Distributed intelligence at work

Like most people, you probably read Proteomics over your breakfast cereal. If so, your eyes surely goggled when you saw the review article "Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence" by M. Warda and J. Han. If you're a Star Wars obsessive, you'll have asked yourself, 'If they're fanboy enough to write an article like this, why can't they spell "midichlorians" properly?' But if you're a scientist, you'll be asking WTF that word 'soul' is doing in a journal about proteomics (or, really, in any scientific journal).

PZ Myers noticed the review and, after the obligatory eye-goggling, wrote about it at Pharyngula. A very odd article altogether, thought PZ. Lots of sound science in the thing, actually; but tucked in among the sciency bits are nodules full of screaming waka-waka.

And here's the waka-wakiest:

[T]he points that show proteomics overlapping between different forms of life are more likely to be interpreted as a reflection of a single common fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator than relying on a single cell that is, in a doubtful way, surprisingly originating all other kinds of life. [Emph. added.]

Now, here's something to induce spontaneous orgasm in intelligent-design creationists. At long last, they can point to a peer-reviewed paper! In a respectable scientific journal! That proposes a creator! A mighty one, even!

Their orgasms are premature. As I learn from the many working scientists in PZ's comments thread, review articles like this, unlike original papers, aren't necessarily peer reviewed (depends on the journal, apparently). But that's the least of their problems.

First, Proteomics has not gone over to the dark side. One of the commenters contacted the journal's editor (a proteomics guy at UCD's Conway Institute), whose reaction was 'WTF? WTFF? Oh Jesus fuck, no!' (or words to that effect). Still, it's hard (though not altogether impossible, as some of PZ's commenters note) to see this as anything but a (quite grave) instance of editorial falling-asleep-at-the-switch.

Then one commenter mentioned, half in jest, Johnson's famous (though possibly apocryphal) judgement of a literary work: it was good and original; but the original parts weren't good, and the good parts weren't original. Johnson's judgement turns out to be remarkably apposite in the case of the Warda and Han review article. One commenter noted a brief passage of text that looked suspiciously like something he had read elsewhere. He compared the two passages, and yes: virtually identical. Within minutes, the many working scientists among the Pharyngula readership were pulling volumes off the electronic shelf and running text comparisons.

And, as it turns out, if you leave out the waka-waka (which the authors do seem to have made up on their own), but for a single paragraph the entire article is cobbled together from other people's (legitimate) work. I gather, from what the scientists write in comments, that plagiarism is grounds for a journal to instantly retract an article (even one that doesn't amble off into mutterings about souls). Doubtless Proteomics (according to the proteomics wonks in the thread, a respectable but not a leading journal in the field) will promptly do the right thing; but I'm afraid they don't come out of this looking good.

For Warda and Han, by contrast, this incident can only be career-enhancing. Tenured positions at Liberty University and lucrative fellowships with the Discovery Institute glitter ahead. Well; Warda appears to be a Muslim, so maybe Liberty isn't in the cards. But Harun Yahya can probably endow a chair for him at the Islamic equivalent.

So, some creationists sneak a paper into a legitimate journal, and what happens? The real scientists shoot it down in flames... in a matter of hours... while off duty... in the comments thread of some guy's weblog. Science, as the scientists like to tell us, is self-correcting. Surely there have been more important instances of self-correction than this; but none more awesomely fun to watch.

Under the circs, I'm quite happy that the ID creationists have finally found the paper they've been longing for. I strongly encourage them to make the maximum possible use of it, and to hold it up to the public as an example of the sound, fruitful science that ID creationism can produce.