To paraphrase Art Linkletter, sometimes science journals print the darndest things.
With some regularity, we come across instances where creationist points of view are published in peer-reviewed journals despite the lack of data or analysis. We also hear complaints from creationists about their inability to persuade peer-reviewed journals to publish their papers. Often these cases are discussed tangentially in other threads, and we see neither the controversy fully unfolded nor its resolution.
I'd like this thread to track those cases as they arise, allowing us to ascertain what facts we can about the circumstances and then to discuss issues of peer review, bias, editorial judgment, etc. I think it would be particularly useful not only to learn about controversial cases but also to track them with updates, and perhaps sift out some common elements.
For our delectation, from the Virology Journal:
"Influenza or not influenza: Analysis of a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time".
Tara C. Smith, an assitant professor of etiology, provides a concise summary in her
Aetiology blog:
quote:
Now, regular readers will know that I normally love this type of thing; digging back through history to look at Lincoln's smallpox; Cholera in Victorian London; potential causes of the Plague of Athens, the origin of syphilis, or whether Yersinia pestis really caused the Black Plague. I've even written a bit about the history of influenza. So analysis of a 2000-year old potential flu case? Bring it on.
But. For Christ's sake (really), *bring the evidence with you.* From the article's abstract:
The Bible describes the case of a woman with high fever cured by our Lord Jesus Christ. Based on the information provided by the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, the diagnosis and the possible etiology of the febrile illness is discussed. Infectious diseases continue to be a threat to humanity, and influenza has been with us since the dawn of human history. If the postulation is indeed correct, the woman with fever in the Bible is among one of the very early description of human influenza disease.
Infectious diseases continue to be a threat to humanity, and influenza has been with us since the dawn of human history. We analysed a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time and discussed possible etiologies.
OK, so they set up their premise. Fine, I'm on board with that, though it's obviously always a bit of a problem when using English translations of the Bible. Still, I'm all about checking out the descriptions, which include a high fever, being bed-ridden, and, oh yeah, that Jesus cured her, upon which time she "rose up and ministered unto them."
That's the extent of the information.
From this, the authors conclude that the fever must have been influenza. Their rationale? Well, they exclude bacterial septicemia because "the fever retreated instantaneously. This implies that the disease was probably not a severe acute bacterial infection (such as septicemia) or subacute endocarditis that would not resolved [sic] instantaneously."
Seriously. I'm not even sure what to do with this. From the wording of the abstract, it very much appears that the authors are Christians--so are they saying that Jesus could not have miraculously cured a bacterial infection, but he could have done so for flu? Or that the flu, on its own, resolved the instant Jesus stood over/touched the ill woman, without any divine intervention?
In the comment section at Prof. Smith's blog, Virology Journal's editor-in-chief responds:
quote:
As Editor-in-Chief of Virology Journal I wish to apologize for the publication of the article entitled ''Influenza or not influenza: Analysis of a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time, which clearly does not provide the type of robust supporting data required for a case report and does not meet the high standards expected of a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Virology Journal has always operated an exceptionally high standard of thorough peer review; this article has clearly not met these thresholds for balance and supporting data and as such, the article will be retracted. I should like to apologize for any confusion or concern that this article may have caused among our readership, or more widely.
Whilst only ever intended as an opinion piece and also a bit of relief from the ‘normal’ business of the journal, the speculations contained within this article clearly would be better expressed outside the confines of a peer-reviewed journal. Biomed Central does not support any views outlined in this article.
Posted by: Robert F. Garry, PhD
So was this a case of a casual "bit of relief" being taken too seriously by its detractors?
Should peer review (apparently it was recommended by 2 of 2 reviewers at this BioMed journal) have prevented publication?
Were the authors naively engaging in a bit of historical speculation (Did arsenic kill Napoleon?) and science guys are overreacting--or were they sneaking the creationist camel's nose into the scientific tent?
I'd say either
Creation/Evolution in the News or
Is It Science?
NB: I follow her blog, and you should, too.
Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James
™ Version 4.2