The Inquisition Strikes Again

Karl Aspelin’s painting of Martin Luther burning the papal bull that excommunicated him from the Roman Catholic Church.

There are times when modern scientists act like members of the Inquisition. Such situations can result in people getting removed from their positions in the scientific community, courses being shut down, scientists being fired, or papers being retracted. (see here, here, here, here, and here). Unfortunately, it has happened again, resulting in another scientific paper being retracted.

The paper, Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living, discussed the results of an experiment that tried to figure out the functional link between the architecture of the hand and its coordination. In the experiment, 30 individuals (15 men and 15 women) with apparently healthy hands were given a glove to wear while performing several mundane tasks. The glove measured the angles of the joints in the hand throughout the time each task was being performed. This allowed the researchers to then determine the degree to which the movements of the hand joints were coordinated.

The researchers found that while some joints (particularly those of the thumb) did move independently of the others, there was an enormous amount of coordination between the joints. The authors note:

This suggests that there is no need for the human hand to control each joint independently. If there was not such biomechanical architecture, such as the separated connection of each articular from a single muscle, it would significantly increase the computational burden of the [central nervous system] to make up for the loss of the biomechanical architecture.

In other words, the joints of the hand are coordinated so that the brain doesn’t have to concentrate on controlling each joint independently when the hand is grasping objects.

Why was this scientific paper retracted? Was there a serious methodological error in the experiment? Was the data analysis incorrect? Did the authors commit some sort of fraud? No. It was retracted because the authors dared to do something that scientists have done throughout the vast majority of human history: They dared to mention the Creator in their scientific work!

The authors commit this terrible act a total of three times. Here are the sentences that contain the scandalous reference:

In conclusion, 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.

Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.

In conclusion, 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.

Horrifying, isn’t it? Well, some people thought so. Indeed, that is the title of one of the comments attached to the article! In fact, the journal (PLoS One) received so many complaints about this horrifying situation that they retracted the entire paper!

Interestingly enough, one of the authors posted in the comments section of the article, indicating that the entire brouhaha is the result of a cultural misunderstanding. The author states that no one from the team is a native English speaker, and they thought the term “Creator” referred to nature. So, in fact, they were saying that the design seen in the human hand was the result of the work of nature, i.e., evolution.

Given the fact that the authors used perfect English to describe their experiment and results, does it make sense that they didn’t really understand what the word “Creator” meant? From my personal experience, I would say that it does. My Ph.D. advisor was German, as were some of the scientists with whom I worked as a graduate student. Since I took German in high school and university, I tried to talk with them in German whenever I could. We could discuss details of nuclear chemistry and physics without any problems, but when I would try to say something as simple as “Have a good time,” they would chuckle, because what I thought was perfectly good German for that phrase (Haben Sie eine gut zeit – a direct translation from the English) meant absolutely nothing to them! Thus, it is very possible that this was simply a translation error on the part of the authors.

So once the horrifying sentences were pointed out, why didn’t the editors simply make a few changes, getting rid of the words “design” and “Creator” or replacing “Creator” with with “evolution?” Because of their fear of the Inquisition. When the High Priests of Science suspect you of heresy in word, heresy in thought, or heresy in deed, you have to scramble to show them that you aren’t a heretic. Otherwise, you will be excommunicated from the fold. While retraction shouldn’t have happened (there is nothing wrong with the data or the analysis as far as I can see), it had to happen, for the sake of the journal’s reputation.

It is terribly sad that modern science has sunk to such a level.