A Spanish immunologist wrote a scientific journal article analyzing the difference between Middle Eastern Jews and Arabs and concluded that the two groups are genetically unified — presumbaly, this is important in tracking the progress and treatment of genetic ailments. The author cribbed from the Encyclopaedia Britannica for historical context, and came up some unfortunate phrasing, referring to Israeli "colonists" and Palestinians in "concentration camps." The journal's readers were so outraged by this that the publisher pulled the issue off the stands and urged readers with copies in hand to tear the article out of their issues.
This is an odd one. On the one hand, it seems like the journal's response was totally over the top — politically biased or not, the article's conclusions seem like sound and scientifically relevant ones. On the other hand, sneaking political polemic into a scientific paper is inappropriate and bound to weaken your conclusions. Seems like a good editor would have fixed this before it ever got to press.
Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.
But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.
Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.
