Someone recounts my botfly tale: Is this plagiarism?

May 2, 2016 • 9:34 am

Someone called my attention to a new piece on Nautilus, “Parasites are us: how biological invaders challenge our notion of self and others” by Robert Levine, who’s identified this way:

Robert V. Levine is a professor of psychology at California State University, Fresno and former president of the Western Psychological Association. His previous books include 
A Geography of Time and The Power of Persuasion: How We’re Bought and Sold.

And the article is described this way:

An excerpt from the book Stranger in the Mirror: The Scientific Search for the Self © 2016 by Robert V. Levine, published by Princeton University Press on May 10, 2016.

I was at first chuffed, as Levine’s piece starts out with a longish description of my experience with a botfly larva injected by a mosquito into my head when I was a graduate student doing a summer course in Costa Rica. This story has been recounted in the book Tropical Nature (Forsyth and Miyata 1984)as well as on RadioLab in a piece by Robert Krulwich (see below). Levine’s piece then segues into a nice discussion of how parasites become part of the body of afflicted individuals.

But as I read the piece, and saw the numerous quotations, I became upset, for Levine not only misrepresents quotes as being given to him when they weren’t, but also seems to copy wording from Tropical Nature. 

First, although Levine gives the impression that most of my words that he quotes come from his own interview with me, they’re actually taken, word for word and without attribution, from an interview I did some years ago with Robert Krulwich for RadioLab. That interview,  “Yellow Fluff and Other Curious Encounters” is available on the RadioLab website, and goes from 45:19 extends to 55:45. Here’s an excerpt from Levine’s piece:

The most common treatment where Coyne was living was known as the “meat cure.” He was told to strap a slab of meat—a steak, maybe—to his head. This cuts off the maggot’s air supply, and the maggot, thinking the steak is part of Coyne’s flesh, burrows into it searching for air. Once the maggot gets far enough, he would just have to pull off the steak with the worm in it. It made sense, but Coyne respectfully declined. “The idea of toiling in the tropical heat every day with a T-bone strapped to my head was not something that I wanted to do.”

Meanwhile, the symptoms were getting worse. “It’s a terrible itch and from time to time it would like move or twitch and you would feel this sort of sharp pain in your skull or you could feel it grinding up against it,” Coyne recalled. “And when I went swimming or took a shower, it would sort of freak out because its airhole would be cut off, then it would really go nuts. You know, make a lot of pain. So I tried to avoid getting my head under water.”

All of my quotes come directly from the NPR piece, but are unsourced by Levine. The non-quoted parts are also derived from my discussion with Krulwich. The impression throughout the piece is that Levine got the quotes directly from me, which isn’t the case. In fact, the person who sent me the link said that Levine appears to have done a great job interviewing me.

From time to time Levine gives quotes that he says came from his conversation with me, and that may well be true, though I don’t remember talking to him. But those very few quotes are embedded in a much larger group of quotes that taken from RadioLab, but not identified as such. Here’s an example. What I am said to have told Levine is in bold (“Coyne told me”), and the rest of the quotes are taken, word for word, from my interview with Krulwich:

The botfly wasn’t that painful and I knew it was going to come out on its own after a while,”Coyne told me. He decided to just try to enjoy and marvel at what was happening inside him as much as he could.

“This behavior might seem weird to a lay person,” he said, but “I make my living on flies. I work with fruit flies. I’m a geneticist, and here is a fly making its living on me.” Coyne was intrigued to find himself inside a food chain instead of on his usual perch as a consumer at its end. The botfly was fattening up on Coyne, and Coyne was becoming increasingly fond of the botfly. “I was getting more and more curious when it would come out. I didn’t want to kill it.”

And there are unquoted bits that seem to have been taken largely from RadioLab, like this bit from Levine’s piece:

The botfly kept growing. Within a couple of weeks it had become the size of an egg, then a quail egg. Coyne started wearing a baseball cap. One night he was at a Red Sox game at Fenway Park with his friend Sarah Rogerson. .

Here’s what RadioLab says, with my words, and my friend Sarah’s, put in quotation marks, with the rest (not in quotes) being Krulwich’s narration:

So, a couple of weeks passed and the botfly is just getting “bigger and bigger and bigger.” It goes from jellybean size to something like “the size of an egg”. An egg? “Yeah, it was pretty big.” Like a quail egg. Well, he’s covering it now with a baseball cap, which is maybe one reason they decided to go to Fenway Park.

And here’s one direct quote from me to Levine embedded in a mass of quotes taken directly from the RadioLab interview:

But mostly he wanted to save the fly. He looked at his baby on the pillow and decided to try to rear it into an adult fly. “I’d prepared a jar of sterile sand and I took the worm and dropped it in the sand and put on a top with an airhole,” Coyne said. “But unfortunately it died.” Looking back, he said that he was sorry he “didn’t just put it into a jar of alcohol to preserve it.” Coyne felt extremely sad afterward. “You know in the temperate zone in Boston the botfly is not going to make it. It just can’t live and so it was doomed from the start. I wanted to see it complete its life cycle but unfortunately it didn’t quite make it. I did the best I could with what I knew.” He felt the loss. “It added richness into my life, it really did. People still get completely horrified when I tell them the story even though to me it’s sort of a nice story.” And, he told me, “It was my botfly.”

All quotes here, except for the one in bold, are from the NPR story. Clearly, Levine is implying that all the quotes were given to him by me, but in reality they are taken from NPR. I call that misrepresentation.

Finally, there’s one bit whose wording appears to have been taken from the place where Krulwich got the story: the book Tropical Nature: Life and Death in the Rain Forests of Central and South America (Scribners, 1984) by Adrian Forsyth and Ken Miyata, my best friends when I was in graduate school at Harvard. (Ken died in a fishing accident in 1983, and never saw the published book.) In Chapter 13, “Jerry’s Maggot,” they use my botfly tale to begin a discussion of interspecies relationships in the tropics.  Here’s a quote from p. 154 (you can find it on the web here), and the words in quotations are from an email I sent the authors when they asked me to tell them what I remembered about the botfly. The rest of the words are Forsyth and Miyata’s.

Jerry is a biologist. At the time, he was a graduate student at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology. Well versed in evolutionary logic, genetical theory, Ivy League ecology, and tile use of biometrical tools, he was also aware that his actual experience with living creatures was “limited to unexciting fruit flies crawling feebly around food-filled glass tubes.” Working in the Museum of Comparative Zoology had done little to change that. The Museum was no longer what it had been in the days of its founder, tile celebrated Swiss naturalist Louis Agassiz, whose constant exhortation to “study Nature, not books” was practiced by all. Jerry’s biological interactions continued to be with fruit flies in a crowded, sterile lab, and tile only animals he saw, aside from his fellow graduate students and the ubiquitous dogs of Cambridge, were the stuffed mammals that resided in the display cases between his office and tile Pepsi machine. Finally, after a winter and spring of listening to some of us urge him to get out of the lab, he enrolled in a field course in tropical ecology. Soon he was jetting to Costa Rica, determined to experience for himself the riches of tropical nature.

And here’s from Levine’s piece. The bits in bold, which are more than my own quotations, bear a remarkable similarity to Forsyth and Miyata’s chapter.

This, however, is a more personal story about Coyne. It goes back to 1973, when he was a mere 24-year-old graduate student at Harvard. As he moved through the program, Coyne was becoming well versed in the intellectual tools of his trade—genetics, evolutionary logic, research methods, and the like. But when it came to real-life contact with nature, his experience was pretty much “limited to unexciting fruit flies crawling feebly around food-filled glass tubes.” He was even more frustrated working at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology. This was the same museum that was founded by the great Swiss naturalist Louis Agassiz, under the guiding philosophy to “study nature, not books.”But, aside from fruit flies in a sterile lab, the only nature Coyne was seeing were stuffed mammals in a display case on his way to the Pepsi machine. When given the opportunity to take a summer field course in tropical ecology in Costa Rica, Coyne didn’t hesitate. He never imagined how close to nature he would get.

That’s annoying, especially the direct lifting of the bits about Louis Agassize, and about the animals between my office and the Pepsi machine, the latter typical of Adrian and Ken’s humor.

I haven’t investigated the piece beyond the bit on my botfly, nor even looked super-closely at the botfly bit. But there’s enough here to make me think that not only is there sloppiness going on—quotes that Levine implies were given to him by me, but in reality were given to Krulwich by me, but also copying of words and ideas from the show and from the book Tropical Nature, and content from RadioLab.

Now it may be that the unattributed quotes in the article are given attribution in the book, but what’s in the article should also have been sourced and explained. And the use of wording from Tropical Nature seems to me to approach plagiarism.

In short, I think this is a combination of sloppiness and possible plagiarism, but wanted to see what readers think.

Readers’ wildlife photos

May 2, 2016 • 7:30 am

Posting may be a bit light today as I’m Skyping in 20 minutes with a college evolution class in New York (it’s about WEIT); and I just did some virtue signaling. But enjoy these recent photographs from Stephen Barnard in Idaho, including the butt of a Great Horned Owl. His captions are indented:

Desi bringing home the bacon. [JAC: Looks like a trout. The eaglets are Jewish and don’t eat pork.]

intro
This is an unusual perspective of a Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus). I disturbed him from his morning nap in the sun and he flew a short distance to this perch. This could have been a great photo if he’s turned his head to look at me, but he refused. I was practically jumping up and down and Deets was carrying on, but nothing worked. I’ve seen this owl many times. He’s annoyed, not frightened.

RT9A8331

The fourth photo is of a Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and a Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) drake. The Blue-winged Teal is a new bird for me.

RT9A8412

These three are American Avocets (Recurvirostra americana). They show up on Loving Creek for a few weeks when the water level is low and they can wade and feed on insect larvae and small crustaceans. When the aquatic weeds come in and cause the water level to rise they leave for their breeding grounds.

RT9A8437

RT9A8541

RT9A8558

And my friend Ivan in California just sent me a photo of his new “pet”. He’s has lizards almost as long as I’ve known him, but mostly leopard geckos.

This is our new Northern Blue Tongued Skink [Tiliqua scincoides intermedia], named Bernie. Little Surya, our leopard gecko, died about two months ago from complications of an intermittent GI obstruction.  After an appropriate mourning period we were going to get another leopard gecko, but when we went to the lizard store, Jan and I really took to this guy. He apparently became too much hassle for his prior owner, who gave him to the store to be sold. This happens with larger lizards, notably with the big monitors.

 

Bernie comes from northern Australia, one of 6 species native to that continent.  He lives in the brush naturally (we give him dry moss) and he eats almost anything.  We feed him dog food, pinkies, grubs, snails, insects, etc.  He is not very fast moving and is really sweet.  He loves being with people, so we take him out of his cage at least once a day for lap time and petting.  I am sure you will warm to him when you next visit.  He is a big guy–probably 16″ long and pretty hefty.

image1

Here’s a photo, taken from Animal Spot, of the full beast:

Blue-Tongued-Skink-Pictures1

 

Spot the scorpionfish

May 2, 2016 • 7:00 am

Reader Gayle Ferguson, you may recall, is a biologist at Massey University in Aukland, New Zealand (she once worked with Matthew in Manchester), and rescues batch after batch of orphaned kittens, for which she gets the title of Official Website Kitten Rescuer™. (One of the kittens she saved is Jerry Coyne the Cat.) She also does scuba diving, and took this photo of a camouflaged baby scorpionfish.

Gayle’s notes say “Photo taken on a scuba dive at the Poor Knights Islands off Tutukaka on the East Coast near Whangarei.”

Can you see it? It’s not terribly hard, but does show some nice camouflage:

13116365_10102051751026905_5920689459168418808_o

Answer at 11 a.m. Chicago time.

Monday: Hili dialogue (and Leon lagniappe)

May 2, 2016 • 6:30 am

It’s Monday, May 2, at least in Chicago, and I can hear the wind howling outside my crib. It will be more dire weather today.  On this day in 1611, the first King James Bible was published in London, gulling all subsequent Christians into thinking that its lovely bits were written, in English, by God. And, in 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan by U.S. Special Forces.

Notables born on this day include Catherine the Great of Rusia (1729), Emma Darwin (1808), without whose care (and money) Charles might have had to get a real job, and famous cricketer Brian Lara (1969). Those who breathed their last on May 2 include Leonardo da Vinci (1519), on my list of the best 5 painters of all time (others are Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Turner, and Picasso), J. Edgar Hoover (1972), and Lynn Redgrave (2010). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is dissing Andrzej again, but at least the cherries are doing well:

A: So far everything is well.
Hili: A bit of rain would be useful.
A: But we might get a hailstorm instead!
Hili: You farmers are always afraid of something.
P1040141
In Polish:
Ja: Jak dotąd wszystko dobrze.
Hili: Przydałoby się trochę deszczu.
Ja: Żeby tylko nie spadł grad.
Hili: Wy, rolnicy, ciągle się czegoś boicie.
And, in Wrocklawek, Leon is riding in the car, perhaps to his future country home, which is now under construction.

Leon: Are we changing gears?

13103306_1149884591698807_4577751588621639578_n

What have you changed your mind about?

May 1, 2016 • 1:30 pm

UPDATE: I’d forgotten, but perhaps not completely, that John Brockman edited a book in 2009 in which he asked Science Heavy Hitters the exact question above.  This was based on a 2008 Edge Question, and you can find a lot of the answers here. I don’t think I contributed to that annual question (I’ll be horrified if I did), but the question may have been bubbling in my subconscious.
__________

All of us like to pride ourselves on our open-mindedness and receptivity to new ideas. After all, that’s one of the main reasons to favor freedom of speech, for the assumption behind that stand is that people will eventually come to the truth, or to the best solutions, via the clash of ideas. That is, people can be persuaded to change their minds. The tacit rider is that we can change our minds as well.

But we all know that we’re less open-minded than we like to believe, and the amount of evidence required to do so is likely to be more than we’d think would be necessary to change our opponents’ minds.

In science, of course, changing your mind is supposed to be a virtue, and in principle it is; scientists change their minds more readily than do others in, say, the humanities. After all, evidence is evidence, and humanities is not so evidence-driven. And religion isn’t evidence-driven at all. Richard Dawkins gives a nice anecdote about this in The God Delusion:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said–with passion–“My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.” We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that. In practice, not all scientists would. But all scientists pay lip service to it as an ideal–unlike, say, politicians who would probably condemn it as flip-flopping. The memory of the incident I have described still brings a lump to my throat.

As Richard notes, that’s not always the way it works. For one thing, public admissions of error are rare. Usually scientists just shut up and stop espousing their erroneous views while incorporating better ones into their work. For another, scientists are human, and thus loath to relinquish their pet theories. If you’re strongly identified with a theory, it makes it harder to give up, because it becomes part of your reputation and your persona.

By way of asking readers to let us know what they’ve changed our mind about, I’ll give a list of where I’ve veered away from earlier views:

  1. I was initially in favor of Richard Nixon in his 1960 Presidential race against Kennedy. To partly exculpate myself, I’ll add that I was only 11 years old (and thus unable to vote), and was good friends with a guy who turned out to be a Republican, and who had a lot of influence on me. By 1965, however, I had become a committed Democrat, though my father remained a fan of Nixon. That became a source of friction with my dad.
  2. I believed in God, without really thinking about it, until I had my “conversion experience” in 1967.  Religious people still make fun of me because I had a flash of insight while listening to the Beatles’ Sergeant Pepper album, that there was no good evidence for God. It is as if, to these mockers, music cannot be a catalyst of—or even a background for—thought.
  3. I was once in favor of the second Iraq war, buying the bogus evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I eventually realized that I was not only duped, but was not particularly skeptical, and I am ashamed of that. I now think that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but I also decry those who say that there’s no discussion to be had about the war and no good argument for deposing Saddam Hussein. I think it’s at least worth discussing, which is what Nick Cohen does in his excellent book What’s Left: How the Left Lost its Way. Cohen thinks starting the war was wrong, but that the Left showed distressingly little sympathy for the horrible evils Saddam Hussein and the Baath party inflicted on the people of Iraq.
  4. I haven’t changed my mind about that much in science, simply because I’ve tried not to adopt pet theories to which I’ve become wedded.  I’ve certainly accepted new evidence in areas where I previously was a doubter (e.g., Homo erectus having gone extinct without issue), but haven’t often been a strong proponent of theories that have later been shown to be wrong. One of them, though, is the possibility of sympatric speciation: that new species can form without the need for geographic separation, and that the populations destined to become new species can exchange genes during the process. Adhering to Ernst Mayr’s views on this, I once thought there was no good evidence for such speciation. Now I think there is, though I still don’t see it as a major form of speciation in nature.
  5. I once was a strong opponent of the notion of “species selection”: that patterns of biological diversity could reflect the differential extinction and speciation of different species. When writing Speciation with Allen Orr, however, I realized that there was indeed evidence that some patterns, like the number of sexually dimorphic versus sexually monomorphic bird species, could indeed reflect a form of species selection. I discuss this in the very last part of the book. Let me hasten to add, though, that my belief that species selection sometimes goes on does not mean I endorse Steve Gould’s view of punctuated equilibrium (in which species selection played a major role), for I think the process he proposed as part of that theory is completely wrong.

Your turn. What have you been wrong about, or changed your mind about?

 

“Obama Out”: The President’s comedy routine at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

May 1, 2016 • 12:00 pm

Here are the 32 minutes of President Obama’s last appearance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, in which the press annually and traditionally trades ripostes with the press. I have to say that it’s pretty damn funny, what with the Hillary-bashing references to Goldman Sachs and “CPT“, as well as to next “first lady”, his aging, Donald Trump, and so on. And the final with his hamhanded attempts to use Snapchat, the weeping John Bohener, Joe Biden, the visit to the driver’s license bureau, is fricking hilarious. He ends on a serious note and a paean to the press.

Obama’s speech was preceded by an 8-minute humorous video prepared by the press, which you can see here.

Say what you will about Obama—and I have a lot of good things to say about him—nobody can deny he has a sense of humor, something that Republicans seem to lack. Can you imagine any other President, for instance, Yes, I know he didn’t write it all, or perhaps none of it, but his delivery is impeccable.

I’ll miss him, and whoever replaces him won’t have his panache.