Talk:Robert K. Crane

cotransport discovery directly led to development of ORT?

I added a {{fact}} tag to this line because the claim is not referenced. References 7 & 8 do not support this point. Crane's research definitely provided a physiological basis for understanding the mechanism underlying ORT, but I was not aware of that these findings were actively used when developing ORT. Chaldor (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• The claim is now referenced. Armando Navarro (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to continue picking at this, but I still have some doubts. I can't really believe that an article where Crane praises himself about the impact of his discovery can be truly considered a reliable source (see the issues surrounding self-published sources on WP:V). The NEJM article doesn't mention Crane at all, and it isn't clear that the article is even referring to the same discovery (mid 1960s is not when Crane published the work). Further, I would like to point out that the NEJM article isn't necessarily reliable either as it's not a text on ORT development. It makes the claim and the reference that it provides for the statement, Claeson, et.al., only discusses the impact of ORT, not the development. Normally, I wouldn't put references through such technical scrutiny, but I feel this claim falls under the WP:V guideline that exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

Further, I would like to present some evidence potentially to the contrary of the claim. Based on the story of Phillips and his use of ORT in Taiwan in 1962, it seems doubtful that he had any knowledge of Crane's work at the time. Phillips is one of, if not the, discoverers of ORT, yet I don't see Crane credited when discussing the rationale of Phillips's discovery. The same clearly also goes for Chatterjee (as his clinical findings predate Crane's publication date). See the references in the ORT article for the links.

I'll admit that this is a nuanced delineation to make, but I think it's an important one. By claiming that Crane's work directly lead to ORT, it's asserting that people took the discovery of the cotransporter, and knew precisely what to do with it and how best to apply it to treat the long-standing problem of cholera dehydration. I think instead, it was more that clinicians (like Phillips and Chatterjee) discovered some beneficial effect when administering salt+sugar in their fluids, and then later, the medical community was able to use Crane's discovery to explain the phenomenon. I think claiming that Crane's discovery directly let to ORT is misleading. I think it should read more that Crane's discovery helped to provide a physiological basis for the effectiveness of ORT. Or one could also say that Crane's discovery helped to validate the effectiveness of ORT, etc. Chaldor (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I decided to be bold here and make the change that reflects, in my opinion, more solid evidence and a more reasonable timeline per my points listed above. Chaldor (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)