critic, physiologist, etc. I hold an Italian passport. Luca Turin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.199.189 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)