With a doffing of the cap to dmsilev at Daily Kos for this wonderful find.

 Andrew Schlafly of Conservapedia didn't like the results of a scientific paper (that he admitted he hadn't read), so he decided to demand the original data from the paper's author, Richard Lenski.

Dr. Lenski's response is so tempered, educational, and elegant, that I recommend reading the whole exchange (archived at Bad Science to guard against the inexplicable phenomena of disappearing entries that show conservative mouthpieces in their true light).

I've excerpted a couple of my favorite bits, though.

Schlafly's initial demand:

Skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claims, and the significance of your claims, that E. Coli bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study. Specifically, we wonder about the data supporting your claim that one of your colonies of E. Coli developed the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E. Coli, at around 31,500 generations. In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000.

I will post your reply, or lack of reply, on www.conservapedia.com . Thank you. Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D. Conservapedia

Shorter Schlafly: Don't make me hit you with my AWESOME website. It has double seekrit NINJA powers.

Dr. Lenski's first response:

I suggest you might want to read our paper itself, which is available for download at most university libraries and is also posted as publication #180 on my website.

Lenski proceeds to give summarized responses to Schlafly's points. But really, that opener says it all, doesn't it?

Schlafly's even more petulant response to the idea that he read the paper he's criticizing is:

This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).

Shorter Schlafly: Not only will I not read your paper before I smear you, I'm going to pretend I didn't understand your email, and escalate my demand you turn over the data I can't understand anyway.

It is SO hard to pick a single highlight from Lenski's response to this, that I really hope you all will read the archived exchange, but I'll do my best:

I tried to be polite, civil and respectful in my reply to your first email, despite its rude tone and uninformed content. Given the continued rudeness of your second email, and the willfully ignorant and slanderous content on your website, my second response will be less polite. I expect you to post my response in its entirety; if not, I will make sure that is made publicly available through other channels. I offer this lengthy reply because I am an educator as well as a scientist. It is my sincere hope that some readers might learn something from this exchange, even if you do not. First, it seems that reading might not be your strongest suit given your initial letter, which showed that you had not read our paper, and given subsequent conversations with your followers, in which you wrote that you still had not bothered to read our paper. You wrote: “I did skim Lenski’s paper …” If you have not even read the original paper, how do you have any basis of understanding from which to question, much less criticize, the data that are presented therein?

Shorter Lenski: Okay, jackass, you wanted my attn, you've got it.

If you can't read the paper, have someone read it to you. Slowly.

Next excerpt:

Third, it is apparent to me, and many others who have followed this exchange and your on-line discussions of how to proceed, that you are not acting in good faith in requests for data. From the posted discussion on your web site, it is obvious that you lack any expertise in the relevant fields. Several of your acolytes have pointed this out to you, and that your motives are unclear or questionable at best, but you and your cronies dismissed their concerns as rants and even expelled some of them from posting on your website. [Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter] Several also pointed out that I had very quickly and straightforwardly responded that the methods and data supporting the evolution of the citrate-utilization capacity are already provided in our paper. One poster in your discussions, Aaronp, wrote: “I read Lenski’s paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids. … Lenksi’s paper, while not the most definite I’ve seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely.”

Shorter Lenski: Your readers are smarter than you are. Perhaps you could start by reading them...

Coup de grace:

Before I could send anyone any bacterial strains, in order to comply with good scientific practices I would require evidence of the requesting scientist’s credentials including: (i) affiliation with an appropriate unit in some university or research center with appropriate facilities for storing (-80ºC freezer), handling (incubators, etc.), and disposing of bacteria (autoclave); and (ii) some evidence, such as peer-reviewed publications, that indicate that the receiving scientist knows how to work with bacteria, so that I and my university can be sure we are sending biological materials to someone that knows how to handle them. By the way, our strains are not derived from one of the pathogenic varieties of E. coli that are a frequent cause of food-borne illnesses. However, even non-pathogenic strains may cause problems for those who are immune-compromised or otherwise more vulnerable to infection. Also, my university requires that a Material Transfer Agreement be executed before we can ship any strains. That agreement would not constrain a receiving scientist from publishing his or her results. However, if an incompetent or fraudulent hack (note that I make no reference to any person, as this is strictly a hypothetical scenario, one that I doubt would occur) were to make false or misleading claims about our strains, then I’m confident that some highly qualified scientists would join the fray, examine the strains, and sort out who was right and who was wrong. That’s the way science works.

Shorter Lenski: I wouldn't trust you with my shit eating bacteria. Get some of your own, but remember to wash your hands after.

Andrew Schlafly, pwned.

Brings a tear to me eye in it's beauty.

tags: conservapedia  andrew schlafly  ben goldacre  richard lenski  evolutionary biology  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit