Study intelligent design, get thrown out of your lab
by KrauzeCeleste Biever's article in New Scientist contains a sobering story of the dangers of studying intelligent design within academia. Douglas Axe was studying the limits of protein evolution on a grant from the Discovery Institute at a UK lab for protein engineering.
One day the superviser, Alan Fersht, was contacted by another researcher in the lab, who told Fersht about the Discovery Institute's support for intelligent design, and said that Axe should be thrown out. Fortunately, Fersht refused: "I have always been fairly easy-going about people working in the lab. I said I was not going to throw [Axe] out. What he was doing was asking legitimate questions about how a protein folded."
This story provides a nice antidote to claims from critics that any ID-friendly researcher can just get the Discovery Institute to fund his research. To many in academia, taking money from the Discovery Institute means that you're One of Them, and that you will have to rely on the mercy of others to finish your research.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Hi Krauze,
Your headline reads,
But then in the body of your article, it states
The examples you IDists come up with of the horrible persecution you suffer don't exactly match your rhetoric. It will be interesting to see if Axe's research comes up with something more substantial to support IDism than a story of his supervisor defending his research being spun as persecution.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
The examples you IDists come up with of the horrible persecution you suffer don't exactly match your rhetoric.
Throwing someone out because of his views (not the quality of his work) is inexcusable. These types of actions can be career threatening events. I'm afraid the rhetoric is coming from you in using the phrase "horrible persecution." Krauze's account was straightforward.
It will be interesting to see if Axe's research comes up with something more substantial to support IDism than a story of his supervisor defending his research being spun as persecution.
This is a silly remark. The supervisor's defense was not spun as persecution. Why should anyone consider throwing Axe out anyway? That's the question you are spinning away from.
Comment by Bradford — December 14, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Aagcobb,
No scientist should have to worry about getting thrown out on such a ridiculous prejudice, as Krauze says in his blog no scientist should have to "rely on the mercy" of a lax lab director.
By the way isn't it funny how incredulous you were about ID's "secret research", meanwhile all these ID researchers are in the lab studying proteins and such. Doesn't it bother you how wrong you were? It would bother me.
Comment by Guts — December 14, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Hi Bradford,
Krauze's headline said, "Study intelligent design, get thrown out of your lab." Nothing of the sort happened. An accurate headline would have read, "Study intelligent design, be defended by your supervisor for doing legitimate research." Though actually, that wouldn't be accurate, either, because Axe wasn't researching ID, he was researching evolution.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Hi Guts,
Guess what Guts, all scientists have to worry about getting thrown out of the lab if their research doesn't pass muster with the persons controlling the purse strings or the lab time.
I wasn't wrong about anything, was I? I said IDists were doing secret research, and it appears that they might be. Only time will tell what research, if any, the Biologic Institute produces.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Aagcobb,
Axe concluded that most substitutions are destabilizing on the particular protein he was studying, this suggests that proteins aren't these floppy things bouncing around the cell, they are highly informational, and this is relevant to ID, so he was studying both ID and evolution.
Comment by Guts — December 14, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Aagcobb:
Yup, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this issue or with what I said. If you are asking good questions and doing good work, you shouldn't get thrown out of the lab just because the DI is funding you and you want to do ID research. Thats persecution.
Aagcobb:
Aagcobb: "You're right; its possible that IDists are doing vast amounts of secret research they only share amongst themselves, but I find this hard to believe given how avidly they crave scientific respectability and how much propoganda they crank out to the media. "
here
Comment by Guts — December 14, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Guts,
Claim CI001.4
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Whether Axe is studying evolution or ID (or both) is irrelevant. All that matters is that he's doing it with the DI's money. And in academia, that is clearly a no-no, to the degree that some researchers will try to have you thrown out of your lab.
The point of the matter is this: All of those taunts we've heard from ID critics, about how ID-friendly researcher could just get grant money from the DI, have just collapsed. That is the issue at hand. Care to comment on it?
Comment by Krauze — December 14, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Krauze's headline said, "Study intelligent design, get thrown out of your lab." Nothing of the sort happened. An accurate headline would have read, "Study intelligent design, be defended by your supervisor for doing legitimate research." Though actually, that wouldn't be accurate, either, because Axe wasn't researching ID, he was researching evolution.
He was not researching evolution. The historic inferences are based on researching actual biological structures.
Comment by Bradford — December 14, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Hi Guts
Thanks for agreeing that Axe wasn't actually persecuted, since he wasn't thrown out of the lab.
Once again I was not wrong; I said it was possible they were doing secret research, and we don't know if the quantity of research at the Biologic Institute would qualify as "vast".
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Once again I was not wrong; I said it was possible they were doing secret research,
A witty remark.:roll:
Comment by Bradford — December 14, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Hi Krauze,
Sure. If your headline was accurate, you would be right. But the reality is that Axe did get grant money from the DI, he did do research, and he wasn't kicked out of the lab. So how exactly have those taunts collapsed? Second, even if your headline wasn't false, the Biologic Institute now provides a friendly haven where IDists can accept DI grant money without any fear of persecution. So now IDists have no excuse, except cowardice.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Bradford:
Fersht's 1999 defense of Axe was in reference to researchers' ability to use the lab for research funded by exterior sources. And Ferscht admits he did not ask Axe to leave when told the funding came from DI because the research was legitimate.
Axe did leave in 2002 due to a dispute with Fersht over inferences from research results. This had to do with Fersht and three colleagues having to write a retraction to a paper published in Nature claiming to have demonstrated direct functional evolution of enzymes. The claim was erroneous, thus the retraction. Axe wrote:
Fersht wrote it off to ignorance instead, and the two parted ways. Which tells us that no matter what the evidence suggests (or from how many directions of research), those committed to the NDS would rather proclaim their own ignorance than consider that their guiding light might be wrong.
This is nothing new, as biologists have been playing this game for a century and a half. The slant of Biever's article and the associated Editorial in the same issue of New Scientist - It's still about religion - makes it perfectly clear that this publication opposes scientific research seeking to answer certain "legitimate" scientific questions.
This means the objections have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with metaphysics. Conflating the two for the purpose of excluding legitimate lines of scientific inquiry demonstrates that the DDs are actually afraid of what such research may demonstrate. I mean, if they're really so confident of their metaphysic they'd have nothing to fear from science, would they?
Comment by Joy — December 14, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Second, even if your headline wasn't false, the Biologic Institute now provides a friendly haven where IDists can accept DI grant money without any fear of persecution. So now IDists have no excuse, except cowardice.
Aagcobb just lost his excuse about IDers not doing research and he's upset. Bear with him.:cry:
Comment by Bradford — December 14, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Thanks for this information Joy. Your remark is right on target.
Comment by Bradford — December 14, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I'm not upset, Bradford; I'm looking forward to seeing what Axe and company generate in the way of research.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Aagcobb:
Me too. Though I expect the rehashed 'news' and opinion rag that is New Scientist will rail against any journal that dares to publish the research. Tell me… do you expect Science, Nature, and subdisciplinary journals to accept papers from Biologic researchers?
I ask because if that's an unreasonable expectation (judging from the amount of fear and loathing expressed), you may not see what Axe and company generate in the way of research. Despite the fact that the research was generated by legitimate scientists asking legitimate questions using legitimate scientific methodology in a legitimate scientific laboratory.
Would you then fall back on the old canard that ID produces no scientific research?
Given that Fersht did characterize the questions Axe was seeking a scientific answer to as "legitimate," would you consider a coordinated publication ban to be acceptable, or would you consider it to be an unacceptable corruption of science and scientific inquiry?
Comment by Joy — December 14, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Aagcobb,
Irrelevant. The study is relevant to both ID and evolution regardless. You're supposed to be able to change the exterior positions a lot , but he couldn't.
Yes you said that it was possible, but you also said:
But in fact, it was true. Don't you think there are other things you might find hard to believe, but in fact, are true?
Comment by Guts — December 14, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Why do you ID critics consistently misrepresent your opponents? Krauze said nothing about any "horrible persecution." He pointed out the fact that one of Axe's colleagues tried to have Axe kicked out of the lab even though Axe was doing legitimate research. The only reason Axe wasn't banished from the lab is because of the personality of the PI.
Think about the type of environment this is. Someone in the lab felt completely comfortable approaching Fersht in an attempt to kick Axe, a colleague, out of the lab for doing legitimate research only because the research was being funded by the DI. I can understand why you would want to sweep this under the rug and pretend it didn't happen. But if Biever is such a good reporter, why doesn't she tell us who it was that tried to have Axe kicked out of the lab?
Comment by MikeGene — December 14, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Hi Joy,
Axe has been published before, I don't see why he couldn't be published again if he produces good work.
From what little I know about Axe, I think he is a serious scientist with integrity. I think that may be why Weber left the Biologic Institute and Axe disavowed his comments about challenging naturalism; Axe wants to be taken seriously as a scientist, and do real scientific research, and not be viewed as just another DI hack engaged in apologetics.
I agree with Andrea Bottaro's comment:
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Aagcobb:
Thanks to Beiver, that argument is now pretty weak. The New Scientist article is about "warning" the scientific community about the "˜secret agenda' of the Biologic Institute:
Now why are we supposed to believe that the editors/peer reviewers for Science, Nature, and subdisciplinary journals will not be influenced by Beiver's "news?" Because you say so?
Comment by MikeGene — December 14, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Hi Mike,
Yep, only poor, persecuted IDists are forced to work in places with people who wish they weren't there.
The more I listen to other IDists whine about persecution, the more I admire Axe, who just does good scientific research and submits it for publication, and gets published. If anyone is going to turn IDism into a legitimate field of scientific research, its people like Axe, and not the whiners.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
BTW, did anyone else notice that the only person mentioned in the article who actually lost his position was George Weber, and that it was apparently because he disagreed with Axe (Krauze's martyr)? Will anyone post a thread condemning Axe for persecuting poor George Weber for challenging naturalism?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Aagcobb, what do you think about the person who wanted Axe out just because he was funded by the DI? What if he actually was promoted to lab director? What if an ID paper were to come across his desk, what do you think he'll do with it?
Comment by Guts — December 14, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Hi Guts,
Well Guts, I guess IDists better just hide behind pseudonyms and whine about how frightened they are because that guy might be director of the lab they work in. That way, they'll always have an excuse for why IDism is failing. If they're lucky, maybe Axe can single-handedly make IDism respectable, since he's not letting fear stop him from pursuing the research he's interested in.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Aagcobb:
I noticed in your ridiculous rant here you have yet to answer any questions at all and are just trying to change the topic, this is a thread with a particular topic, I know that one day ID will become legitimate science because us scaredy cats will continue to research no matter how many of these guys are out there. Now i think it is despicable that anyone would want to throw someone out just because he is an IDer and not because the questions he's asking are illegitimate. What do you think about that scientist that wanted Axe out simply because of DI funding?
Comment by Guts — December 14, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Hi Guts,
The topic was, "Study intelligent design, get thrown out of your lab." Since no-one other than myself has pointed to a single example of that actually happening to anyone, what is there to discuss? Hypothetical firings that might happen if bad people are in charge? I hereby state that no-one should be fired from any job arbitrarily. Happy? Now why don't you tell me what you think about Axe apparently pushing George Weber out of his position at the Biologic Institute for daring to challenge naturalism.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
The facts surrounding George Weber are ambiguous,but it looks like the reason why he got fired was probably more because he was blurting stuff that wasn't true about the Institute , a blabber mouth, not because he was challenging naturalism.
Quite obvious by your indirect answer that this subject makes you feel uneasy, I'm confident you see our point, you're just being tendentious.
Comment by Guts — December 14, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Your spin supports my hypothesis that you are uncomfortable with this fact. It's not a question of someone wishing Axe wasn't there. It's a question about the environment, where someone feels perfectly comfortable in trying to banish a legitimate scientist from the lab for purely political reasons. You want everyone to ignore this reality. In fact, when Guts asked you a simple question, - "Aagcobb, what do you think about the person who wanted Axe out just because he was funded by the DI?" "“ you evaded it. Clearly, this topic makes you very uncomfortable. Why is that?
I agree with you about Axe. But the "whine about persecution" is just more of your desperate spin that avoids an issue that highlights your magical thinking. So let us all get this straight. An intelligent man such as yourself really believes that an article like Biever's has no effect on other people. Do you have any evidence to back up this faith of yours?
Comment by MikeGene — December 14, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Guts:
I think a lot of people notice that. Here's another question that should bother Aagcobb. The person who tried to get Axe fired is called a "peer reviwer." Does Aagcobb think this person can really objectively peer review something related to ID?
Comment by MikeGene — December 14, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I know I did. And, I was going to post that I did, until you (Mike Gene) telepathically and prophetically read my mind, and posted what you had learned. Aagcobb is clearly avoiding the clear issues, dancing around the fire.
Comment by Douglas — December 14, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Hi Mike,
Just to get this "spin" thing straight, will you admit that Krauze's headline did not accurately reflect the facts as reported in the article (unless, of course, he was referring to George Weber being pushed out of the Biologic Institute by Axe)?
Nope, I can't prove that Biever doesn't use New Scientist articles to transmit secret orders to the members of the EAC. However, I was under the impression that the members of the EAC were already under orders prohibiting them from publishing ID research before Biever's article was published, so what has changed?
All I can offer is my opinion that scientists are not a monolithic block and that Axe has published his research in the past so I don't have any reason to think he can't do so in the future, if he produces publishable work. I don't know who Biever is, so perhaps she has the power to blackball Axe, but so far you haven't given me any reason to think that.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 14, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Aagcobb, quit griping about the headline. It's a common practice to choose a headline that's nice and provocative, dragging readers to the more nuanced article. If this causes you problems, I wouldn't recommend picking up a newspaper.
Comment by Krauze — December 14, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Or Axe's paper for that matter. He called "Extreme functional sensitivity" but it wasn't that extreme. Of course titles are meant to be provocative.
Comment by Guts — December 14, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Aagcobb:
It depends on the point of emphasis. Krauze used a catchy title to draw attention to the behavior on one peer reviewer that you want us to ignore. As Krauze concluded, "This story provides a nice antidote to claims from critics that any ID-friendly researcher can just get the Discovery Institute to fund his research. To many in academia, taking money from the Discovery Institute means that you're One of Them, and that you will have to rely on the mercy of others to finish your research." Did you have a counter-argument? LOL. Of course not.
Here's some advice - one of the reasons we can sniff out the weakness and discomfort associated with your posture is the way you consistently rely on heavy-handed misrepresentations. In other words, you choose to argue only against the straw men that your own imagination can invent. No one said anything about "secret orders," now did they?
So scientists are not a monolithic block when it comes to the issue of ID. Can you provide any evidence of this diversity of opinion or is it just your personal opinion/fantasy?
I see that you desire to ignore the data that would appear to weaken your personal opinion.
And who decides if it is "publishable?" Remember, that publishing the work is serving the agenda of the DI. Can you provide any names of scientists willing to do this? Or are you just fantasizing again?
Once again, you shadow box with the phantoms of your own mind. Obviously, the weakness of your own subjective position forces you to do battle with such phantoms.
Comment by MikeGene — December 14, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
December 14th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Look guys. Aagcobb just lost one of his favorite arguments today and he's taken quite a thrashing here. Of course he has been reduced to "whining" about Krauze's title. His argument/position is exactly that weak.
Aagcobb, what do you think about that scientist that wanted Axe out simply because of DI funding?
Comment by MikeGene — December 14, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Hi Mike,
I don't need a counterargument, Mike. I have facts. The facts are that Axe took DI money, did research, didn't get kicked out of the lab, and did get published.
Yes I can. Axe, Behe, Denton and others have all published in peer-reviewed journals. How did that happen?
How about the scientists who have previously published the work of Axe, Behe, and Denton? Behe and Denton have both published in the 21st Century, long after they became famous IDists; how could the monolithic anti-ID scientific community allow them to publish in peer-reviewed journals?
You don't understand, Mike. From my pov, IDists have lost their favorite excuse for not doing research. If you have a grant proposal for ID research you've always wanted to undertake but didn't for fear of being kicked out of your lab, you can now take DI money and go do your research at the Biologic Institute. If IDism hasn't produced anything 10 years from now, it won't be because IDists didn't have the opportunity to do research.
I already answered that question, Mike. I litigate employment cases, and I don't think anyone should be fired arbitrarily. Axe wasn't, since his supervisor didn't act arbitrarily and capriciously, but instead took into consideration the fact that Axe was doing legitimate research. What do you think about Axe apparently forcing George Weber out of the Biologic Institute for daring to challenge naturalism?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 10:17 am
December 15th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Hi Aagcobb,
So you admit that the DI has contributed to scientific knowledge.
But we're not in a court room trying a case, Aagcobb. As such, you're ignoring other facts that have changed the landscape. It seems clear to many of us that the New Scientist article was a warning to the scientific community about the Biologic Institute and it's "secret agenda." So let's say Axe, now representing the Biologic Institute, submits a paper to peer reviewers who have read the New Scientist article (or the many "Science Blogs" about this). Is it now more likely that these anonymous peer reviewers might be "concerned" about okaying a paper that could support the perceived agenda of DI?
Let me repeat the point you danced around "“ "So let us all get this straight. An intelligent man such as yourself really believes that an article like Biever's has no effect on other people."
Please, no more dancing. Just address the point (and not some straw man version).
We're not in the courtroom, Aagcobb. And no, you did not answer the question. What do you think about that scientist that wanted Axe out simply because of DI funding? Here's some more.
What type of work environment is implied when someone can so comfortably advocate that a colleague be fired because of their perceived associations?
Do you think the scientist who wanted to kick Axe out of the lab is capable of objectively judging ID?
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 11:10 am
December 15th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Hi Mike,
Mike, the Wedge Document revealing the "secret agenda" of the DI became public in 1999. Michael Behe is a Senior Fellow at the CSC. Despite the fact that the DI's secret agenda had been public for years, Michael Behe was able to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Since the data shows that a senior fellow at the CSC, which is linked to the DI with its well-known secret agenda, can publish in peer-reviewed journals, you haven't given me any reason to think that it is now impossible for researchers at the Biologic Institute to publish in peer-reviewed journals.
I think if he ever obtains a supervisory position he should consult an attorney before he fires anyone. Its real easy to say someone ought to be fired when you aren't the one who has to do the firing.
Just about every work environment that has ever existed in human history.
No. So what? If you're looking for an excuse to not even try, Mike, you have to deal with the fact that Axe, Behe, Denton and other IDists have published in peer-reviewed journals, after the secret agenda of the DI became public. The timid don't start revolutions, Mike. If you're waiting until someone guarantees you absolute job security, let me tell you now, it aint gonna happen.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
BTW, Mike, you still haven't told me what you think about Axe apparently pushing George Weber out of the Biologic Institute for daring to challenge naturalism.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Yes, Behe did get a paper published, but according to the critics, it is not an ID paper. Recall that Behe tried to move the ID debate into the literature and then provided documentation of the denials he received. The editors told him to shop somewhere else because Behe's thesis was not advancing the paradigm (their words) they wanted to advance. But that's old news.
Look, I am not saying that "it is now impossible for researchers at the Biologic Institute to publish in peer-reviewed journals." I'm viewing the practice of science in a scientific fashion and asking whether you think Biever's article is likely to have any effect on the peer reviewers. Yes or no?
You are still evading while in lawyer-mode. What do you think about that scientist that wanted Axe out simply because of DI funding?
So you acknowledge that the scientific environment does practice "office politics" with the best of them?
Do you thus think this person should be embargoed from reviewing any manuscripts about ID?
You are missing the point. No one is making any excuses. I am probing this common perception about the objective peer reviewers (since critics make quite a fuss about the need for their approval). Are you willing to acknowledge that the community of peer reviewers is, to put it mildly, strongly biased against ID?
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Aagcobb:
First things first. You'll earn a response when you stop misrepresenting others and deal with the questions that were first put to you. Otherwise, you are just looking for ways to change the topic.
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Hi Mike,
But according to IDists, it is. And I expect, based on his previous work and comments, that Axe will produce similar work at the Biologic Institute.
Obviously, if you're asking if it will have any effect whatsoever, the answer is yes. However, I expect any effect it does have to be negligible, at best, based on the data. If everything that was written about the DI and the Wedge document couldn't prevent the most famous scientist associated with the DI from publishing, how significant can one more article be in comparison?
No evasions, Mike. I told you what I think. He spouted off about his feelings, as people tend to do, especially when they aren't the responsible adults. The responsible adult did his job appropriately; if the other guy is ever in the position of authority, he should act appropriately as well, instead of simply venting his feelings.
Absolutely; scientists are human beings, not Vulcans. Point is, IDists aren't the only ones subject to office politics; everyone has to deal with it.
Not unless its common practice to embargo scientists from reviewing manuscripts which take controversial positions on which they are on record as opposing.
Apparently they aren't biased enough to blackball Behe, Denton and other IDists from publishing. Mike, I suggest you read the book Night Comes to the Cretaceous by James Lawrence Powell. Luis Alvarez challenged the strongly held views of uniformitarians in advocating for a catastrophic explanation for the K/T event. They could not have been more biased against his theory, but he didn't give a damn what they thought, and in the end the evidence convinced most people he was right. Do the research, produce the evidence, and in the end, you will prevail.
Actually, I thought getting kicked out of the lab for supporting ID was the topic. Have I earned an answer yet?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Aagcobb:
So not only are you ignoring the question posed to you and not giving an answer, but you are ignoring answers to your questions.
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I saw your answer, Guts. I wanted Mike's opinion as well.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Aagcobb:
No one is saying that this isn't true (or isn't false, although this a different tune you are singing from the way you compared ID's future with the ICR's current status). The point we are trying to make you see is that there are "science stoppers" out there that want to stop ID research before it even gets off the ground. These may be "gate keepers" like peer reviewers , editors, lab directors, etc.
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Hi Guts,
What I said before is what I expect to happen. But if I'm wrong, and the Biologic Institute can produce evidence to support an ID theory, then IDism could prevail.
And my point is that they haven't stopped Axe, Behe, Denton and other IDists from doing research and publishing.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Aagcobb:
You keep ignoring the part we are actually discussing. In this recipe of ID prevailing , biased peer reviewers, lab directors, editors , etc stand in the way. And articles like the New Scientist one don't help.
Aagcobb:
Once again, you're ignoring arguments, they've stopped Behe three times, Denton didn't explicitely conclude ID, and as you write above, Axe never explicitely argued for Design. An example where ID was explicitely used in a peer reviewed paper ended in a firestorm (Meyer), and here in this thread it is documented that an actual lab scientist attempted to fire an ID researcher for no reason other than that they are funded by the DI.
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Hi Guts,
In case you didn't know, most scientists have work rejected for publication, even if it doesn't challenge the prevailing paradigm. Maybe Behe's other work just wasn't good enough for publication.
And here in this thread its documented that the ID researcher wasn't fired because he was doing legitimate research. Does any of this complaining that someone wanted Axe fired have a point? As I said, if its an excuse for why there is so little ID research, that is now a moot point, since IDists can work at the Biologic Institute free from fear.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Aagcobb:
They didn't say it wasn't good enough they said it wasn't "extending the current paradigm"
Aagcobb:
Yes, it's been explained to you about 500 times.
What do you think about that scientist though, that wanted Axe fired?
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Here is an excerpt from the New Scientist Editorial:
And now, the ID movement has some credibility before the United States Congress. See: The House Government Reform Subcommittee official report on Sternberg Affair
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 15, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
You can see the damage done already by Celeste's piece.
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Salvador,
What a timely blog.
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Now you're ignoring my answers.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
All you did was talk about "office politics" and how he should get a lawyer, and some other bilge about "acting responsibily". I don't see whats so hard about specifically saying:
"I disagree that being a discovery instuitute funded ID researcher is a good reason by itself to get fired from a lab."
Or if you don't feel this way just admit it.
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Done, though I would have thought that was obvious from what I said previously.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Aagcobb:
Still evading in lawyer-mode. First, the emotional scientist did more that spout off. He/she tried to get Axe fired. Second, you seem uncomfortable with expressing your opinion and feelings about that scientist and his intentions. Let's try this for starters. Do you think the emotional scientist was unethical for trying to have Axe fired?
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Mike, I believe I made it very clear that its wrong to fire someone arbitrarily. But besides that, we are also seriously lacking in sufficient facts to come to any conclusions about anyone. For all we know, Axe may have obtained his position at the lab under false pretenses, which would provide ample justification for removal of anyone. And please note that I'm not saying Axe did that, all I'm saying is that not only do we not know all the facts, we don't have anywhere near sufficient information to come to any conclusions about anyone in this situation, except that it appears that Fersht acted appropriately.
Now before you accuse me of evading the question again, I will say that if a hypothetical researcher sought the firing of another researcher solely because he had a research grant from the DI, regardless of the merit of his research, that would be wrong, just as it would be wrong to terminate someone solely for accepting money from the Tobacco Institute, for SDI research, or from a pharmaceutical company. Scientists are capable of doing good research regardless of the motivations of the people they get their money from.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
December 15th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Aagcobb,
Lets continue to telescope.
Here's what happened, and unlike the Weber incident, Celeste and Fersht makes it quite clear what occured:
It seems like now you are agreeing that this person was wrong, he just just doesn't exist or is being misrepresented. Although the facts state otherwise as reported by Celeste.
Lets go one step further then. If it is possible that such people exist, as peer reviewers, lab directors, etc, would this make it more difficult for ID to "prevail"
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 2:43 am
No, any scientist, including those who think IDism is on the right track, would subject the extraordinary claims of IDism to rigorous scrutiny before incorporating it into evolutionary theory. The existence of people who believe that IDism is nothing but a cover for creationism won't change that, just as the existence of uniformitarians didn't change the need of Luis Alvarez to produce evidence to support his catastrophic explanation for the K/T mass extinction.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 16, 2006 @ 2:43 am
December 16th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Aagcobb:
I have no idea why you would answer "no" to that question, in fact it's completely irrational to think that such "gate keepers" would have no effect on the effort of growing ID into a respectable science.
So you think that unethical behavior is justified because ID makes "extraordinary claims" Like someone rejecting a paper submitted to a journal just because it was funded by the DI or concluded ID?
First I'm not talking about the mere existence of people who disagree (I swear if I were to write a book about ID critics I would name it The Memento Effect), I'm talking about the existence of people who live by "ends justifies the means". Secondly, I'm not sure why you keep harping about Luis Alvarez , impact theory was introduced and made it into the journals way before he arrived on the scene, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Comment by Guts — December 16, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
December 16th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
But that wasn't the question. Assuming Biever can accurately quote someone, we have the simple testimony of Ferscht "“ "I said I was not going to throw him out." Thus, some scientist wanted to see Axe thrown out of the lab and he approached Ferscht about this. So what do you think about the scientist who tried to get Ferscht to commit something that was "wrong?"
Getting back to the work environment (and you acknowledgement of office politics in science), why does Ferscht, the supervisor, come across as being a little defensive? Shouldn't he have reprimanded the witch-hunter scientist and explained he doesn't need to provide him any reason for keeping Axe in the lab?
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 3:25 am
Hi Mike, I can see that you are just going to keep asking me the same question over and over again no matter how many times I answer it, and I'll never get a single answer to how you feel about the only incident in the article in which someone was actually removed for supporting ID (Weber).
Because you are reading a lot more into the article than is actually there?
How do you know he didn't? I wouldn't have, because I would want to know whats going on in my lab, and what the people working there are thinking.
How do you know he provided the scientist a reason? All the article says is that Fersht told the scientist that he wouldn't remove him. For all we know, he only told the reporter that Axe was doing legitimate research.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 18, 2006 @ 3:25 am
December 18th, 2006 at 3:32 am
Hi Guts,
I didn't say that.
You didn't say that. Are these hypothetical people going to round up all the IDists and burn all their books and block all their websites? Because otherwise, if there was research evidence for ID sufficient to incorporate it into mainstream evolutionary theory, I don't know how they would be able to suppress it.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 18, 2006 @ 3:32 am
December 18th, 2006 at 7:53 am
This entire thread is mind-boggling - how can so many words be written on an incident about which so little is actually known?
From Biever's article, the entire paragraph in question:
The only description of this individual is written in Biever's words, not Fersht's, so it's impossible to know how accurate Biever's account of the story is. Even if we assume that Biever's description of the event is exactly as described to her by Fersht, what information has been left out? How much don't we know about the status of this individual, his/her relationship to Axe and Fersht, and the precise nature of the "suggestion" that Axe be asked to leave? How can we possibly make any useful statements about the motives and ethical status of this individual without further information?
Yet Mike somehow arrives at the following scenario:
Mike, if you're going to accuse others of being unscientific, of psychologising their opponents and imputing motives based on insufficient data, some cleaning of your own house is in order. We know precisely nothing about how comfortable this person was about making this suggestion to Fersht. We also don't know whether the suggestion was based only on the source of Axe's funding, or whether other (unstated) factors were involved. Finally, we have no real idea about the nature of the "suggestion" - was it simply a query, such as "Hey, this guy failed to declare a potential conflict of interest regarding his funding source - should he be asked to leave?" or was it a vitriolic attack, like "This stupid creationist should be forced out before he contaminates us all with his stupid germs!" - we just don't know, and the fact that we are hearing Biever's account of Fersht's account of the event make it impossible to make even broad conclusions.
Comment by Mesk — December 18, 2006 @ 7:53 am
December 18th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Mesk, I'll accept this rebuke. The thing that caught my attention was Ferscht's statement, "I said I was not going to throw him out." Assuming Biever has accurately quoted, this conveyed a hint of defensiveness/exasperation to me. But you are right in that we need more information and I probably should not trust Biever's competence. I'll retract the "completely comfortable" description, but stick with the belief that there was some effort to have Axe removed from the lab and his DI funding was involved.
BTW, as far as more information goes, I'd be curious to know how it is that Biever learned of this incident in the first place.
Comment by MikeGene — December 18, 2006 @ 9:53 am
December 18th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Hi Mike,
I'll give it one more try. If the article is accurate, I think that the scientist's reaction was a natural response. I would compare it to working at a cancer research facility, and finding out another researcher is being funded by the Tobacco Institute (a disinformation organization with a reputation similar to the DI). So based on the scanty information available in the article, I wouldn't consider what he did unethical. Now will you tell me what you think about Axe apparently pushing Weber out of the Biologic Institute?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 18, 2006 @ 10:22 am
December 18th, 2006 at 10:50 am
This illustrates the problem. There is no controversy about the link between cancer and tobacco useage. The conflict of interest is clear. The perceived reputation if the DI among anti-IDers is well known but there is no consensus here like there is with the tobacco analogy. If you preach the anti-DI message to a sympathetic audience you'll get the reaction you're looking for. From this perspective the comparison fails.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 10:50 am
December 18th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Hi Bradford,
I don't expect you to agree with me, but since you know the reputation of the DI among scientists, you should have no problem understanding the analogy. Like the Tobacco Insitute, the DI is trying to generate controversy where mainstream scientists don't perceive one exists.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 18, 2006 @ 11:42 am
December 18th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I don't expect you to agree with me, but since you know the reputation of the DI among scientists, you should have no problem understanding the analogy.
It is more an ideological fringe that really froths at the mention of DI than the scientific community as a whole.
Like the Tobacco Insitute, the DI is trying to generate controversy where mainstream scientists don't perceive one exists.
DI is attempting to promote their own ideas and in that respect they are identical to other groups doing the same. I'm aware that among those who think like you there may be little or no controversy about the origin of life and other matters as well but the scientific case for origins as perceived by mainstreamers is far from conclusive.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Aagcobb says that "[j]ust about every work environment that has ever existed in human history" is such that fellow employees can "comfortably advocate that a colleague be fired because of their perceived associations."
Please remind me never to go to work for Aagcobb's law firm.
CThomas
Comment by cthomas — December 18, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Yes, this is probably roughly correct.
It's hard to say for sure, but to me it sounds as though it was an anecdote recounted by Fersht, as an opportunity for him to show what a tolerant boss he is ("I have always been fairly easy-going about people working in the lab.")
Comment by Mesk — December 18, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Aagcobb:
Actually thats precisely what I meant.
Aagcobb:
Thats the point of my question. If unethical people like the guy who wanted Axe fired were peer reviewers, editors , or lab directors, would you say that it would make it more difficult for ID to attain respect in the journals, the community in general?
Comment by Guts — December 18, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Hi Guts,
My point is that the amount of evidence required to justify incorporating such an extraordinary hypothesis as IDism into mainstream evolutionary theory is so great that if that evidence was developed no-one would be able to suppress it.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 19, 2006 @ 12:03 am
December 19th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Aagcobb, I see you're not going to answer my question, but I have no idea how you don't see it. If Axe was fired, he wouldn't have been able to do his research. No ID will never be fully suppressed, I agree with you on that. But people will try and in many cases they will be successful.
Comment by Guts — December 19, 2006 @ 12:04 am
December 19th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Guts
But Axe wasn't fired, and he did do his research. And I don't know of any way that anti-IDists can stop research at the Biologic Institute, so its a non-issue. IDists don't have any excuse for not doing research now.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 19, 2006 @ 1:57 am
December 19th, 2006 at 2:01 am
Aagcobb:
Remember that guy that wanted Axe fired? What if somone like him is a reviewer or an editor for one of Axe's submissions? What if an editor read Celeste's article and see's "Biologic" , so he scraps it. This form of suppression is real, and if Celeste is correct, it is yet another documented case.
Comment by Guts — December 19, 2006 @ 2:01 am
December 19th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Hi Guts,
As I have pointed out several times in this thread, Behe and Denton have both published in this century, long after they became famous IDists and the Wedge document became common knowledge, so the evidence that IDists can't publish in peer-reviewed journals isn't there. Plus, the DI can and does publish books. If the Biologic Institute generates the evidence necessary to establish a theory of ID, it isn't going to be possible to suppress that information.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 19, 2006 @ 9:37 am
December 19th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Aagcobb:
Yeah but now you're just ignoring responses and questions again. I've already dealt with your discussion of this. Scroll up.
Comment by Guts — December 19, 2006 @ 3:52 pm