alexa Why Have the Scientists Accepted The Illogical Proposal of Zuckerman for 60 Years? | OMICS International | Abstract
ISSN-2155-9929

Journal of Molecular Biomarkers & Diagnosis
Open Access

Like us on:
OMICS International organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations

700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)

Opinion Article

Why Have the Scientists Accepted The Illogical Proposal of Zuckerman for 60 Years?

Othman Salim Hussein Al-Fleesy*

Department of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Aden University, South Yemen

*Corresponding Author:
Othman Salim Hussein Al-Fleesy
Department of Forensic Medicine and Pathology
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Aden University, Aden, South Yemen
Tel: +967 739 236 414
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: January 27, 2017; Accepted date: February 06, 2017; Published date: February 08, 2017

Citation: Al-Fleesy OSH (2017) Why Have the Scientists Accepted The Illogical Proposal of Zuckerman for 60 Years? J Mol Biomark Diagn 8:331. doi:10.4172/2155-9929.1000331

Copyright: © 2017 Al-Fleesy OSH. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Since Zuckerman proposal in 1951, in which he reported that females have a fixed number of oocytes in her foetal life and stop producing oocytes after birth [1]. This long-standing (dogma) by Zuckerman had arrested a created think and losing decades of research for 60 years, based on this misleading finding and wrong proposal. So, the direction in studying this matter in embryology was absent because the most of the scientists had accepted this supposition.

Keywords

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2018-19
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2018 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version