Gość: Gumisie
IP: *.chem.usu.edu
25.06.02, 21:57
www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,605806,00.html
Journal axes gene
research on
Jews and
Palestinians
Robin McKie,
science editor
Sunday November 25,
2001
The Observer
A keynote research
paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews
and Palestinians
are genetically almost identical has been pulled
from a leading
journal.
Academics who have
already received copies of Human
Immunology have
been urged to rip out the offending pages and
throw them away.
Such a drastic act
of self-censorship is unprecedented in
research publishing
and has created widespread disquiet,
generating fears
that it may involve the suppression of scientific
work that questions
Biblical dogma.
'I have authored
several hundred scientific papers, some for
Nature and Science,
and this has never happened to me before,'
said the article's
lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor
Antonio
Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I
am stunned.'
British geneticist
Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't
like the paper,
they shouldn't have published it in the first place.
Why wait until it
has appeared before acting like this?'
The journal's
editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University,
New York, claims
the article provoked such a welter of
complaints over its
extreme political writing that she was forced
to repudiate it.
The article has been removed from Human
Immunology's
website, while letters have been written to
libraries and
universities throughout the world asking them to
ignore or
'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'.
Arnaiz-Villena has
been sacked from the journal's editorial
board.
Dolly Tyan,
president of the American Society of
Histocompatibility
and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal,
told subscribers
that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.
The paper, 'The
Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic
Relatedness with
other Mediterranean Populations', involved
studying genetic
variations in immune system genes among
people in the
Middle East.
In common with
earlier studies, the team found no data to support
the idea that
Jewish people were genetically distinct from other
people in the
region. In doing so, the team's research challenges
claims that Jews
are a special, chosen people and that Judaism
can only be
inherited.
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.
He accepts he used
terms in the article that laid him open to
criticism. There is
one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the
Gaza strip, and
another that refers to Palestinian people living in
'concentration'
camps.
'Perhaps I should
have used the words settlers instead of
colonists, but
really, what is the difference?' he said.
'And clearly, I
should have said refugee, not concentration,
camps, but given
that I was referring to settlements outside of
Israel - in Syria
and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me
anti-Jewish.
References to the history of the region, the ones that
are supposed to be
politically offensive, were taken from the
Encyclopaedia
Britannica, and other text books.'
In the wake of the
journal's actions, and claims of mass protests
about the article,
several scientists have now written to the
society to support
Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their
heavy-handedness.
One of them said:
'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that
Jewish people were
genetically very special, instead of ordinary,
you can be sure no
one would have objected to the phrases he
used in his
article. This is a very sad business.'
