“What if every creative endeavor had to go through Peer Review? Indira M Raman considers the possibility…
Weaknesses:
· ‐ Preliminary data are not compelling, esp. regarding evidence for the applicant's contention that King Hamlet is really dead. Two issues are problematic. (1) Death of Hamlet, Sr., is assumed because poison was poured in his ear. This is a non-standard approach and is not sufficiently justified. What kind of poison was it and at what concentration was it used? Does this poison cross the blood brain barrier? What is its mode of pharmacological action? Why was poison excluded from the contralateral ear? Without further information about mechanism, death cannot be assumed. Note also that the poison was apparently not followed by thoracic puncture, although this issue is admittedly handled more effectively in Act V. (See also comments under ‘Protections for Human Subjects’). (2) The appearance of the King at the beginning of Act I to tell of his death is not consistent with his actual death before the play begins. The (likely) possibility of a flawed premise therefore raises concerns about the remaining Acts.
· ‐ Outcomes are not adequately discussed. For instance, in Act III, when Hamlet stabs the curtain in Gertrude's closet, it is assumed that Polonius will be killed. A plausible alternative, however, is that Hamlet will kill a rat, as he himself hypothesizes. This possibility should be considered explicitly. If it indeed turns out to be a rat, the Vertebrate Animals section should be completed.
· ‐ Likewise, in Act V, if Laertes recovers from his poisoned wound, will Fortinbras still be appointed King? Some discussion is necessary.
· ‐ Biohazards are not explicitly considered, e.g., in Act V, will surgical gloves (latex or nitrile) be used to handle Yorick's skull; how will carcasses be disposed of, etc. (N.B. The proposed concealment of Polonius’ body in Act IV is unacceptable).”
No comments:
Post a Comment