blog

This is a guest post by F1000 Faculty Member Ferdinando Boero. Dr. Boero’s post is a commentary on a previously published article, Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living, Liu MJ, Xiong CH, Xiong L, Huang XL. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(1):e0146193.

This is a decent paper, but I would not have highlighted it if not for some sentences in it that are unusual in the scientific literature. The article comes from a country that, in the recent past, did not contribute much to some areas of research but that, nowadays, is prominent in the scientific community. The country is China, and the paper has been edited by a presumably Chinese editor working in a US university.

Chinese science is usually very good, so what’s wrong with this paper? There are sentences such as: “The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.” And: “Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.” And: “our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years”.

The word Creator occurs also in Darwin’s Origin of Species: “But many naturalists think that something more is meant by the Natural System; they believe that it reveals the plan of the Creator; but unless it be specified whether order in time or space, or what else is meant by the plan of the Creator, it seems to me that nothing is thus added to our knowledge”.

This simple and direct sentence should have been used by the editor (and the reviewers) to ask for removal of any reference to a Creator in a scientific journal, simply because there is no evidence of the existence of such an entity and its mentioning “adds nothing to our knowledge”.

Readers have commented wildly, and the journal already answered with this sentence: “A number of readers have concerns about sentences in the article that make references to a ‘Creator’. The PLOS ONE editors apologize that this language was not addressed internally or by the Academic Editor during the evaluation of the manuscript. We are looking into the concerns raised about the article with priority and will take steps to correct the published record.” Some editors of the same journal are asking for the head of the editor who handled the article.

I advise you to download this paper, giving it as a must read to your students, to show the risks of mixing science and religion. And how these risks are serious in countries whose scientific reputation is growing fast!

It is also a case that demonstrates once more the prominence of Darwin’s books.
As an editor of a journal I must confess that I have received manuscripts with such sentences, from some countries. So editors must be very careful. On the other hand, in some countries, this might be perceived as a discrimination against scientists with a religious belief. Maybe journals should write explicitly in the instructions to authors that mention of the religious belief of the authors is not acceptable in the submitted papers and will be deleted by the editors, if the scientific standards are sufficient to warrant publication.

PLOS, meanwhile, has retracted the paper, also after a series of nasty comments. But now new comments arrive, against the retraction. One reader wrote: “… The more I study science, the more my faith in God grows! In college chem-lab one day (years ago), while performing an experiment, I blurted out, “God is so awesome!” Oops… the professor locked eyes with me and walked over, I thought I was going to get it! Rather he came to me, leaned over and whispered, “I agree!” So many of us God loving scientists, or science majors are made to hide our beliefs in the “closet”. The removal of this article is an example of just that! It is really sad. I pray for those people, because they are only understanding half the story. Meaning we value Einstein, Edison, Newton, etc… what would science be if we denied fellows from talking about them and their contributions. But, there is even a grater scientist… a marvelous Creator… the one who, fellow scientist strive to understand His workings. Yet we hush any mention of Him. Very sad!”

Hence… the difference between faith and science is still hard to be understood and probably the issue should be clarified in science courses. Probably for most of us the issue is futile (the difference is so obvious), but evidently it is not.

Please also see Dr. Boero’s Recommendation of the Encyclical by Pope Francis at https://f1000pri.me/t7.