Science vs nonsense (and scholarship): Part 2 Comments approved 9/30/13
October 3, 2013 | James Kohl
Your 9/20/13 comment on Evolution Heresy? Epigenetics Underlies Heritable Plant Traits has been approved on 9/30/13 and is now live
In the context of scholarship, I wrote: Thanks for mentioning that, Robyn. Last week I was told by a co-editor of a prestigious neuroendocrinology journal to not bother submitting another manuscript because the reviewers generally consider an author’s recent scientific accomplishments when deciding on the acceptability of a manuscript for publication. The added insult was a comment about my lack of primary scientific contributions in the field of neuroendocrinology despite our 1996 publication of From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior and an award-winning publication in 2001: Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology.
Earlier rejection of what became “Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model,” was quick and readily recognizable as an attempt to maintain focus on steroidogenesis with no mention whatsoever of epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input on gonadotropin releasing hormone, a decapeptide that’s been conserved across the past 400 million years of vertebrate evolution as a link from glucose and amino acid uptake to the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.
If I had ever been in a publish or perish environment, I would have perished. As you say, “…the debate [about cause and effect] has never really been an open one.” For some, mutations will always be the driver of evolution because they have never considered the fact that the physiology of reproduction is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Considering the biological facts now might be academically embarrassing. Thanks again.