#*After viewing Dr. Baggerly's talk, I feel much more surprised that this study actually led to two sets of clinical trials (and that it took so long for the authoritative organizations to realize the truth regarding the data). It seems very explicit and clear that the data was deeply flawed, and it feels like Baggerly and Coombs did a good job at communicating their findings to Nature and to those involved with the research; it feels pretty absurd that there was even initial resistance, slight doubt, and an attempt to cover-up faulty data in response to the points made by Baggerly and Coombs.

#*After viewing Dr. Baggerly's talk, I feel much more surprised that this study actually led to two sets of clinical trials (and that it took so long for the authoritative organizations to realize the truth regarding the data). It seems very explicit and clear that the data was deeply flawed, and it feels like Baggerly and Coombs did a good job at communicating their findings to Nature and to those involved with the research; it feels pretty absurd that there was even initial resistance, slight doubt, and an attempt to cover-up faulty data in response to the points made by Baggerly and Coombs.

#Go back to the 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 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?