���A follow-up to my link to Scott Lilienfeld's article on the need for replication of scientific claims:
Hype surrounding fossil find Ida has mislead [sic] scores of people http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6884423.ece Fossil hailed as Man's ancestor is 'not even close relative' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6884359.ece >From the "Why Evolution is True" website: The authors [of the "Ida" paper] have supplied an updated Competing Interests statement, which reads as follows: "The authors wish to declare, for the avoidance of any misunderstanding concerning competing interests, that a production company (Atlantic Productions), several television channels (History Channel, BBC1, ZDF, NRK) and a book publisher (Little Brown and co) were involved in discussions regarding this paper in advance of publication… In addition, the Natural History Museum of Oslo purchased the fossil that is examined in this paper, however, this purchase in no way influenced the publication of this paper or the science contained within it, and in no way benefited the individual authors." As the website author notes: "This is a tad disingenuous, since “benefit” to scientists includes far more than money: it includes (or included) all the hype and buzz around the initial description of Ida as a “missing link” — publicity that of course redounds to a scientist’s career." http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/ida-smackdown/ Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
