Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
“Bigwig” ushered “nonsense” paper into top journal, say scientists
13 September 2009
An article claiming caterpillars and butterflies evolved separately has attracted widespread criticism, writes Zoë Corbyn
Butterfly experts have been angered by the appearance in a top journal of a paper they say is bizarre and unsupported by evidence, claiming it was published only because it was ushered in by a “bigwig” in the field.
The paper, by Donald Williamson, a retired academic from the University of Liverpool, was published in advance online late last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).
Its publication was via a special “communication” mechanism understood to be unique to PNAS. This allows national academy members to bypass normal editorial procedures and submit papers that they consider to be of particular importance without the normal peer-review requirements, although they must obtain two referees.
Dr Williamson’s article was communicated by Lynn Margulis, a well-known professor in the department of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
It makes the extraordinary claim that caterpillars and butterflies have different evolutionary histories – that rather than being a single lineage that evolved through two different life stages, they are a hybrid that resulted from the accidental mating of a flying insect with a worm-like species.
But butterfly experts say the idea is unsubstantiated and have called into question the method by which such a seemingly unsupportable theory could end up in one of the world’s most prestigious journals.
In a posting called “Worst paper of the year?” on his blog “Why Evolution Is True”, Jerry Coyne, a professor of biology at the University of Chicago, says the paper’s appearance is an example of a “bigwig” exercising undue influence.
Max Telford, a reader in zoology at University College London, told Times Higher Education that “clearly something has gone wrong”.
“There is no science in it. I don’t think it could possibly have got through on a normal peer-review process,” he said. “It is unique to PNAS that they have got this back-door way of getting things through.”
He added that Professor Margulis was an “incredibly important and highly respected” scientist in evolutionary circles, having come up with the idea, considered dubious at the time but now textbook science, that cell organelles originated as bacteria that were subsequently absorbed by the cell. But extrapolating that thinking to butterflies went too far, he said.
“Maybe there needs to be a forum for off-the-wall ideas, but at the same time, this was not reviewed to the standard that one would expect in PNAS,” he said.
Chris Jiggins, who leads the Butterfly Genetics Group at the University of Cambridge, also rubbished the paper and labelled the PNAS system “quite nepotistic”.
“I think it’s nonsense – there is no data in the paper. It claims to use molecular biology evidence in the abstract, but there isn’t actually anything in there,” he said.
Professor Margulis did not respond to a request from Times Higher Education to comment.
Dr Williamson described Professor Margulis as a “good friend” who had been an “enthusiastic supporter” of his hypothesis over the years.
Saying that he had been studying larvae “considerably longer” than any of his detractors, he challenged the sceptics to refute the hypothesis by DNA analysis. He did note, however, that the paper in question, “Caterpillars evolved from onychophorans by hybridogenesis”, had been rejected by seven journals before being published in PNAS.
Meanwhile, in a September editorial, PNAS announced plans to scrap the communication submission process from June next year.
zoe.corbyn@tsleducation.com
Readers' comments
A "top journal" is only "top" by consensus of the scientific community, so journals are (at least in theory) accountable in the court of scientific opinion. It will be interesting to see if this "court" is really capable exercising its authority in the natural way: by leading researchers immediately downgrading their estimation of PNAS and ceasing to submit quality research to it.
Imagine having to assess the merits of a work on something other than the authority of a view hand-picked stalwarts of any particular field.
It would be nice to know if Zoe Corbyn asked PNAS if their decision to end the communication submission process was in any way related to the paper in question. Including that "meanwhile" tidbit at the end of the article above at least mildly implies that that is so, which in turn impugns Margulis to a greater degree than if there is no connection.
I don't see why Dr Williamson's hypothesis can be ruled out. The problems here are that the abstract of the paper is written terribly, that he and others talk about the stupid Darwin and the stupid research on genes and proteins, instead of trying to obtain hybrids between some particular species that exist today. The techniques are available that possibly can produce hybrids which are impossible to obtain by pure love. Then, some of these hybrids might show the patterns of individual development including the stages having widely different shapes. I don't know why this is not being done.
The rare appearnace of an eccentric paper in PNAS will do nothing to downgrade that distinguished journal. It has survived this sort of thing in the past. Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling wrote in PNAS some over-the-top claims for Vitamin C when he was on that kick, despite the lack of much evidence. I say this with some confidence. I am not only the author or editor of 10 books but over 150 papers in science librarianship ( and science librarians actually account for for most of the subscriptions and subscription dollars, to serious scientific and clinical journals worldwide, rather than do individual scientists in most cases) and in addition was the Editor-in-Chief of a poll of biomedical and life scinces librarians held in conjunction with the 100th anniversary of the Special Libraries Association in Washington DC. this past June. These subject expert librarians voted PNAS as one of the top 10 most influential journals of the past 100 years, and deservedly so. In the general science category, it was surpassed only by Nature and Science, worthy company indeed.
@Tony Stankus -- the paper was not merely 'eccentric', it was bogus. Rejected by seven other journals, lacking data, etc. This was a favour by a friend, an abuse of status and position. Sure, PNAS will survive -- but only because it recognizes that things have to change so that it can't be embarrassed by dodgy papers like this in the future. Oh and by the way -- why did we need to know about your own publications here?
Surely this is not the forum to evaluate Williamson's theory. Presumably it will be given the attention it is due and tested the way all theories are. If the theory was developed in contradiction to published data, then the only reputation that will be harmed is Williamson's. If no known data can be used to reject the theory but it is ultimately falsified, then its worth can be judged by the research it stimulated. On the other hand, if the theory holds up it would be a vary interesting story....
Actually, the forum to evaluate Williamson's theory was -- peer reviewers, per the normal publication process. Again, seven journals rejected it -- seven instances of peer review. Only via a dodgy process did it succeed in getting space in a top journal, space for which there is keen demand from people doing things the normal way.
I want to defend just the principle - patronage - that is being here under attack. First, of course, the greatest art was created under the patronage, both in Europe and in Moslem world. Second, in a scientific journal, such as PNAS, submission by the Member of the Academy can offer a chance to someone who was rejected by bureaucratic process elsewhere. And, I don't need to go deeper into the biasses of peer review. As far as I know, another journal, Phys. Rev. Archive, also publishes "instant" papers requiring only a general recommendation for the particular author. There is nothing wrong with this principle of recommendation and patronage. Especially, considering the fact that crooks have found thousands of ways to use "democracy" (in every area of human endeavour), in their own corrupt interests.
This is a good reason for creationists attacks! When a "Top Journal" do things like that!