As promised I've been looking into how big the problem is of the DI sneaking BS abstracts into real scientific journals. Fortunately for us, the problem so far is not very extensive. I found a total of 4 citations that can be described as inappropriate additions to the literature through various searches through Thomson and Pubmed (aside from the 2 abstracts we previously discovered Wells snuck into the summer
and winter meetings
). This brings the damage to 6 abstracts/articles.
The remaining 4 are:
Author(s): Wells, J
Title: Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force?
Source: RIVISTA DI BIOLOGIA-BIOLOGY FORUM, 98 (1): 71-95 JAN-APR 2005.
(Note that this abstract is a duplicate of the one he submitted to the ASCB, that's an ethical no-no if you ask me, even if he cites this paper in the abstract)
Author(s): Nelson, PA; Ross, MR
Title: Problems with characterizing the protostome-deuterostome ancestor.
Source: DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, 271 (2): 601-601 254 JUL 15 2004
(*snore* This abstract has never been cited again of course)
Since Darwin's time, the origins and relationships of bilaterian animals have remained unsolved problems in historical biology (Conway Morris, 2000). One of the central difficulties is characterizing the common ancestor of the protostomes and deuterostomes. We argue that an unresolved conceptual puzzle has plagued the many attempts to describe this Urbilaterian, or, in Erwin and Davidson's (2002) terminology, the protostomedeuterostome ancestor (PDA). Any organism sophisticated enough to be a realistic candidate for the PDA, with such characters as an anterior-posterior axis, gut, and sensory organs, must itself have been constructed by a developmental process, or by what we term an ontogenetic network (Nelson and Ross, 2003). But the more biologically plausible the PDA becomes, as a functioning organism within a population of other such organisms, the more it will tend to ''pull'' (in its characters) toward one or another of the known bilaterian groups. As this happens, and the organism loses its descriptive generality, it will cease to be a good candidate Urbilaterian.
Author(s): Wells, J; Nelson, PA
Title: Recovering the classical tradition in comparative embryology.
Source: DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, 247 (2): 18 JUL 15 2002
(A nit-picking abstract suggesting we use the discredited Haeckels embryos to discredit developmental biology even though Haeckel's work
has been discredited for a decade or more and he wasn't a Darwinist but a Lamarckian! Talk about beating a dead (or discredited) horse)
It is an irony of the history of comparative embryology that the flawed diagrams of Ernst Haeckel ever came to be widely adopted in biology textbooks, when historians of science such as Jane Oppenheimer knew that the diagrams were flawed and said as much in their publications. The irony deepens, however, when one considers that in 1894-over a century before the work of Michael Richardson and his colleagues reawakened interest in the problem-the embryologist Adam Sedgwick had warned that
Haeckel's representations were inaccurate at best. We argue that fresh attention should be given to what E. S. Russell in 1916 called the 'classical tradition' of comparative embryology-i.e., to such workers as Sedgwick, W. His, and O. Hertwig-to help redress long-standing imbalances in interpreting and understanding the patterns of developmental biology. There is much to be learned from these workers that is of great relevance today.
Author(s): Wells, J
Title: Second thoughts about peppered moths
(as usual a nit-picking essay on a
discredited example of evolution
maybe not discredited
example of evolution -- thanks Ricardo).
Source: SCIENTIST, 13 (11): 13-13 MAY 24 1999
Every student of biological evolution learns about peppered moths. During the Industrial Revolution, dark ("melanic") forms of this moth, Biston betularia, became much more common than light ("typical") forms, though the proportion of melanics declined after the passage of pollution-control legislation. When experiments in the 1950s pointed to cryptic coloration and differential bird predation as its cause, "industrial melanism" became the classical story of evolution by natural selection. Subsequent research, however, has revealed major flaws in the classical story. It's time to take another look.
So, the DI has succeeded in infiltrating three journals of note, Molecular Biology of the Cell
, Developmental Biology
and the Science-News magazine The Scientist
. Hopefully we can raise awareness of this group's bullshit so scientific journals know better than to propagate their willful ignorance.