|
Author
|
Topic: Frank J. Tipler: Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 01. July 2003 07:02
Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
by Frank J. Tipler
Abstract- The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a "peer" reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus's heliocentric system, Galileo's mechanics, Newton's grand synthesis -- these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors' friends. Even Darwin never submitted his idea of evolution driven by natural selection to a journal to be judged by "impartial" referees. Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin's friends. And Darwin's article was completely ignored. Instead, Darwin made his ideas known to his peers and to the world at large through a popular book: On the Origin of Species. I shall argue that prior to the Second World War the refereeing process, even where it existed, had very little effect on the publication of novel ideas, at least in the field of physics. But in the last several decades, many outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas -- the very ideas that brought them fame -- were rejected by the refereed journals. Thus, prior to the Second World War, the refereeing process worked primarily to eliminate crackpot papers. Today, the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. I shall offer evidence that "peer" review is NOT peer review: the referee is quite often not as intellectually able as the author whose work he judges. We have pygmies standing in judgment on giants. I shall offer suggestions on ways to correct this problem, which, if continued, may seriously impede, if not stop, the advance of science.
To read the entire paper, click here.
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 01. July 2003 16:51
quote:
In actuality, at the most fundamental level, random mutations did not, and could not, occur. The reason, wrote Darwin, is simple. At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics govern everything, and the laws of physics are deterministic. Therefore, at the most fundamental level, there are no random events. The cosmic ray that causes a particular superior mutation in the genes was not a random, undetermined event but was determined by the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. If we knew the ultimate laws of physics and knew the initial conditions of the universe, we could predict which mutations would occur and when they would occur. We would be able to predict the entire future course of biological history.
....
As a physicist, I am aware that quantum mechanics, the central theory of modern physics, is even more deterministic that was the classical mechanics of which Darwin was aware. More than this, quantum mechanics is actually teleological, though physicists don’t use this loaded word (we call it “unitarity” instead of “teleology”). That is, quantum mechanics says that it is completely correct to say that the universe’s evolution is determined not by how it started in the Big Bang, but by the final state of the universe. Every stage of universal history, including every stage of biological and human history, is determined by the ultimate goal of the universe. And if I am correct that the universal final state is indeed God, then every stage of universal history, in particular every mutation that has ever occurred, or ever will occur in any living being, is determined by the action of God. In other words, if the laws of modern physics are correct, then Darwin has actually given the strongest argument for Asa Gray Darwinism. Charles Darwin was actually an Intelligent Design Creationist!
Apart from the naivete of the assumption that "random" mutation has the same meaning of "acausal" mutation (but we can't expect any physicist to be a valid referee for biological concepts, after all), I thought this passage was rather interesting.
The fully deterministic, pre-programmed universe that Tipler espouses would seem to deny such a basic Judeo-Christian tenet as Free Will. After all, if "the laws of physics govern everything, and the laws of physics are deterministic", they also apply to our neurons, our actions and ultimately our thoughts. If not, I could voluntarily shield my gonads from cosmic rays, prevent the occurrence of mutations in my gametes, and change the course of the Universe as programmed ab initio by God (how's that for hubris! ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ). Thus, the Universe would end up in "a state outside of space and time ... identified with the Judeo-Christian God", but through an actual history running contrary to what such tradition tells us about the relationship between God and ourselves. What a paradox...
Basically, this would give new meaning to Dawkins' "lumbering robots" image. Maybe Darwin was indeed an ID Creationist, and Frank Tipler is in fact a Dawkinsian! Talk about parallel universes... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 01. July 2003 17:43
Frank J. Tipler informs us that:
quote:
"More than this, quantum mechanics is actually teleological, though physicists don’t use this loaded word (we call it “unitarity” instead of “teleology”). That is, quantum mechanics says that it is completely correct to say that the universe’s evolution is determined not by how it started in the Big Bang, but by the final state of the universe. Every stage of universal history, including every stage of biological and human history, is determined by the ultimate goal of the universe."
That's a pretty misleading description. Unitarity means that the time evolution of quantum states is described by a linear operator whose inverse is equal to its adjoint operator. The fact that the time evolution operator has an inverse means that:
(i) If the exact QM state is known at any time, we can in principle use the time evolution operator to calculate the exact QM state at any other time of our choice.
(ii) A special case of (i) is that if we know the QM state at some time in the distant future, we can use the inverse time evolution operator to calculate the exact state at any prior time.
(iii) Another special case of (i) is that if we know the QM state at some time in the distant past, we can use the time evolution operator to calculate the exact state at any later time (including the distant future).
Tipler mentions only the special case (ii) and invites us to (incorrectly) conclude that the mere fact of QM being unitary implies some special, asymmetrical relation between the future and the past. An additional problem with Tipler's description is that QM does not imply that a "final state" of the universe exists. Standard QM is quite consistent with a state that evolves indefinitely.
Erik
IP: Logged
|
|
Arm
Member
Member # 153
|
posted 01. July 2003 19:23
charlie d. and erik,
Could we stay on topic here? This thread is about the nature of the peer-review process: whether it tends to insure high quality (as constantly assumed by many here) or to enforce a stagnant orthodoxy. Although the argument could be taken to an extreme, I tend to agree with prof. Tipler on this one. There have been many "peer-reviewed" journals I've read touching several different areas discussed in iscid that amounted to nothing but peer "rubber-stamping." "Peer-reviewed" journals are usually not the place for introducing novel, progressive ideas in science, because new ideas are almost by definition not as thoroughly tested as the established view and because the "objective" reviewers themselves tend to be loyal supporters of the establishment--reflexively suspicious and closed to any radically new ideas, oftentimes reflexively and unreasonably hostile to the adherents of these new ideas, and reflexively lenient with studies/papers which support the established view. So, labelling works outside of the peer-review process as automatically lacking intellectual standing actually displays a lack of understanding of the nature of the peer-review process itself. How's that for staying on topic?
[ 01. July 2003, 20:18: Message edited by: Arm ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 01. July 2003 20:34
I thought I was being on topic, performing peer-review of the article - but I guess there are limits to everything. quote:
"Peer-reviewed" journals are usually not the place for introducing novel, progressive ideas in science, because new ideas are almost by definition not as thoroughly tested as the established view and because the "objective" reviewers themselves tend to be loyal supporters of the establishment--reflexively suspicious and closed to any radically new ideas and reflexively lenient with studies/papers which support the established view.
This is actually plain silly. Perhaps Arm would like to provide some actual examples of this claim. Of course, ideas that fly in the face of commonly accepted model have a more difficult road than more "mainstream" ones, but so what? I'd say most good ideas still get published, no matter how unorthodox they are.
Let's look at a few real examples that challenged the paradigm: Margulis' endosymbiontic hypothesis, Alvarez's K-T impact, Benveniste's "water memory", and Cairns "lamarckian" mutations all were very heretic, and yet found their way into the peer-reviewed literature. The first two had little supporting data at the beginning, but entered the scientific consciousness rather easily (and prominently) and within a few years became accepted, the third seemed to be supported by evidence, but was quickly rejected as a canard upon failure of replication, and the latter was based on good data, but the original interpretation lived only for a few years before being better explained by more conventional mechanisms.
Good data, or good testable hypotheses do, in the vast majority of cases, make it into the peer-reviewed literature. However, I'd like to hear from Arm about cases with the opposite outcome. Let's start applying objective standards of evidence from here.
[ 01. July 2003, 20:36: Message edited by: charlie d. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 01. July 2003 21:24
Charlie writes:
quote:
Let's look at a few real examples that challenged the paradigm: Margulis' endosymbiontic hypothesis,....had little supporting data at the beginning, but entered the scientific consciousness rather easily (and prominently) and within a few years became accepted,
Actually this is quite untrue. As one writer describes it,
quote:
It was then that she wrote the most comprehensive account of her ideas: The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. One reviewer wrote "Readers will find this book sprawling, stimulating, irritating and challenging but they will have difficulty ignoring it". In the book she proposed that mitochondria and chloroplasts evolved symbiotically. These ideas were so much at odds with the established point of view that, according to another observer, they "could not be discussed at respectable scientific meetings".
http://cajal.unizar.es/eng/part/Margulis.html
In fact, Lynn Margulis' theory is still quite controversial. All of this supports Tipler's thesis. Of course, eventually, when the evidence becomes too overwhelming, peer reviewers have little choice. Keeping in mind of course that interpretation of data itself is quite subjective.
[ 01. July 2003, 22:13: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 02. July 2003 00:07
I don't have the timeline of Margulis' theory appearance, but if I remember correctly it was first published in brief form in a peer-reviewed journal in the late '60s. Then she got to write a book, that was first rejected (Harvard U. Press?), but accepted from Yale University Press. (I know the peer-review standards of books are less stringent than for many papers, especially in top journals, but that was Margulis' chosen format)
Unless now the demand is not only that any new controversial idea should be published without peer-review, but that it should also be immediately and enthusiastically embraced by the scientific community after publication, regardless of supporting evidence...
But again, I'd like to hear of some seminal idea that was repeatedly rejected at peer-review, made it out only in some non peer-reviewed format (or not at all), and was later found to be correct. There apparently are several of these examples, or we wouldn't be hearing all these complaints. Then we can actually figure out what went wrong in those specific cases, and try to understand what the general problems with the peer-review system may be. Otherwise, we're talking about nothing at all.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 02. July 2003 00:19
Actually when it was first proposed in the 20s it was completely rejected. And when Margulis first proposed it in a book, not a peer reviewed paper, it was fiercely resisted.
The problem with peer review is well known and Tipler isn't the only one to see it. As I documented in another thread,
quote:
Cochrane Review finds little evidence that peer-review ensures quality of biomedical research
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030128/05/
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 02. July 2003 01:03
Tipler writes an excellent essay that helps us understand the meaning of “peer review.” True peer review does not begin until after a paper is published. The process of getting something published is more like getting permission to get the attention of the scientific community. And such permission comes at the hands of 2-3 anonymous reviewers and editors with vested interests about the reputation of his/her journal.
Since posting on Brainstorms, I have consistently offered only my own views on various topics. Thus, hopefully the moderator will allow me the exception of simply providing various citations that support Tipler’s argument. My own views about this are well known from ARN, so the perspectives of others would seem more fruitful.
quote:
Sociologist Michael J. Mahoney of Pennsylvania State University was one of the first to examine how well the [peer review] process works in evaluating scientific papers. In a landmark study, he sent copies of one paper to 75 reviewers but doctored the results so that in some cases the research appeared to support mainstream theories, while in others it ran against them.
"When the results ran contrary to the reviewer's theoretical beliefs,"
Mahoney reported, "the procedures were berated and the manuscript was
rejected. When the results 'confirmed' the reviewers beliefs, the same
procedures were lauded and the manuscript was recommended for
publication."
Mahoney's findings struck a nerve. Within three months after he presented his results last year at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he said, he "received probably 200 to 300 letters and phone calls from scientists who felt they had been victims of that kind of discrimination."
[snip]
In 1970, biologist Margulis was not only denied funding but subjected to intense scorn by reviewers at the [National Science] Foundation. The theory for which she was denied funding then - that cells evolved through a symbiotic union of primitive organisms - has now become accepted dogma, cited as fact in recent textbooks.
"I was flatly turned down," Margulis said, and the grants officers added "that I should never apply again."
Here
Speaking of Margulis….
quote:
…Enforced home leave permitted uninterrupted thought. This, in turn, stimulated me to document the expanded version of my four-part SET narrative clearly. The story of the origin of cells begun in my 1967 paper sprouted, expanded, and eventually was pruned into a book-length manuscript. I typed late into many nights, determined to make the deadline required by contract. Of course, as a virtual unknown I was given neither advance nor compensation for the many illustrations I commissioned. All help came from home. Finally I completed what I thought was the final draft…I boxed up and then mailed off the heavily illustrated work to the publisher who held the contract: Academic Press in New York City. The receipt of the box was not acknowledged. I waited. I continued to wait, for about five months. One day my box, without explanation, sent by surface book rate, reappeared at my mailbox. Much later I was informed, not even by the editor, that extremely negative peer review had led Academic Press to hold the manuscript for months. From the press finally I received a letter of rejection. No explanation, in fact not even a personal letter signed by the Academic Press editor, accompanied the formal rejection. More than a year later,…the book finally was nicely edited, produced, and published by Yale University Press. Because of commentary and criticism from Max Taylor and other generous colleagues the serial endosymbiosis theory prevailed. Eventually the pain of the Academic Press rejection subsided.
SET attracted experimental contributions by many scientists and graduate students unknown to me throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Molecular biological, genetic, and high-powered microscopic studies all tended to confirm the once radical nineteenth-century idea that the cells of plants and of our animal bodies (as well as those of fungi and all other organisms composed of cells with nuclei) originated through a specific sequence of mergers of different types of bacteria. Joint residence prevails and proliferates. My most current version of SET is shown in figure 2. Today I am amazed to see a watered-down version of SET taught as revealed truth in high school and college texts. I find, to my dismay if not to my surprise, that the exposition is dogmatic, misleading, not logically argued, and often frankly incorrect. Unlike the science itself, SET is now uncritically accepted. So it goes. (pages 29-31)
quote:
Quality is easier to assess than innovation, so it is not surprising that the reviewing process focuses on it. However, the quality control system is harsh when findings depart from the expected. Findings that are different could be due to errors. Thus, reviewers tend to reject papers that provide controversial findings. This has been shown by experimental studies in psychology. For example, Mahoney (1977) showed that controversial findings were rejected because the methodology was poor, while papers with identical methodology that supported conventional beliefs were accepted. It also occurs in medicine: in a survey of 1980 applicants for National Cancer Institute funding, 61% agreed that reviewers were “reluctant to support unorthodox or high-risk research” (Chubin and Hackett 1990, p.66). Gans and Shepherd (1994), in their survey of famous economists, also concluded that the top journals stifle innovative work
The problem is serious for top journals. Due to their role in faculty promotion decisions, the issue of fairness (and the corresponding focus on quality) seems to be taking an ever stronger role. In the interest of fairness, editors may feel compelled to send all submitted papers for review. As the top journals in marketing receive so many papers, editors can afford to use fair rules such as “papers with all favorable reviews will be published” and “papers with all negative reviews will be rejected.” Such rules would be detrimental to innovation. In a survey of the editors of 20 leading American Psychological Association journals, Armstrong and Hubbard (1991) found that papers with controversial findings were harshly reviewed. For the 2-year period covered by the survey, only one paper with controversial findings received favorable reviews from all reviewers. (In this case the editor said that he was determined to publish the paper, so he sought out referees who would provide favorable reviews.) This represents one favorably reviewed paper with controversial findings for 40 journal years. Furthermore, Kupfersmid and Wonderly’s (1994, p.56) summary of the literature led them to conclude that papers with mixed reviews have a low probability of being published.
[URL=http://www-marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/forecast/paperpdf/Quality%20Control%20versus%20Innovation.pdf] Here
quote:
Despite its widespread use and costs, little hard evidence exists that peer review improves the quality of published biomedical research, concludes a systematic review from the international Cochrane Collaboration….. Published last week, the review is the third in a series from the Cochrane Collaboration Methods Group. The other reviews look at the grant application process and technical editing. Only the latter escapes a drubbing, with the reviewers concluding that technical editing does improve the readability, accuracy, and overall quality of published research.
Here
quote:
Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous -- especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally--by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors.
Here
And here’s some advise for dissenters:
quote:
Those who challenge conventional views or vested interests in science are likely to encounter difficulties. A scientific dissenter should first of all realize that science is a system of power as well as knowledge, in which interest groups play a key role and insiders have an extra advantage. Dissenters are likely to be ignored or dismissed. If they gain some recognition or outside support, they may be attacked. In the face of such obstacles, there are several strategies, including mimicking science, aiming at lower status outlets, enlisting patrons, seeking a different audience, exposing suppression of dissent, and building a social movement.
Here
[ 02. July 2003, 01:46: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 02. July 2003 01:11
FYI,
There was a whole issue in "Behavioural and Brain Sciences" devoted to problems with the peer review process just mentioned and I think "Statistical Science" had one as well.
Ideological control in the sciences and humanities is very much alive and well. Universities do not generate nearly enough funds to support themselves from tuition money alone. They're parasitic institutions that need to be supported from the outside, and that means they're dependent on wealthy alumni, on corporations, and on the government, which are groups with the same basic interests. As long as the universities serve those interests, they'll be funded. If they ever stop serving those interests, they'll start to get in trouble.
This is not to say that no meaningful work takes place in the schools, or that they only exist to provide manpower for the corporate system. But the basic institutional role and function of the schools, and why they're supported, is to provide an ideological service: there's a real selection for obedience and conformity.
The fate of an honest intellectual can be quite grim. Remember the case of Norman Finkelstein when he exposed Joan Peters book "From Time Immemorial" as a hoax. That book proported to show that Palestinians were all recent immigrants [i.e, to the Jewish-settled areas of former Palestine, during the British mandate years of 1920 to 1948].
This is just a taste and there are whole areas where inquiry is never allowed.
Methods of control can be subtle or quite crude. At the extreme end, there have been repeated university purges in the United States. During the 1950s, for example, the universities were just cleaned out of dissident thought--people were fired on all kinds of grounds, or not allowed to teach things. Then during the late 1960s, the purges began again--and often they were just straight political firings, not even obscured.
Like "in bed" reporters, when scientists indirectly work for the ones controlling the cash (e.g. DOD, Pentagon, food industry, etc), does anyone really think there is no censorship?
[ 02. July 2003, 11:46: Message edited by: Mark Szlazak ]
IP: Logged
|
|
brauer
Member
Member # 398
|
posted 02. July 2003 02:11
Tipler does make some good points. Academic science does have substantial problems that need some fixing.
And everyone in academia has stories about bad reviewers slowing down or blocking publication of good innovative work, or permitting publication of shoddy work.
But I'd take his thesis a lot more seriously if there was any evidence presented that ID research was actually being done. As it stands, we observe a lack of ID papers in the literature. This could be due to a number of causes:
- a corrupt peer review system squelching the publication of ID results
- ID ideas not generating much interest among the general scientific community
- a lack of quality manuscripts entering the pipeline
- a combination of all of these.
Contrary to some claims made here, Margulis' reception in the literature was virtually indistinguishable from that of other evolutionary contoversies such as group selection and punctuated equilibrium. She may have felt it was a hard sell, but the idea picked up quickly, and citations of her 1970 book peaked about 10 years later. (Citations of Eldredge and Gould's 1972 paper on punctuated equilibrium and Wynne-Edwards' 1962 paper on group selection showed similar peaks, about a decade after each paper was published. The citation numbers for each of these three works are comparable.)
As Tipler and Gene have pointed out, Margulis faced strong philosophical objection to her theory. Yet her work persisted, in spite of the early rejections. And, clearly, interest was sparked by her writings. This does not seem to be the case for any currently working ID theorist.
There may be some "censorship" of submitted papers. The scientific community might not find the idea of ID as compelling as Tipler and others do.
But one should also examine the possibility that quality work in ID is simply lacking. Consider: the most prominent biologically trained proponents of ID (Wells and Behe) have never published scientific works on ID, and it is not clear if they are actually engaged in a scientific research program that includes ID. Mike Gene (whoever he is, and I personally trust that he is a real biologist doing real biology) has not seen fit to share any of his research progress, even under cover of anonymity and to a sympathetic audience such as he might find here.
And of the younger generation (Casey Luskin comes to mind) it seems that the advocacy aspects of ID (and a law degree) might be more interesting than finishing up the Ph.D. and doing real research.
So yeah, there are problems with peer review. There are problems with big academic science. But to claim that science is worse off now than before the institution of the peer review system is unfounded. (Not all of those genomics papers are by "pygmies"!)
Tipler needs to do a better job of showing that, even without the travails of peer review, there would be something to an ID science. Otherwise his radical "fixes" to the system of modern scientific practice are unwarranted.
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 02. July 2003 07:16
It was mentioned obliquely in the Margulis quote that Mike posted, but Nelson is incorrect about Margulis' book preceding her article.
Her version of symbiosis was introduced (AFAIK) in this 1967 article in the (note, peer-reviewed) Journal of Theoretical Biology:
quote:
J Theor Biol. 1967 Mar;14(3):255-74.
On the origin of mitosing cells
Sagan L.
Department of Biology, Boston University, Massachusetts, USA.
A theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells ("higher" cells which divide by classical mitosis) is presented. By hypothesis, three fundamental organelles: the mitochondria, the photosynthetic plastids and the (9+2) basal bodies of flagella were themselves once free-living (prokaryotic) cells. The evolution of photosynthesis under the anaerobic conditions of the early atmosphere to form anaerobic bacteria, photosynthetic bacteria and eventually blue-green algae (and protoplastids) is described. The subsequent evolution of aerobic metabolism in prokaryotes to form aerobic bacteria (protoflagella and protomitochondria) presumably occurred during the transition to the oxidizing atmosphere. Classical mitosis evolved in protozoan-type cells millions of years after the evolution of photosynthesis. A plausible scheme for the origin of classical mitosis in primitive amoeboflagellates is presented. During the course of the evolution of mitosis, photosynthetic plastids (themselves derived from prokaryotes) were symbiotically acquired by some of these protozoans to form the eukaryotic algae and the green plants. The cytological, biochemical and paleontological evidence for this theory is presented, along with suggestions for further possible experimental verification. The implications of this scheme for the systematics of the lower organisms is discussed.
Publication Types:
Classical Article
PMID: 11541392 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(she was married to Carl Sagan at the time, thus the author is listed as Lynn Sagan)
So, getting the article into the peer-reviewed literature was not, apparently, the problem for Lynn Margulis. Based on MG's quote, getting the book published was a bigger problem, but then this is a bigger deal and Margulis' book is not exactly destined for the best-seller list (and still her book was published in pretty short order anyhow).
An issue different from "getting published" is "getting everyone to believe your brilliant idea". IMO it seems that mere disagreement sometimes gets inappropriately cast as discrimination. Margulis, to be sure, eventually won over the scientific community to the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, but there are a great many things she was/is quite wrong about, many of which she attempted to attach to the core idea chloroplast/mitochondria origins: e.g., her symbiotic theory for the origin of cilia from spirochetes was never very likely and has gotten less and less so over the years, yet she maintains it vehemently; she similarly seems to try to attribute almost everything of important in evolution to symbiosis, including, bizarrely, speciation.
While we're trading Margulis quotes:
quote:
One major, contentious issue remains: how did the swimming appendages, the cilia, originate? Here is where most scientists part company with me. They agree with Max Taylor's description of my version of symbiotic theory as "extreme SET." Taylor and his collegue, Tom Cavalier-Smith, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver favor a nonsymbiotic, "branching" theory of the origin of the earliest nucleated cels. Theirs is still the prevalent hypothesis. But evidence exists that an enigmatic second bacterial partner joined the ancient alliance. The first merger, the permanent fusion of the first and second partners, was crucial. It happened. Even if the legacy of the first merger is obscure and difficult to detect today, it left clues, and we seek these clues. My hypothesis that the swimmer, another different microbe, was symbiotically acquired in the very first, most ancient step in the origin of nucleated cells is the least defensible component of the idea. This first merger occurred perhaps 2,000 million years ago. The key idea (step 2) of SET is that cilia, sperm tails, sensory protrusions, and many other appendages of nucleated cells arose in the original fusion of the archaebacterium with the swimming bacterium. I predict that within a decade we will win this argument: eventually we will be four for four! I explain why I hold this unpopular opinion in this chapter and give you an idea of why I spend my life collecting evidence from all dusty corners of biology. Some colleagues label me combatative; others, unfair. Some say I only collect relevant work and unfairly ignore contradictory data. These accusations may be correct.
(The Symbiotic Planet, 1998, p. 39)
She basically admits later on in the chapter that there is essential no evidence for the spirochete hypothesis. And yet, her lab still publishes regularly on it as a search of Pubmed will reveal.
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 02. July 2003 08:16
There are many levels at which an unconventioanl idea can encounter difficulties. Sometimes it is at peer review, especially in top journals, but I would have a hard time thinking of any good theory/hypothesis/finding that did not get published at all in the professional literature.
Quite simply, there are so many journals out there, vying for papers, that it is in fact almost impossible to get rejected by all of them (unfortunately, because sometimes that would be deserved). Of course, when you think you had the best idea since Darwin, you want it published in Science or Nature, but Science and Nature don't only reject unconventional papers because they are unconventional (although occasionally they might), but also because they feel that they are not sufficiently supported by evidence (as often is the case with new theories), or don't have broad enough focus or implications, or even, quite frankly, because they don't have a good enough chance to rack up lots of citations in a short time (top journals continuously compete for top impact factor scores, that is the rate of citation of the papers they publish - if they publish "sleepers", their IF, and prestige, suffers in the short term). Journals, especially the top ones, are businesses - and we wouldn't want to dictate to businesses how to run their affairs, do we?
For instance, Pavane at ARN cites the rejection by Nature of Kary Mullis' PCR paper - but that was entirely appropriate and consistent with the journal's editorial philosophy, that being a purely technical, although groundbreaking, report.
Peer review of course ain't perfect, but certainly Tipler's "genius Club" wouldn't be any better. For instance, major speaking engagements at science meetings are based mostly on invitation from top-notch people in the field, and God knows it's always the same people talking about the same things (most deservedly so, but still). The same is true for some kinds of papers published in PNAS, which can get published essentially on the opinion of a NAS member (with minimal external review). In my experience, there is no evidence those papers are any better than those that have to go through the full review process.
Again, there are many examples of truly unconventional ideas getting published all the time (most of them suck, too) - some journals, like JTB, do it on a regular basis. My impression is just that this is sour grapes. I am still waiting for evidence of truly good papers not making it into the published literature.
[ 02. July 2003, 08:21: Message edited by: charlie d. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Atlas
Member
Member # 357
|
posted 02. July 2003 11:21
I guess we need to keep in mind that the peer review process is flawed while we express our respective disgusts of the process--the devil will always be around.
While "genius" papers refuse attention, particularly when unconventional, fraudulent ones make it through. I guess we can remember the cases of Victor Ninov and Hendrik Schon.
And with the zeal to publish the "unconventional" papers in top journals (i.e. Science, Nature, Cell, etc), the story becomes worse in terms of having more refusals. Can't these guys publish in say "Journal of Biology", or Podunk Journal of biochemistry?. Who will lose in the end? Nature! Or the top journal that rejected the "unconventional" article. In the end of all things science will always run after truth no matter how it is constrained. As far as the ideas published are worthy, someday that article will get attention and garner the expected Impact factor, and hence Podunk journal might get some pluses. When this begins to happen reviews wil become more objective, especially in the so-called top-journals. But there is also this notion that reviewers are mostly volunteers in this money-driven world ![[Confused]](confused.gif) . But to get more grant money and other factors, these authors will hold on monolithically to the clause that "groundbreaking papers must, and should be, published in the most prestigious journals".
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 02. July 2003 19:05
Nic writes:
quote:
It was mentioned obliquely in the Margulis quote that Mike posted, but Nelson is incorrect about Margulis' book preceding her article.
Actually, what I said was that Margulis first proposed her theory in her book ( I actualy had no idea she published a paper before her book, although books are perfect for presenting a new theory in it's entirety, you can't really do justice to a proposal from a paper), and when she did she encountered fierce resistance. Mike Gene's quote is quite consistent with this:
quote:
Much later I was informed, not even by the editor, that extremely negative peer review had led Academic Press to hold the manuscript for months. From the press finally I received a letter of rejection.
Peer review was an incessant problem from the begining. Once again, all of this is consistent with Tipler's thesis. The problem, as it is now realized, is that established views become entrenched and getting new ideas across to the scientific community is more like invading a foreign country.
[ 02. July 2003, 23:36: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
