Lenski affair

The Lenski affair was an attempt by politically-conservative activist lawyer Andrew Schlafly (creator of Conservapedia and endorser of creationism) to challenge the groundbreaking research of Michigan State University professor and National Academy of Science member Richard Lenski. Lenski and his student Zachary Blount had reported observation of evolution in bacteria. Schlafly wrote to Lenski demanding raw data, but Lenski refused, citing Schlafly's lack of credentials as a qualified bacteriologist. Schlafly's challenge resulted in publicity on the Internet. Richard Dawkins discusses Lenski's research and the affair in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, referring to Schlafly's implied doubts about Lenski's results as 
an "impertinent suggestion".Dawkins, Richard (2009) "The Greatest Show on Earth" page 131 (Chapter 5 "Before Our Very Eyes"), Simon and Schuster, ISBN 1416594787Review: The Greatest Show on Earth, Young Australian Skeptics
==Background==
On June 9, 2008, the New Scientist published an article describing preliminary results of a long-running experiment started by Lenski.Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab, New Scientist Lenski and his team had taken a single strain of the bacterium E. coli, separated its descendants into twelve populations,How Biblical! and proceeded to observe their mutations over the course of two decades.The process discussed on Lenski's website. The E. coli were fed a measured amount of glucose every day. At one point, one of the populations exploded far beyond the parameters of the experiment. Lenski eventually discovered that this population had evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an organic molecule which was part of the solution the E. coli lived in, but which E. coli cannot normally uptake. Thus, evolution had been visibly observed, with an exquisite amount of evidence establishing the timeline along the way. Not only that, but the experiment was repeatable; Lenski started new experiments with the frozen "archives" of the population which exploded and found that beyond a certain point, that particular population of E. coli were highly likely to evolve the ability to digest citrate. The paper also highlighted the role of historical contingency in evolution and the role of potentiating mutations.
Naturally, this news item was posted to Conservapedia, bringing it to the attention of Schlafly. As he is a creationist, this obviously flew in the face of his views and could not be tolerated. After a discussion in which he expressed skepticism, he proceeded to send Dr. Lenski an email requesting further data and set up a page on his blog/"encyclopedia" titled "Lenski dialog." The ensuing exchange of emails is below.
==Correspondence==
==Elements censored in the reply==
Keen readers at Conservapedia noticed that the phrase "[Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter]" was contained in the second of the professor's replies at their site. Inquiries about this withholding of information were made by some readers at Conservapedia. After at least two users were blocked for pursuing the issue, it was revealed that the offending link was to none other than a certain RW. It was further established that the initials RW referred to a "Wiki claimed to be Rational" — in other words, the very wiki you're reading right now. This ironic desire to conceal data caused some concern at Conservapedia and mirth at RationalWiki. Our article above has the full information included in the professor's reply. For those who are interested, the link Conservapedia censored is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
As a final irony, Conservapedia subsequently erased from the talk page all references to their failure to print the entire response. 
Also, a lesser point is that the emphasis (bolding) in the second reply is from the original, but was omitted in Conservapedia's transcription. This was almost certainly a simple oversight.Hanlon's Razor applies. If Schlafly read and copied the email in a plaintext format, as opposed to viewing it as HTML, he wouldn't have seen it.
(UPDATE: As of August 21, 2015, the bolding appears to have been replaced. It is unknown when this happened.)
==Consequences==
Mr. Schlafly certainly intended that his letters to Prof. Lenski would have the effect of somehow discrediting his work or discomforting him in some way. In the event, the consequences couldn't have been more different.
*As a result of Mr. Schlafly's tomfoolery, he raised the status of Prof. Lenski's evolution-demonstrating paper from the status of "highly significant" to "Internet science-blog phenomenon." It is difficult to think of any other action which would have so raised the profile of this research. 
*Many non-specialists no doubt took an interest in the exchange. For many, the take-home sound bites would have been "Scientist proves Evolution in Lab" and "Religious Fundamentalists don't Understand Science." Others may have gone on to gain a deeper understanding as a consequence.
*Conservapedia once again became the laughingstock of the Internet. And this time, the blame couldn't be put on any alleged parodists. Mr. Schlafly personally started the ball rolling, continued with it against the publicly-expressed doubts of his associates, and went back a second time when he didn't like the first answer. 
*By refusing to include the link to RationalWiki in Prof. Lenski's second reply, Mr. Schlafly did more than any other individual to raise RationalWiki's profile on the net. Amazingly, Conservapedia then compounded the error by clumsily attempting to hide its own open correspondence concerning the matter.
*Schlafly showed his take of the episode like this: "Richard Lenski of Michigan State University was rude and demeaning when replying to a member of the public who asked about his research." 
In conclusion, it is difficult to imagine a course of action more incredibly, enormously, staggeringly counter-productive to his cause than that undertaken by Mr Schlafly.
Schlafly currently spends his days editing (and censoring content of) this tripe that poses as an encyclopedia article.
==Beating a dead horse, horse kicks back==
===Conservapedia letter to PNAS===
On August 4, 2008, Conservapedia then drafted and emailed, over Andrew Schlafly's signature, this letter to PNAS:Emailed to PNAS "with minor improvements"
As with the letter to Prof Lenski, the letter was a joint effort by editors from Conservapedia, with the initial draft being drawn up by DinsdaleP. User Stitch75 provided some constructive criticism, both on the content and style of the letter.
Schlafly disregarded any and all advice, silencing Stitch75 with: 
 
It is possible — and the suggestion was raised — that Schlafly deliberately submitted a flawed letter, which would enable him to cry "censorship" when it was not published.
 
On August 24, 2008, Andrew Schlafly posted a news item on the front page of Conservapedia that notification had been given, by PNAS, to all the co-authors of Lenski's paper regarding the above letter. The editorial board would review the letter and consider one of the following: acceptance, rejection, or revision. They settled on "rejection," as the following reply shows.
===PNAS reply to Mr. Schlafly and his Conservapedia===
Dateline: September 11, 2008.Draft of PNAS Letters Response from Conservapedia (archived from March 10, 2016).
==Conclusion==
In a 2012 paper, Blount et al. identified and sequenced the mutations leading to the Cit(+) phenotype. By demonstrating the actual series of mutations that eventually give rise to the phenotype, the scientists eliminated any concerns of horizontal gene transfer or contamination.Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population, Nature
==See also==
*Analysis of the Lenski Paper
*Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog - RW's restored version of the talk pages: (1)(2)(3)
*Conservapedia:Schlafly's alleged Flaws in Lenski's Study
*Lenski results challenge creationism
*Pwned
*Release the data
==External links==
*The same data on Conservapedia
*PZ Myers's take on Pharyngula
*All-time classic creationist pwnage, from Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column
*Creationist critics get their comeuppance, New Scientist
*Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount, Ars Technica
*talk.origins thread
*Conservapedia & Distrust of Science: When You Needn’t Win the War to Make the Point, by AmesG
==Notes==
==References==
Category:Science
Category:biology
category:evolution
category:internet