Scientific Feuds, Polemics, and Ad Hominem Arguments in Basic and Special-Interest Genetics

Publication date: Available online 3 February 2017
Source:Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research
Author(s): Elof Axel Carlson
Scientific disputes are commonly presented and settled in journal publications. Most are resolved by a weighing of evidence and new findings. In some cases the arguments are personal and in the form of ad hominem attacks on the personality or integrity of an author of a journal article. Many famous scientists (e.g., Galileo, Newton, and Hooke) used ad hominem arguments in responding to their critics. William Bateson, W. F. R. Weldon, William Castle, and H. J. Muller used ad hominem arguments in their publications until the end of World War I, when editorial policy of journals changed. Motivating some of the attacks are philosophic differences (such as holistic or reductionist approaches to science), ideological differences (such as Marxist or Capitalist outlooks), politics (such as Cold War depictions by East and West on fallout from nuclear testing), or conflicts of interest (which can be professional or financial such as the debates over nontraditional and orthodox medicine or over tobacco smoking and health). Most of the time, the disputes are motivated by honest disagreements over the interpretation of the data. A recent surge (2009–2016) of ad hominem attacks by Edward Calabrese have appeared disparaging H. J. Muller, E. B. Lewis, other twentieth-century contributors to radiation genetics, and the National Academy of Sciences. They address the mutational effects of low-dose radiation exposure. Calabrese's attacks have led to responses by geneticists in the field of mutagenesis, by agencies criticized by Calabrese, and by students and colleagues of those who have been accused of deception by Calabrese. This article reviews some of the history of ad hominem arguments in science and the background to the attacks by Calabrese. I argue that Calabrese's characterization of Muller and his supporters is unjust, misleading, and hurtful. I also propose some methods for dealing with or preventing ad hominem attacks in professional journals.



http://ift.tt/2jJGFWI