Talk:Robin Warren

Discovery date question

This article says that Dr. Warren discovered Helicobacter pylori in 1979. However, the Helicobacter pylori article says that the bacterium was originally seen in 1875, first suspected to cause disease in 1899, and "rediscovered" by Dr. Marshall and Dr. Warren in 1982. I am wondering if somebody can double-check whether the 1979 date or the 1982 date is correct? 69.140.157.138 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Warren-Florey commonalities, and how stray observations lead to seminal discoveries

I'm somewhat amused that both Robin Warren and Howard Florey have a couple of things in common. Both are from the University of Adelaide, and both owe their prizes in large part to the fact the other recipient left the the petri dish out too long. Is this a common occurence in medicine? (And they both went to the same school (Saint Peters College, Adelaide) Funkeystu (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) )

Not that they left out a dish too long, which happens all the time in such laboratories, really. The point at which one is done with a plate is very subjective, and apart from it drying out, or mold forming, plates can often have very long useful lives, a matter still understood though the art of streaking (see also [1]) is in the decline in this era of kit-based micro practice.

The requisite elements of these early and continuing discoverers are, at least, that (i) their observational practices and habits of minds were such that the observation of the visual data on the plate, whatever it was, registered with them (as opposed to washing over them not to be internalized, amidst the noise of all other visual, experiential data), and in doing so, struck them as deserving further thought. In this regard, think of Prof Agassiz and his pedagogic fish (e.g., [2]). Then—not unrelatedly—a further requisite element (ii) that the moment or two of further thought given the observations somehow connected with earlier disciplined learning to create the thought of how the observation fit into establish scientific knowledge, and to suggest a practical first test to see if the perceived connection was as important as first perceived. Finally, (iii), the matter did not end with the thought, it ended with action, actual follow-up testing of the significance of the observation. Anyone familiar with scientific life, in particular laboratory research in modern times, will find it easy to see why any of this sequence of steps might be interrupted, for any given case of a stray observation. The word miraculous comes to mind, for the fact that these seminal observations were not longer missed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found an image here um... i dont know if it can be used link: image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.138.23 (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor article shape based on lede

…and initial once-over, based on comparison to Barry Marshall article. Someone with training in micro should ope the 2 articles side by side, and make this as strong s the other. Apart from the biographical details, these stories run in parallel, and the two ledes (and articles should not be so demonstrably different in quality). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)