Talk:Kary Mullis

Recently added quote re 'misuse of PCR'
- I've created this thread for you to set out why you believe that the quote you reinstated belongs in the article. I have removed it again, because the relevance is entirely unclear to me. I mean, yes, he said it, but presumably he said lots of things about PCR methodology over the years. As for the comments themselves, they strike me as the kind of thing that one might say about any scientific method: he's just saying that it's possible to misinterpret the results. I don't see anything particularly illuminating in that, or why it would be helpful to include it in this article. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  08:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly big section that discusses other aspects of how PCR is employed, and even includes quotes personal observations Mullis made in his Nobel lecture. So I did not think that his views on misuse of the technique were out of place, especially given how much suffering has come out of such misuse. Eric talk 12:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what suffering or misuse you're referring to here - there isn't any mentioned in the section. We need context to understand what he was talking about. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I find that surprising. In any case, I suspect that in the current climate on Wikipedia, an elaboration of context might risk being seen as heresy. I shouldn't like to run afoul of the Sacred Scrolls, nor of the steadfast Defenders who guard them. Eric talk 15:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what you're talking about - sacred scrolls? Don't play games, if you're acting in good faith then there isn't a problem, just say what you mean. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm always acting in good faith here, Girth, so no need to issue imperatives about "playing games". My comment above was merely a way of expressing that I do not envision an attempt at providing the context you require as having any chance of being accepted.
 * Please say hello to la belle Écosse on my behalf next time you get up there. Eric talk 16:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm there are the moment actually, visiting my parents (for the first time in a looong time).The sun is shining and the sea is calm. :)
 * I'm genuinely perplexed by your attitude about these changes. I'm entirely happy to believe you are editing in good faith, but you are now being very coy about your reason for making it. It's kind of giving me the impression that you knew perfectly well that the edit wasn't acceptable, but you reinstated it anyway. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the situation?  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I did not mean to imply that I thought there was any problem with the edit I restored. I reinstated it because I find it Mullis' comments highly relevant to how PCR has been used in recent times, and I found the edit summary reverting it to be particularly vexing and downright untrue: unreliable source, common COVID misinformation. But my experience of late tells me that any attempt to provide context for the relevance would risk coming up against forces I deem to be working against the original credo of the encyclopedia, forces which almost seem to enjoy some kind of dominion or indemnity that I have not noticed here before, and which I find unsettling. And I just ain't up for that campaign, okay? Eric talk 19:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I confess to being baffled about any connection to how it is used now. My understanding is that PCR is the widely used and accepted standard test for COVID (as opposed to the more ropey lateral flow test that I have to take twice a week). I haven't heard anything about the misuse or suffering you mentioned - maybe I've been living under a rock? Regardless, I don't see how comments made in the 1990s, by a man who died before the current pandemic, could possibly be of any relevance without significant contextualisation from secondary commentators. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that COVID-19 tests are fraudulent because Mullis said PCR can't detect "free infectious viruses" or some such thing is a common COVID misinformation meme.  The 1997 interview in particular has been making the rounds on Facebook. Whether any of us find the quote highly relevant is beside the point, and the idea of forces ... working against the original credo of the encyclopedia is a classic assumption of bad faith. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "some such thing"..."misinformation"..."bad faith"..."fact-checking". Solid work, well done. Eric talk 01:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Add a line about Kary Mullis PhD thesis
J.B. Neilands was known for his groundbreaking work on siderophores, and Mullis was a part of that with his characterization of schizokinen. https://www.k-state.edu/bmb/seminars/hageman/2013-Mullis.html

Why put death details on the opening paragraph
There's no reason to put death details on the opening paragraph.--Katya72918 (talk) 07:22, 22 October 20

I like to see a response from you on this.--Katya72918 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead section is meant to be as summary of the entire article. Mullis's death is part of his biography, so why would we omit it? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But it is very unusual to put the deatils of death in the lead section.The death is not at all a noteworthy one.WP:Manual_of_StyleKatya72918 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Pediatric Cardiology
Mullís was a PhD, not an MD. He could not be a “Pediatric Cardiologist” if not an MD, although he could have done basic research in the field. This should be clarified.98.183.25.236 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sole Inventor of PCR according to source
I edited the following sentence to conform with the preexisting cited source by deleting the text “role in the” and I’ve been reverted twice by @bon_courage, seemingly without reason, though I explained my reason:

“In recognition of his role in the invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, he shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Michael Smith“

All relevant Cited source text:

“Mullis received the award for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)…

“Mullis began his Nobel Prize-winning research while at the Cetus Corporation. He claimed that he invented PCR by accident—the idea occurred to him while he was driving one Friday evening in April 1983 to his home in the California redwood country for the weekend. By the end of that Friday evening, he knew that if he could make his idea work in the laboratory, it would have the power to transform biological research. He described his technique for the first time in the December 20, 1985, issue of Science and received a patent in 1987.”

https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)62225-8/fulltext JustinReilly (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY. While there's no dispute he has been cited as "the" inventor (and for technical reasons there is usually one "inventor") or that he claims to be; but as the article makes clear there is a lot of controversy about that, so Wikipedia's current solution is a neat summary that downplays nothing unduly. (In some ways this is a textbook case of attribution controversy.). Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)