2 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. On 2017 Sep 13, Donald Forsdyke commented:

      WHAT IS THEORETICAL BIOLOGY?

      In a 2011 letter to the editor, I wrote in a somewhat too boisterous fashion questioning the Editors-in-Chiefs' statement on the nature of theoretical biology. The advent of PubMed Commons now makes it possible to reproduce my unpublished letter, which quotes from their statement:

      With 23 papers in the JTB stretching from 1969 to 2009, I am perhaps qualified to congratulate the various Editors who have built on the foundation Professor Danielli so carefully laid in 1961. Yet the letter of the present Editors-in-Chief [1], while claiming to "reflect on the history of theoretical biology," notes that in 1961 "theoretical biology was largely in its infancy."

      This will raise many eyebrows – particularly among those of us who have recently celebrated the Darwin Centenary. Apart from Charles Darwin, the many others set rotating in their graves by this remark will include Gregor Mendel, Francis Galton, George Romanes, William Bateson, Herman Muller, JBS Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, McFarlane Burnet and Francis Crick. At a time when "hundreds of our reviewers are women," the disregarding of these past male contributions hints at political correctness.

      That the present Editors also consider this "a field based largely on mathematics" would also have struck many of these giants – even Mendel, Galton and Haldane – as bizarre. Thus to the question: "Whether the focus and content of JTB has changed over these fifty years?" one must suspect increasing tendencies to (1) dismiss the history of our subject, (2) follow political agendas, and (3) depart from verbal analysis to mathematical modeling.

      It will be interesting to see how many of the experts in the field who have been commissioned by the present Editors to provide reviews of its past, present and future, will note what I believe to have been an unfortunate departure from Danielli’s original goals.

      [1] D. Kirschner, Denise Kirschner, Fifty years of JTB: Past, present and future a letter from the editors-in-chief, J. Theor. Biol., (2011) doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.09.004 Kirschner D, 2011


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

  2. Feb 2018
    1. On 2017 Sep 13, Donald Forsdyke commented:

      WHAT IS THEORETICAL BIOLOGY?

      In a 2011 letter to the editor, I wrote in a somewhat too boisterous fashion questioning the Editors-in-Chiefs' statement on the nature of theoretical biology. The advent of PubMed Commons now makes it possible to reproduce my unpublished letter, which quotes from their statement:

      With 23 papers in the JTB stretching from 1969 to 2009, I am perhaps qualified to congratulate the various Editors who have built on the foundation Professor Danielli so carefully laid in 1961. Yet the letter of the present Editors-in-Chief [1], while claiming to "reflect on the history of theoretical biology," notes that in 1961 "theoretical biology was largely in its infancy."

      This will raise many eyebrows – particularly among those of us who have recently celebrated the Darwin Centenary. Apart from Charles Darwin, the many others set rotating in their graves by this remark will include Gregor Mendel, Francis Galton, George Romanes, William Bateson, Herman Muller, JBS Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, McFarlane Burnet and Francis Crick. At a time when "hundreds of our reviewers are women," the disregarding of these past male contributions hints at political correctness.

      That the present Editors also consider this "a field based largely on mathematics" would also have struck many of these giants – even Mendel, Galton and Haldane – as bizarre. Thus to the question: "Whether the focus and content of JTB has changed over these fifty years?" one must suspect increasing tendencies to (1) dismiss the history of our subject, (2) follow political agendas, and (3) depart from verbal analysis to mathematical modeling.

      It will be interesting to see how many of the experts in the field who have been commissioned by the present Editors to provide reviews of its past, present and future, will note what I believe to have been an unfortunate departure from Danielli’s original goals.

      [1] D. Kirschner, Denise Kirschner, Fifty years of JTB: Past, present and future a letter from the editors-in-chief, J. Theor. Biol., (2011) doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.09.004 Kirschner D, 2011


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.