Best Canadian Sci/Tech Blog: Round Two

 
The first round of voting for the best Canadian Sci/Tech Blog is over.

As I said earlier, I voted for Bad Astronomy in the first round [Best Canadian Sci/Tech Blog]. I know Phil Plait isn't a Canadian, but he should be.

Here are the five finalists. I'm voting for Post Darwinist in order to make this contest look as silly as possible.

• Sync, the Tech & Gadgets Blog
• Synchro Blogue
• Post Darwinist
• DeSmogBlog
• Dusan Writer

---

The Conservative Party Will Help You Write a Letter to the Editor

 
If you go to the Conservative Party website at Harper Leadership 08 you can get help in writing a letter to the editor. If you enter some sort of name and address you will eventually end up on a page that gives you the latest Conservative version of framing spin.

This is how Harper is going to avoid defeat when he faces the House of Commons. (Click on the image to see a larger version.)

The idea that the opposition parties don't have a mandate to from a coalition is particularly ironic given Stephen Harper's own position just a few years ago. Here's what is reported prominently on the front page of today's Toronto Star

But opposition MPs are accusing the Prime Minister of hypocrisy, charging that Harper is overlooking his own efforts to forge a coalition to replace Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government in 2004.

Harper, then Conservative leader, even joined with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe to write then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson, urging her to look at "options" if Martin's government fell in the fall of 2004, mere months after it won a minority mandate on June 28.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation," read the Sept. 9, 2004, letter from the three leaders.

"We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

That message is in stark contrast to the one Harper delivered Friday night, when he charged that Liberals don't "have the right to take power without an election."

"The opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters. They want to take power, not earn it," he said in a statement.

Now Conservative MPs are being instructed to take that message to Canadians.

---

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic: Because they really do need babysitting, that's why]

Is Superstition the Default Belief?

 
Are you getting tired of the modern mantra about religion—you know, the one that says it's wired into our genes and therefore probably correct or at least beneficial? I am.

So, apparently, is A.C. Graying who writes in Friday's Guardian (UK) [Children of God].

Earlier this week I had occasion to debate – if the soundbite culture of radio news permits that description – with a member of Oxford University's Centre for Anthropology and Mind the "findings" of its cognition, religion and theology project, to the effect that children are hardwired to believe in a "supreme being". The research is funded by the Templeton Foundation, an organisation keen to find, or to insert, religion into science and to promote belief in their compatibility – which, note, comes down to spending money on "showing" in the end that the beliefs of ancient goatherds are as good as modern physics.

Justin Barrett, a Christian and member of the centre's research team (whether it is research or propaganda is the moot question here) says with his colleagues on the centre's website:

"Why is belief in supernatural beings so common? Because of the design of human minds. Human minds, under normal developmental conditions, have a strong receptivity to belief in gods, in the afterlife, in moral absolutes, and in other ideas commonly associated with 'religion' … In a real sense, religiousness is the natural state of affairs. Unbelief is relatively unusual and unnatural."

This claim was the subject of Barrett's lecture at Cambridge, in which he exhibited his reasons for thinking that children are innately disposed to believe in intelligent design/creationism and a supreme being. His real reasons for thinking this, of course, are that he is a man of faith funded by a faith-based organisation; but the reasons he professed were that children have an innate tendency when small to interpret what happens in the world to be the outcome of purposive agency.

Now on this point he and I, an atheist funded by no organisation keen on promoting atheism, agree. Children's earliest experiences are of purposive agency in the adults and other people around them – these being the entities of most interest to them in their first months – and for good evolutionary reasons they are extremely credulous, not only believing that things must be acting as their parents do in being self-moving and intentional, but also believing in tooth fairies, Father Christmas, and a host of other things beside, almost all of which they give up believing before puberty, unless the beliefs are socially reinforced – as with religious and, to a lesser extent, certain other superstitious beliefs. Intellectual maturation is the process in important part of weaning oneself from the assumption that trees and shadows behave as they do for the same reason that one's parents, other humans, and dogs and cats do; it is every bit as natural a fact about children that they cease to apply intentionalistic explanations to everything as that they give them to everything, on the model of their parents' behaviour, in the earliest phases of development.

...

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net

Kill Him, Kill Him Dead

 
These are interesting times in Canada. We recently re-elected the Conservative Party as the party with the most seats in Parliament—but not a majority. That means Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister of a minority government.

What this normally means is that the government has to craft legislation that will receive the support of a majority of the house. But that's not what Harper proposes to do. Instead he has come up with a proposal that promotes a hard-core right-wing agenda. He did this because he assumed that the Liberal party would be forced to support the government in spite of the fact that they are ideologically opposed to many of the items in the legislation. Harper thought that the Liberal party was in such desperate shape to avoid an election that they would vote for the devil.

Turns out he was wrong. In an extraordinary development, the three opposition parties—Liberals, New Democratic Party, Bloc Quebecois—have forged a coalition and announced they will vote against the government bill.¹ This will bring down the government. Stephen Harper will not be Prime Minister but there will not be an election. Instead, the coalition will form a new government.

Scott Reid of The Globe and Mail has a column in yesterday's paper that illustrates the seriousness of the crisis. It's unusual to see such language in a Canadian newspaper—especially The Globe and Mail—so I thought I'd reproduce part of his column here to show the world what is going on. I agree with Scott Reid. For the good of Canada Stephen Harper must be stopped before he does serious harm to the country.

First things first: take him out.

After all, Stephen Harper is the most dangerous animal lurking in the jungles of Parliament. He is a threat to the future viability of the Liberals. A blood simple opponent of the NDP and the only serious contemporary challenge to the Bloc Quebecois. Without him, his party is an unlikely combination of Reform Party leftovers, Harris refugees and Red Tory desperates. They don't matter or even exist without Mr. Harper. So before you think a moment longer, opposition leaders, think on that.

And if that's not compelling enough, remember: He doesn't play to win. He plays to conquer. Under his guidance, the public interest is always subjugated to his personal political advancement. And he poisons Parliament with an extreme, bare-fanged breed of partisanship that has no hope of repair until he is banished.

This becomes relevant because suddenly, he is weak. In fact, at this particular moment, he is almost unable to defend himself. Owing to a ridiculously ill-considered act of hubris, he has laid himself vulnerable to his opponents. Their imperative could not be more clear: kill him. Kill him dead. Do not, whatever you do, provide him with an opportunity to extend his hold on power. Because you can be damn certain he will never again be so reckless as to give you a chance to finish him off.

Fate tends to be grudging with gifts of this significance. To ignore it would be an error every bit as historic as the one Mr. Harper himself has made.

So don't get fancy. Don't get confused. And don't get weak in the knees. If you don't put Mr. Harper in his grave, he'll put you in yours.

---

1. They will also vote in favor of a non-confidence motion put forward by the Liberal party.

Biochemistry on the Web: The Citric Acid Cycle

Here are some websites that discuss the Citric Acid Cycle [Krebs animation][Wikipedia].

This is one of the fundamental biochemical pathways yet both of these sites contain errors. This is the time of the year when I challenge the students in my introductory biochemistry class to find one single website that correctly shows the reactions of the citric acid cycle with all the correct substrates and products (including water and protons). There are two sites that don't count: ones with images from my book (Horton et al.) and ones that are direct copies of the International Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (IUBMB) website. In five years my students have not succeeded. Can any Sandwalk reader find one?

Here are the links to the IUBMB reactions. They all have the correct reaction at some location. You may have to follow one or more of the links to the reaction to see the complete, correct version.

Enzymes of the Citric Acid Cycle

citrate synthase [EC 2.3.3.1]
aconitase [EC 4.2.1.3]
isocitrate dehydrogenase [EC 1.1.1.41][EC 1.1.1.42]
α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase [EC 1.2.4.2]
succinyl-CoA synthetase [EC 6.2.1.4][EC 6.2.1.5]
succinate dehydrogenase [EC 1.3.5.1]
fumarase [EC 4.2.1.2]
malate dehydrogenase [1.1.1.37]

---

The Yale Experience with Alternative Medicine

 
Do you think that modern medical schools at major universities will never be advocates of quackery? Wrong!

The experience of Yale University's School of Medicine should be a warning that those who believe in evidence-based medicine have to be vigilant. Yale recently held an "Integrative Medicine Scientific Symposium." One of the speaker was David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP. Katz is associate professor, adjunct, of Public Health and director of the Prevention Research Center (PRC) at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is a proponent of almost every form of non-evidence based medicine that you can imagine.

A short video of his presentation is included below. It's from the blog DC's Improbable Science: Integrative baloney @ Yale. I'm including it because it illustrates the length to which these quacks will go in order to make their point. Note that the quack is introduced by the Dean of Education at Yale—listen to how easily he may have been bamboozled into thinking that this is about legitimate science.

The most important points in the video are the ones where Dr. Katz explains away evidence-based medicine. You see, the problem isn't so much with the lack of "evidence" as with the concept of "evidence" itself. The practitioners of alternative medicine advocate changing the very concept of "evidence" to a "more fluid concept of evidence." What this means is that if a large-scale, double-blind experiment shows no effect it's not the end of the story. There are other kinds of evidence that may show the effectiveness of alternative medicine. (One of them seems to be anecdote.)



I hope that the University of Toronto is not going in this direction.

---

Snopes Warns Against Embedded Tracker Programs - Pass It on

 
Friday's Urban Legend: False

Have you ever received an email messgage like this?

Snopes Warning

Pass this one on to all your e-mail buddies and take the time to read the Snopes.com article listed below. It is full of good advice especially about the "cookies."

To whom it may concern:

Just a word to the wise. E-mail petitions are NOT acceptable to Congress or any other municipality. To be acceptable petitions must have a signed signature and full address.

Almost all e-mails that ask you to add your name and forward on to others are similar to that mass letter years ago that asked people to send business cards to the little kid in Florida who wanted to break the Guinness Book of Records for the most cards. All it was, and all this type of e-mail is, to get names and "cookie" tracking info for tele-marketers and spammers to validate active e-mail accounts for their own purposes.

Any time you see an e-mail that says forward this on to "10" of your friends, sign this petition, or you'll get good luck, or whatever, it has either an e- mail tracker program attached that tracks the cookies and e mails of those folks you forward to, or the host sender is getting a copy each time it gets forwarded and then is able to get lists of "active" e mails to use in spam e-mails, or sell to others that do.

Please forward this notice to others and you will be providing a good service to your friends, and will be rewarded by not getting 30,000 spam e-mails in the future.

(If you have been sending out the above kinds of email, now you know why you get so much spam!)

According to snopes.com they have never warned against "tracking programs" embedded in email messages [False Advice]. It may be good advice to not spam your friends but nothing in this email message is directly from the snopes.com website and nobody at snopes.com have authorized it.

If there was such a thing as an embedded email tracking program then passing on this message would be an excellent way to spread it!

---

So Many Turkeys

 
This is almost as much fun as curling! Ms. Sandwalk will love this game [Turkey Shoot].

---

[Hat Tip: Chaotic Utopia]

Online Curling

 
Even if you don't like computer games, you won't be able to resist this one. It's an online curling game on the Little Mosque on the Prairie website.

Ms. Sandwalk, Jane and Gordon are going to be so excited about this. I can hardly wait to get a tournament going with my children and their American partners, Michael, and Rachel. Such an easy way to teach them the best things about Canadian culture!!

---

[Hat Tip: The Unexamined Life]

Thanksgiving Day in the USA

 
Some people give thanks for turkey or pumpkin pie. Some people give thanks for football. Others are truly thankful that they have been blessed with good fortune.

Sean Carroll gives thanks for the spin-statistics theorem.

Most people wouldn't understand but I do. I've hung out with physicists and astronomers. This really is how they think.

---

Complimentary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Toronto

 
The Faculty of Arts & Science at the University of Toronto offers a program called "Human Biology." Students who complete the program will graduate with an Honours B.Sc. degree. One of the courses is HMB434H1: Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

The textbook for the course is Fundamentals of Complementary and Integrative Medicine by Marc S. Micozzi.

Here's the course description.

Complementary/ alternative medicine (“CAM”) is used in health care systems not only in North America, but also in countries such as China, India, and Vietnam (WHO, 2002). It involves the use of non-biomedical, “holistic” and/or culturally-specific health services and practices in the treatment of illness and disease (such as Chinese acupuncture), and an expanded concept of health, illness, and wellness. This course provides an introduction to the concepts, theoretical basis, evidence-based analysis, and pressing challenges and issues in CAM today. Specific topics include introductions to: complementary/ alternative medicine in industrialized countries and commonly used modalities such as homeopathy and naturopathic medicine; traditional medicine (TM) and primary health care (PHC); traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and China; Ayurvedic medicine in India; Canada’s First Nations; and integrative health systems and models. Course format includes lectures, guest-presentations, films/documentaries, and inter-active class discussions/exercises. Students will also have the opportunity to analyze CAM systems and modalities.

I've been pretty nervous about this course ever since one of our students blogged about it last year [U of T has a course in complementary and alternative medicine]. I was hoping that the course would present both sides of the story.

That idea was just blown out of the water at a meeting that I just returned from. I got a chance to talk to one of the instructors, Daniel Hollenberg. What I was hearing was not good so I steered to conversation around to homeopathy thinking that this might relieve my fears. It didn't.

Here, without comment, is what I was told by a man who teaches science students at my university.

• Philosphers of science recognize that there are several different kinds of evidence—not just the reductionist evidence of traditional medicine. In particular, epistemologists talk about holistic evidence. Alternative medicine is supported by holistic evidence not reductionist evidence.


• Evidence in support of homeopathy has been published in Lancet, and he teaches that to his students.


• While there may be examples of some homeopathic medicines that don't work, the theory of homeopathic medicine is understood and supported by physicists who have published papers explaining how water retains the memory of molecules that used to be dissolved in it. He mentioned Ursala Franklin as a supporter of homeopathy.

---

Nobel Laureates: George Hitchings and Gertrude Elion

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1988.

"for their discoveries of important principles for drug treatment"

Gertrude B. Elion (1918 - 1995) and George H. Hitchings (1905 - 1998) won the Noble Prize for their work on the treatment of disease and organ transplantation. They developed a number of drugs that interfered with nucleic acid synthesis leading to effective treatment of malaria as well as bacterial and viral infections. They are especially noted for the development of drugs that inhibit the body's ability to reject the transplant. One of the most famous of these immunosuppression drugs is azathioprine, a drug that is still used in some cases to suppress the immune response.

Elion and Hitchings worked together at the Wellcome Research Laboratories in Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. They are among a select group of Nobel Prize winners who did their prize winning research outside of academia. Elion and Hitchings shared the Nobel Prize with Sir James W. Black.

Here's what the press release said about Elion and Hitchings

THEME:
Nobel Laureates

Studies of Nucleic Acid Synthesis Result in the Discovery of New Drugs

Gertrude Elion and George Hitchings have collaborated since 1945. Their original research idea was to look for differences in nucleic acid metabolism between normal human cells, cancer cells, protozoa, bacteria and virus, which could be utilized to develop drugs that selectively block the growth of cancer cells and of noxious organisms. Over the years this research philosophy has formed the basis for the development of drugs against a variety of disorders including leukemia, malaria, virus infections and gout.

When Elion and Hitchings presented their ideas at the end of the 1940s the knowledge about nucleic acid metabolism was very limited. It was known, however, that purines and pyrimidines are incorporated into nucleic acids. Elion and Hitchings studied the growth of the Lactobacillus casei, a bacterium dependent on folic acid or a combination of purines (hypoxanthine, guanine) and pyrimidines (thymine). The purpose was twofold, to characterize the metabolic pathways involved in the biosynthesis of nucleic acids and to identify antimetabolites in the nucleic acid metabolism (Figure 3).
Figure 3.

Figure 3. Purine bases (adenine, guanine and hypoxanthine) are synthesized from simple precursors. Nucleosides are then formed by the addition of sugar moieties (deoxyribose or ribose) and subsequently converted into nucleotides by the addition of phosphate (mono-, di- and triphosphate). Nucleotides take part in cellular metabolism and are the building blocks in the synthesis of RNA and DNA. Structural analogues of the natural substances can specifically block the different metabolic steps. Some examples are given in the figure.

Already in 1948 Elion and Hitchings discovered a substance, diaminopurine, an adenine antagonist, which inhibited the growth of L. casei (Figure 3). It was also found to have an effect on experimentally induced leukemia. Clinical trials in patients were initially promising but had to be interrupted due to toxic side effects. Stimulated by this finding Elion and Hitchings continued their research which soon resulted in two new chemotherapeutic drugs, thioguanine (1950) and 6-mercaptopurine (1951). In collaboration with the Sloan-Kettering Institute 6-mercaptopurine was tried in leukemic patients who were resistant to methotrexate. About one third of the patients responded with complete remission (1953). The finding was soon confirmed, and 6-mercaptopurine (as well as thioguanine) are still used in the treatment of leukemia (Table II).

Elion and Hitchings tried to improve the therapeutic properties of 6-mercaptopurine by using sulphur-substituted compounds. The result was azathioprine (1957) which replaced mercaptopurine as an inhibitor of the immune response. For a long time azathioprine was the only drug available to prevent rejection of transplanted organs. It is still used for that purpose but also for the treatment of autoimmune diseases.

Attempts were also made to prolong the effect of 6-mercaptopurine by blocking its metabolism by xanthine oxidase which is involved in the endogenous production of uric acid (Figure 3). In 1963 this research resulted in another new drug, allopurinol, which blocks the formation of uric acid and therefore is used in the treatment of primary and secondary gout.

Hitchings and collaborators also developed pyrimethamine (1950) and trimethoprim (1956) which were found to be effective in the treatment of malara and bacterial infections, respectively. Both drugs have a strong affinity to the enzyme dihydrofolate reductase, but pyrimethamine is 2000 times more toxic to the enzyme system in the malaria parasite than in the host. Trimethoprim has 100 000 times higher affinity to the bacterial compared to the human enzyme. An important discovery was that the chemotherapeutic effects of these two compounds were markedly enhanced by sulphonamides, drugs which inhibit the synthesis of folic acid. This pharmacotherapeutic principle is used in the combination drugs trimethoprim-sulfa and pyrimethamine-sulfa which are used in the treatment of bacterial infections and malaria, respectively.

A more recent application of Elion's and Hitchings' research philosophy is acyclovir, a drug used in the treatment of infections with herpes virus. Already in the 1950s they had shown that antipurines had to be transformed into nucleotides in order to become active in the cell. The herpes virus carries information which leads to the production of a new enzyme which transforms nucleosides to nucleotides (thymidine kinase) in the infected cell. This enzyme has considerably less substrate specificity than the cell's normal enzyme. Therefore, acyclovir is transformed into its corresponding nucleotide which is the active antimetabolite and the growth of the virus is inhibited (Figure 3).

Acyclovir was described by Elion and coworkers in 1977 and is a modern example of the realization of the basic ideas from 1950. An even more recent application of these ideas is the development of azidothymidine (AZT) which was described in 1985 by other scientists from the same institute, and which is the hitherto best documented drug in the treatment of AIDS. It can be added that trimethoprim-sulfa is used in the treatment of Pneumocystis carinii, a relatively common complication to AIDS.

The clinical use of the drugs discovered by Elion and Hitchings is summarized in Table II.
Table 2.



References

G. Gahrton, B. Lundh: Blodsjukdomar. Lärobok i hematologi. Natur och Kultur, Stockholm, 1983.

Läkemedelsboken 1987/88, Apoteksbolaget, Stockholm, sid, 87-88, 150-151, 249, 625.

J.H. Shelley: Creativity in Drug Research. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 1983, vol. 4.

L. Stryer: Biochemistry, 3rd edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1988, chapter 25, 601-625.

---

[Photo Credit: George Hitchings and Gertrude Elion (top) from Welcome Images]

The IDiot Version of Reality

 
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Richard Dawkins
Check out this posting by Barry Arrington on Uncommon Descent [Peppered Moth Idolatry].

The venerable peppered moth (Biston betularia) has popped up a couple of times in recent posts. It seems that some of our Darwinian commenters (see, e.g., qwerty017 in comment [2] here) have not gotten the memo – the peppered moth myth has been completely exploded. Don’t take our word for it. Uber-Darwinist Jerry Coyne says in the November 1998 edition of Nature: “For the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action.” Why else would the popular school text Biology pull its discussion of Biston as an example of “evolution in action”?

Here are some examples of scientists who have not heard message from the IDiot's.

Douglas Futuyma in his textbook Evolution published in 2005 (p. 293).

Until the 1930s, most evolutionary biologists followed Darwin in assuming that the intensity of natural selection is usually very slight. By the 1930s, however, examples of very strong selection came to light. One of the first examples was INDUSTRIAL MELANISM in the peppered moth (Biston betularia). ...

There are many scientific papers on the "myth" as well. Here's the abstract from Saccheri et al. (2008).

Historical datasets documenting changes to gene frequency clines are extremely rare but provide a powerful means of assessing the strength and relative roles of natural selection and gene flow. In 19th century Britain, blackening of the environment by the coal-fired manufacturing industry gave rise to a steep cline in the frequency of the black (carbonaria) morph of the peppered moth (Biston betularia) across northwest England and north Wales. The carbonaria morph has declined across the region following 1960s legislation to improve air quality, but the cline had not been comprehensively described since the early 1970s. We have quantified changes to the cline as of 2002, equivalent to an interval of 30 generations, and find that a cline still exists but that it is much shallower and shifted eastward. Joint estimation of the dominant fitness cost of carbonaria and dispersal parameters consistent with the observed cline change indicate that selection against carbonaria is very strong across the landscape (s approximately 0.2), and that dispersal is much greater than previously assumed. The high dispersal estimate is further supported by the weak pattern of genetic isolation by distance at microsatellite loci, and it implies that in addition to adult dispersal, wind-dispersed first instar larvae also contribute to lifetime dispersal. The historical perspective afforded by this study of cline reversal provides new insight into the factors contributing to gene frequency change in this species, and it serves to illustrate that, even under conditions of high dispersal and strong reverse selection acting against it, complete erosion of an established cline requires many generations.

Wow, this is a tough call. Who are you going to believe, evolutionary biologists like Futuyma and Sacheri et al., or an IDiot like Barry Arrington?

There's no rush. Take a microsecond or two to make up your mind.

See Revenge of the Peppered Moth. Ohmygod! These photographs are faked!, and Peppered Moths and the Confused IDiots for some insight into why one textbook got cold feet in 2000.

---

Saccheri, I.J., Rousset, F., Watts, P.C., Brakefield, P.M. and Cook, L.M. (2008) Selection and gene flow on a diminishing cline of melanic peppered moths. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:16212-16217. [doi:10.1073/pnas.0803785105]

On the Origin of Species

 
Yesterday (Nov. 24, 2008) marked the 149th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Ms. Sandwalk just bought me an illustrated edition by David Quammen and I highly recommend it. The text is from the first edition of Darwin's work and the illustrations cover a wide range of topics including copies of Darwin's letters and letters from his friends. This is an excellent way to get people interested in one of the most important books ever published.

I was prompted to re-read Origin and I discovered some things I had long forgotten. Most importantly, the style of Darwin's writing is impressive. He takes the time to argue his point by highlighting the most relevant objections to his ideas. While we all recognize that this is the appropriate style for a scientific work, we also recognize (unfortunately) that it may be a lost art. There are too many papers these days that ignore anything that weakens one's case.

In the four succeeding chapters, the most important and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or in understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ; secondly, the subject of Instinct, or the mental powers of animals; thirdly, Hybridism, or the infertility of species and the fertility of varieties when intercrossed; and fourthly, the imperfection of the Geological Record.

The second thing I re-discovered is the clarity and forcefulness of Darwin's writing, given the style of the Victorian era. Also his foresight and originality.

Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable, but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.

Thomas H. Huxley read an advance copy of On the Origin of Species and sent a letter to Darwin, which he received on the day before the book went public. Huxley knew what was coming ...

I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse and misrepresentation which, unless I greatly mistake, is in store for you. Depend upon it you have earned the lasting gratitude of all thoughtful men. And as to the curs which will bark and yelp, you must recollect that some of your friends, at any rate, are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead.

I am sharpening my claws and beak in readiness.

The letter is published in the illustrated edition by David Quammen.

---

Deceptive Science?

 
I was recently taken in by a paper where the authors implied that they were the first to identify one of Gregor Mendel's original genes [see Identity of the Product of Mendel's Green Cotyledon Gene (Update)].

The reason I was sensitized to this issue is because of a similar incident involving a paper published in Cell. Here's an outline of the issue as reported in The Times Higher Education.

It appears that the Cell paper is very misleading. It does not give appropriate credit to the work of other labs.

Peter Lawrence asked if he could publish a letter in Cell but he was told to post comments on the website instead. This is not appropriate. Nobody reads those comments. The author of the suspect Cell paper, Jeffrey Axelrod of Stanford School of Medicine (Palo Alto, CA USA) stands by his publication. The editors of Cell use the common excuse when a journal is caught with it's pants down.

After being sent four of the letters of complaint, Professor Axelrod added on the 6 November: "Our paper (Chen et al, June 2008) underwent a strict process of peer review prior to publication. Concerns about the review process should be directed to Cell. We stand by our conclusions as stated in the paper, as well as by our use of citations."

Cell declined to respond to questions put by Times Higher Education. However, in a response to the complaint from Professor Lawrence, Cell's senior scientific editor Connie Lee said: "I can only assure you that the reviewers were experts in planar cell polarity and the consensus decision was that the model presented by Chen et al was thought-provoking, well supported and provided a sufficient conceptual advance beyond the existing literature."

The incident raises a serious question. Is the pressure to publish so great that authors are tempted to deceive editors and reviewers by making their work seem more original and novel than it really is?

This is not a new problem. A few years ago Nature was pressured into publishing an editorial defending its policies against the charge that they were publishing bad science in order to be the first journal to publish "breakthroughs" (Adam and Knight, 2002). The Nature editorial denies that the popular journals are promoting sensationalism.

Editors of leading journals reject the suggestion that standards are slipping in the face of heightened competition. "Nature has nothing to gain by the pursuit of glamour at the expense of scientific quality, considering, not least, the criticisms, corrections and retractions we would then habitually be forced to publish," argued this journal in an editorial comment earlier this month5. And many researchers who were interviewed for this article agree that the system is still working tolerably. If it ain't broke, they say, don't try to fix it.

Speaking of the pursuit of glamour, Nature continues its policy of hiring science writers to promote and hype papers that have recently been published in its journal [Human genes are multitaskers].

---

Adam, D. and Knight, J. (2002) Journals under pressure: Publish, and be damned... Nature 419: 772-774. [doi:10.1038/419772a]