Quote Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Well, I'm a psychologist and the last paper I wrote came to the conclusion that genetic ablation of the metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 7 in mice leads to anxiolysis but not to severe memory deficits. As this has obviously a biological basis, did I overstep my area of expertise? Should I have left that to "real scientists"?
Depends, did you actually do gnetic screenings ? If so, did you perform them yourself or where they done by someone trained in the matter ? If the latter, that's why there is cross-over between the sciences. Even so, this kind of research seems interdisciplinary, and if it's done by just one person trained ina certain area, I do have my doubts about its scientific merit (sorry Sat). It should at least have one biologist/bio engineer/medical doctor as a reviewer.

I've read stuff from biologists trying to explain psychological behaviour, it's usually not very impressive. i don't see why I should except it to work perfectly the other way around. Of course, it is entirely possible that one has enough knowledge of both scientific fields to do good research. But once again, I'd like to see people from relevant areas review the paper.

It's still totally different from what this guy did, he never checked biological data, apart from the amount of sons. If he had checked the mothers blood/placenta/whatever for a certain hormone or certain anti bodies and linked them to the child becoming gay he might have had a case, now all he puts forth is speculation.