#* Dr. Baggerly speaks quite fast and uses some terminology that is unfamiliar to me, so after watching the video twice, I’m still not entirely sure which “errors” he is implying Dr. Potti committed intentionally (if any). To me, this contrasts with the 60 Minutes segment which seemed to mention solely the deliberate manipulation of the data. The off-by-one index error, for example, seems like it could have been an honest mistake (not to say this would relieve Potti of culpability), as I can’t imagine how that would actually add to the (false) significance of the results.

#* Dr. Baggerly speaks quite fast and uses some terminology that is unfamiliar to me, so after watching the video twice, I’m still not entirely sure which “errors” he is implying Dr. Potti committed intentionally (if any). To me, this contrasts with the 60 Minutes segment which seemed to mention solely the deliberate manipulation of the data. The off-by-one index error, for example, seems like it could have been an honest mistake (not to say this would relieve Potti of culpability), as I can’t imagine how that would actually add to the (false) significance of the results.

# Go back to the [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6889/full/nature00778.html Merrell et al. (2002) paper] and look at your "sanity check" where you compared the fold changes and p values for certain genes between your work and the paper.  Did the values match?  Why do you think that is?  Do you think there is sufficient information there for '''''you''''' to reproduce '''''their''''' data analysis?  Why or why not?

# Go back to the [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6889/full/nature00778.html Merrell et al. (2002) paper] and look at your "sanity check" where you compared the fold changes and p values for certain genes between your work and the paper.  Did the values match?  Why do you think that is?  Do you think there is sufficient information there for '''''you''''' to reproduce '''''their''''' data analysis?  Why or why not?