Talk:Roderick MacKinnon

Sections, cleanup
I'm going to divide this article into sections, and reword a few things. I might also look for more references and try to improve the footnoting in this article. If there are any objections, please feel free to discuss/change my edits. PDCook (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Business activities
Actually, I think that might be a reasonable removal for the BLP page. This is not something the subject is famous for. But on the other hand, this is not really something contentious and could stay, unless someone can explain why this is really problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, this is legit content with plenty of independent sourcing. Lots of academic scientists get involved with companies  - it is entirely normal and DUE. I thought perhaps there might have been a falling out, but he is still on their SAB, per that page on the company website. This is not "private" information by any means.  I don't understand why he doesn't like it, but subject's feelings are not the determining factor when we consider encyclopedia content. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is certainly not a private info, and I agree, this may be reasonably viewed as "due" content. Of course someone can argue how much of this should be included, or how exactly this should be phrased. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand what might be the issue now; see these diffs for the recent developments. I didn't add this to the page, but the 10-Q cited there also discloses that there is now a shareholder lawsuit against the company and some of its executives, that was filed in June 2018 just after the company announced it was halting clinical development.  Stanford has a website where it tracks securities litigation, and the case is here. MacKinnon is not named in the filing that is posted at the Stanford site. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say this story probably belongs to page Christoph Westphal. No strong opinion. I would not object to rephrase/changes or removal. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He is a founder; the company's focus was his and his friend's invention. This company is part of his story.  Whether it ultimately is a medical success and helps people with ALS and other neuromuscular disorders or a business success and makes money off the supplement, or whether it fails simply or in an ugly way (and we don't know yet), it is part of his story. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of balance. Of course it would be just fine on a BLP page of a businessman or a scientist who is relatively unknown. However, he is really famous for entirely different work in science. He also tried a failed start-up. No drug, nothing. OK. How is that significant compare to his work in science? I would say it is around 0.1%. Hence I think this is probably undue in such very brief page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The product has not failed yet. There are several potential outcomes for the company and the drug asset. I looked at it to see what could be trimmed. Will look again. And please do read the first ref about how the product came to be; according to that ref, the idea of this product really did grow out of his whole life including the science he has done. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think we could expand the content about his scientific work which will reduce the relative weight of this. I'll look for good sources and see if I can do that. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If the drug will be approved, then yes, this certainly must be included. If not, well, this is pretty much like a movie that was never shown to viewers. Not notable in context of this biography, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: General Chemistry I
— Assignment last updated by Yonderling (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)