Talk:Pasko Rakic

Plagiarism
Animalresearcher, please do not lift entire sentences word for word from material you find online. Either paraphrase or quote it, and be sure to cite the source either way. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Protomap
The article says: "In the related "protomap" hypothesis, external signals determine cell function as it grows and forms complex connections." What is a protomap??? --Lova Falk (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote the answer to my own question: protomap --Lova Falk (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

diacritics
This hasn't been brought up before apparently - why isn't this titled "Paško Rakić"? He's described as a Croatian in that Yale Medicine reference, and I couldn't easily find the factoid when he became an American citizen; presumably he did, at some point after the age of 30. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, on Cyrillic - http://www.google.com/search?q="Пашко+Ракић"+-wiki&pws=0 doesn't seem to indicate a particular usefulness for verifiability, it's mostly Wikipedia mirrors. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Work in Neurogenesis
The only thing this article says about Rakic's work in neurogenesis is that:
 * Among the discoveries made by Pasko Rakic is the first description of neurogenesis in the subventricular zone.

(This statement, btw, has no citation.)

However, I came to the Pasko Rakic article from the Wikipedia article on Elizabeth Gould, which states that Gould discovered that the brains of adult rats showed neurogenesis and that this was against
 * Pasko Rakic's declaration that there was no such thing as neurogenesis was entrenched dogma at that time.

In several places Gould article mentions that Pasko Rakic's position was the accepted position and that neurogenesis did not occur in adults:
 * Yet even with this visual evidence, science clung to Rakic's doctrine which denied the possibility of neurogenesis
 * Kaplan is reported as remembering Rakic telling him that “Those [cells] may look like neurons in New Mexico, but they don’t in New Haven.

In fact, there's an entire section titled "Confronting Rakic's Data" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Gould_(psychologist)#Confronting_Rakic.27s_data

If the Elizabeth Gould article is correct and Rakic's original position was that there was no neurogenesis in adults, then this article seems to be ignoring that and treating Rakic's primary contribution as a finding that neurogenesis does occur. This is problematic for a couple of reasons. First it appears to be whitewashing his (?) career. It is not a defect that science corrects itself in the long run. Nor is it a defect when a scientists admits to being in error. This is one example of this type of situation that might be useful to the public at large and to students about how science works. Second, the Gould article, and who knows if there are any others, cites to this article as support for a proposition that does not appear (or no longer appears) here. This needs to be cleaned up one way or the other. Outside of what these two articles say I have no knowledge of this matter. An internet search might provide original information. I would prefer that this issue be resolved by someone more knowledgeable in this area.

If this earlier phase of Rakics' career was covered by this article but was subsequently deleted, is there a quick way to find it or does it entail methodically proceeding through the article's history? Ileanadu (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)