Of Moths and Men
|
|
Missing image
Of_Moths_and_Men.jpg Copy of the cover of the British edition of "Of Moths and Men". It shows a display cabinet with the peppered moth removed. |
Of Moths and Men is a controversial book by the journalist Judith Hooper about the Oxford University ecological genetics school, led by E.B. Ford and specifically about Bernard Kettlewell's experiments on the peppered moth, who she suggests committed scientific fraud. These allegations, however appear to be groundless. The book has been acclaimed by creationists but widely rejected by the scientific community.
| Contents |
Allegations of Fraud
Specifically, Hooper suggests that during Kettlewell's 1955 predation experiment, he artificially increased recapture numbers. Her justification is (1) Kettlewell's mark-release-recapture rates rose, (2) that weather patterns in Birmingham at the time based on records from Birmingham Airport did not change (and therefore, by her reasoning, could not account for the change in recapture rates); and (3) a letter to Kettlewell from E.B. Ford dated 1st July 1953 included the phrase "It is disappointing that the recoveries are not better... ...however, I do not doubt that the results will be very worthwhile...", which Hooper implies made Kettlewell fabricate his results. Also, she appears to have a mistrust of lepidopterists. See also conspiracy theory.
However, the physicist Matt Young (2004) [1] (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm) has shown that the changes in recapture rates are not statistically significant, and has also shown that the changes inversely correlate to levels of moonlight. Further, the dates of the letter and the increase in recapture rates do not match well, with the increase in recapture rates preceding the arrival of the letter. Also because of the unnaturally high release rates in Kettlewell's experiment, local birds may have become satiated and thus predation rates would have fallen. In addition, later experiments would appear to support Kettlewell's conclusions.
Reviews
Reviews in Scientific Journals
Reviews in scientific journals have been extremely critical. Notably;
Coyne in Nature: criticizes her ‘flimsy conspiracy theory’, her theme of ‘ambitious scientists who will ignore the truth for the sake of fame and recognition’, by which ‘she unfairly smears a brilliant naturalist’
Grant in Science:
- ‘What it delivers is a quasi-scientific assessment of the evidence for natural selection in the peppered moth (Biston betularia), much of which is cast in doubt by the author’s relentless suspicion of fraud’.
- Clarke B . The art of innuendo. Heredity (Clarke was a contemporary and member of the Oxford school)
- Coyne J Nature
- Grant B (2002). Sour Grapes of Wrath. Science 297940-941 go to http://faculty.wm.edu/bsgran/ and click on the link
Reviews in the Media
Reviews in the media have been praising. e.g. Gruniad see http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,6121,713294,00.html
| Ecology | Genetics | Evolution | Taxonomy | Predation experiments |
| Researchers: Bernard Kettlewell (The Evolution of Melanism) | Mike Majerus (Melanism: Evolution in Action) | Laurence Cook | Cyril Clarke | Bruce Grant | E.B. Ford | Philip Sheppard J.W. Tutt |
| Alternative theories: Craig Millar | Ted Sargent |
| Creationism: Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution) | Judith Hooper (Of Moths and Men) |
| References |