The editors of a journal that published a highly controversial paper on intelligent design say retraction is off the table, at least for the moment.
The drama involves an article in the September issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, an Elsevier title, titled “Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems.” The authors, Steinar Thorvaldsen, of the University of Tromsø, Norway, and Ola Hössjer, a mathematician at Stockholm University in Sweden, tried to make the case that they saw evidence of a Master Builder in biological systems:
in this paper we argue that biological systems present fine-tuning at different levels, e.g. functional proteins, complex biochemical machines in living cells, and cellular networks. This paper describes molecular fine-tuning, how it can be used in biology, and how it challenges conventional Darwinian thinking. We also discuss the statistical methods underpinning fine-tuning and present a framework for such analysis.
As we reported recently, the journal tried to distance itself from the paper after publication — which critics derided as a-scientific claptrap that managed to sneak past dozing peer reviewers and editors — stating in an editors’ note that:
We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.
But the journal’s definition of unsuitable appears to include “wholly suitable.”
In an email we received this week, Denise Kirschner, Mark Chaplain and Akira Sasaki, who co-edit the journal — and two of whom have sounded the alarm in an unrelated case of shenanigans at the journal — wrote:
At present the journal is not intending to retract the article.
Based on the information we have so far, the content of the paper, the journal’s declaration of interest policy and the COPE criteria for retraction due to failure to disclose a competing interest, retraction does not seem merited.
The focus of the article (applying statistical modelling and inference to molecular systems) is appropriate for the journal, and the article underwent peer-review, with the authors being required to revise the paper twice before publication.
We welcome comments on theoretical issues or on papers published specifically in the Journal of Theoretical Biology as Letters to the Editor, and have already published one such letter concerning the above paper … where the authors provide a criticism of and a rebuttal of the conclusions of Thorvaldsen & Hössjer.
About those COPE guidelines: The triumvirate seems to be interpreting the recommendations in what we’d call a less-than-literal way. According to the group, retraction is warranted if:
The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.
Thorvaldsen failed to disclose his role in a creationism-leaning foundation, which recently received a $1.6 million grant from a wealthy like-minded benefactor.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
What is “creationism-leaning” supposed to mean?
Exactly how is his role in a foundation a competing interest?
Strictly speaking, intelligent design is a philosophical proposition, so I could see why it might be considered inappropriate for a biology journal on that grounds, but it looks like Retraction Watch is presenting a widely expanded definition of “conflicting interest” in a weak attempt at character assassination.
Here is the journal’s policy:
Declaration of interest
All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential competing interests include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
how come they aren’t revealing their atheist faith?? their faith is so fragile it cannot tollerate even one paper supporting theism past their exstensive system of defence. that’s fragile.
Ha!! Good one, Bruce!
ya more a 150 years of atheists publish articles that later prove false supporting their creation myth. It is hilarious that they are still so fragile.
Journal of Theoretical Biology has always been trapped between irrelevance and outright pseudoscience. It’s the Livejournal of academic publishing, opinionated, half-assed, and self-serving. Should have been delisted ages ago.
I have to laugh at this example of something that should be retracted. It’s true that the fellow who did the article has some creationist leaning, but we have more than 150 years of atheists publishing papers on evolution and biology without any disclosure of their prejudice. It has lead to a multitude of retracted peer reviewed articles/papers, but there are more atheist in positions of power so they prevail without disclosing their conflicts of interest. you could write a book about the retracted articles of atheist, but I’m sure that’s already been done. The atheist symstem of faith is so fragile it cannot tolerate one paper objecting to it. LOL
Wait … you mean to tell me that your earlier post was not meant as a joke?!?! OMG (no, I’m not an Atheist) … we ARE doomed!!!
that’s the nice thing about being a atheist you can say your aren’t an no one can tell.
Indeed!
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa40/angeladavis777/internetdog.jpg
Difference is that evolution is based on facts it is supported by data it provides us with means of making predictions. Faith by no means leads to truth . It only leads to confirmation bias.
This journal has IF of 2!? I see