At the beginning of the year, the open access journal PLOS ONE published a study carried out by a team of scientists from Huazhong University (Wuhan, China) in which the biomechanical architecture of human hands was related to their ability to coordinate and perform a great variety of tasks.
The article would surely have gone unnoticed had it not been for the fact that James Mclnerney, an expert in Evolutionary Biology at the University of Manchester, denounced via Twitter that the text suggests that the design of the human hand is directed by a Creator. Indeed, the last part of the Abstract (summary of the content that is always included at the beginning of any article of a scientific nature) reads as follows: “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 ” (The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristics of the tendinous connective architecture between muscles and joints is the Creator’s own design to comfortably perform the multitude of daily tasks).
The controversy was served, and the reactions were immediate thanks to the tremendous virality of social networks. With the hashtags #Creatorgate and #HandofGod , many scientists joined Mclnerney’s complaint and demanded an explanation from PLOS ONE for publishing a supposedly creationist article with little scientific rigor . In turn, old debates were reopened in the media: Is the peer review process that scientific publications are subjected to adequate? Are open access journals like PLOS ONE less rigorous than paid journals?
After the flood of comments, PLOS ONE has retracted and explains in the same link of the article that, after carrying out a thorough re-evaluation of the manuscript, they have confirmed the concern of the readers. The editors admit that the scientific rationale, presentation and language of the text were not adequately addressed during the peer review and consider that it is not a work that can be trusted, as a result of which they are retracting the publication.
Creationism or translation errors?
But the matter does not end here. Speaking to the journal Nature , Cai-Hua Xiong, one of the authors, explained that the controversy had been sparked due to a lack of cultural understanding . Not being native English speakers, the scientists had translated “Creator” from a Chinese term that refers to “nature guided by natural processes such as selection .” In other words, a concept that could not be further from creationism.
Many scientists, after reading the text, have also highlighted that the methodology and the interpretation of the results are impeccable and that the researchers, in fact, explicitly refer to evolution and the real time scale in which it takes place . In other words, the editors of PLOS ONE should have made a much more rigorous correction of the language used, since obviously it is not conceivable that a scientific publication refers to a “Creator” or to “intelligent design” , but the conclusion of the article does not it is not at all that a superior being is responsible for the amazing coordination capacity of the human hand, if not that its authors describe how its structural characteristics are related to the ability to perform a great variety of tasks.
While some applaud the magazine’s decision to withdraw the controversial work, others warn that it may have been irresponsible and hasty, since this type of retraction can ruin the scientific career of the authors , who would only be guilty of a linguistic error. An error that the PLOS ONE editors themselves should have detected.
There have also been criticisms of what many call: “the science of Twitter” : it is clear that the enormous power of transmission of information of social networks democratizes access and participation in knowledge, but science and those who decide on what It is considered valid in it, they must make much more thoughtful decisions and not rush before making a judgment.
You can see the article published in PLOS ONE and the editors’ note at this link.
