Apr 17, 2017 - mixer when the person next to me looked at my name tag and ... lawyer. No colleague should be expected to qualify every use of a term ... language in the field through disrespectful attacks on colleagues that will not get in line.
Below I have pasted verbatim one of the two reviews we received for this manuscript. (The other was brief and technical.) It was so surprising, see the highlighted text, I decided to share it. Imagine how these issues must have been troubling the reviewer! Incidentally, a couple of months after receiving this I was at an Int Congr Entomol 2016 mixer when the person next to me looked at my name tag and exclaimed something like “You're the guy that had that crazy review!” He turned out to be the J Med Entomol editor. My collaborators and I have grown accustomed to this kind of conduct, but I’m sorry one of my students (Smith) was exposed to it. JDW. April 17, 2017 Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author This manuscript details the identification of sex-‐specific exons of the transformer gene in a medically and forensically important blow fly. Some version of this project warrants publication, but there are several things that seem worth re-‐tuning in the document. First, the authors may want to change the balance of discussion points between the introduction and the discussion. In the introduction the authors highlight the forensic importance of their discovery, but neglect to provide evidence (theirs or that of others) to establish that development of this particular species is sexually dimorphic (and the degree to which is is dimorphic, and thus impacts traits that are important to forensics). Picard's sexual dimorphism paper does note that molecular predictions of fly age would benefit from identification of sex, but this is not part of the introduction (though it is in the discussion). There is at least a transcriptome for this fly species. This fly has an obvious sexual dimorphism that is relevant to its biology and potentially relevant to its control. Also sex determination genes are necessary for insect control through sterile insect technique. Again, this point is in the discussion, but not the introduction. Several of these points seem better justifications for the work than what is in the introduction. It may help to have a general introduction: sexual dimorphism and a means of evaluating it are important to numerous applications with this fly. Then the conclusion can touch on all subjects including forensics. As written, it is difficult to reconcile the ability to identify sexes of this particular species with something of forensic consequence. Second, the evaluation of the locus could be more detailed. In particular, the similarity
1
to Lucilia warrants further evaluation and discussion. Are the male exons also more similar to Lucilia sequences? Do the authors expect that, had they sequenced the entire transcript with RACE experiments that this pattern would hold? How about if they had compared the sequences of entire genes including introns? Any possibility of misidentification or contamination? Any way to rule it out? Third, several years ago Wells went on a series of ever-‐more belligerent attacks on colleagues that don't write minimum PMI in the literature, when they talk about what development models can provide in a death investigation. This culminated in a series of letters to the editor of this journal. I found his behavior to be scientifically unprofessional and feel that he has not supported his attempt to justify that minimum PMI is the most responsible way to talk about what insect data provides in an investigation. 1. In his attack on his colleagues and their use of language he, on several occasions, chose to use quotes from the documents that look much worse alone than in the context of the whole document. The most egregious of these is when he neglected to cite a highly qualified statement about what insect evidence provides in favor of a subsequent unqualified statement. That is an unscientific attack more befitting of a lawyer. No colleague should be expected to qualify every use of a term every time it is used in a document. If Wells had been responsible, he would have quoted the qualified term. His choice to do not do so puts his motives in question for me. 2. Wells received several replies, all of which he chose to glibly ignore in favor of a reply that included a non-‐scientific straw man argument that put words in the mouths of his colleagues (and ironically equally applied to the terminology he feels should be used). In that reply he claimed that he was not talking about semantics, assumptions, pathology or research agendas. In doing so, he chose to ignore several relevant points that his colleagues made in their respectful replies to him. Regarding semantics: Wells failed to address the fact that the Tomberlin framework (and its terminology) can be applied at different scales and that at the level of an individual specimen, his critique disappears...making his argument semantic in nature. He did not counter the argument in defense of postocolonisation interval, but instead attacked the use of period of insect activity and now behaves as if he has justified the use of minimum PMI over postcolonisation interval. His reply only defended on of four points he originally made. Regarding assumptions: Wells is disingenuous -‐ in an EAFE abstract on the very subject of what development data provides in an investigation Wells reported that minimum PMI is predicted saying, "The age of a carrion insect associated with a corpse, given certain circumstances, corresponds to a minimum PMI". It is worth noting that he felt the need to underline the phrase "given certain circumstances" in his abstract. So, he has already admitted that his complaint with colleagues (and his attempt to control
2
language in the field through disrespectful attacks on colleagues that will not get in line with his opinion) exactly depends on assumptions. Further, Wells has failed to convincingly defend the charge that his complaint (at the scale he chooses to assume) can be addressed in casework by changing the assumed scale or by simply listing a single assumption regarding whether the oldest specimen was collected. Wells has also never convincingly explained why talking about what insect evidence provides as a minimum PMI is more responsible than using a term like postcolonisation interval or time of colonisation, given that the violation of some assumptions would mean insect evidence is providing a MAXIMUM PMI (example: myiasis). This could be very misleading to an investigator, juror, lawyer, or judge -‐ yet Wells ignores this point. Regarding pathology: PMI is a law enforcement term related to a human body. Wells deals with insects. Wells has never convincingly explained why it is responsible to use PMI to describe insect evidence over insect focused terms, when the relation between the evidence and PMI hinges on numerous assumptions, many of which have been empirically demonstrated to be violated in casework. A colleague in another forensic field recently reported that even forensic anthropologists (who work with human remains) are pulling away from the use of PMI due to the number of assumptions that must be satisfied. If they are doing so when they work with human remains, why should Wells not do so with insect evidence? Well should also be aware that some in the field feel that the use of the term PMI with entomology represents a financial conflict of interest as it is believed by some that police will not use entomological evidence if it cannot give them a PMI. Therefore, any forensic entomologist that wants to get paid for their services could be viewed as attempting to help their business or supporting their lab by using PMI terminology. Regarding research agendas: Again, Wells is disingenuous. His EAFE abstract noted above was entitled: "Useless or Illogical Ideas in the Forensic Entomology Literature". This title and his subsequent abstract clearly shows the distain for certain terminology and research agendas in the field. He has reinforced this attitude time and again in personal conversations with colleagues, various talks at conferences, and a letter to the membership of NAFEA. Yet, in his reply to colleagues Wells stated: "I didn't find fault with any forensic entomology concept, including postcolonization interval (PCI) or period of insect activity (PIA). Statements that may have sounded critical of PCI and PIA were meant to illustrate how they were misused rather than a critique of how they were originally defined". Wells cannot square the comment in his reply to his colleagues with his language in other venues. He is exactly attacking his colleagues (specifically their research agenda) and appears to want to have his cake and eat it too when it comes to talking about these matters in the field. Unlike Wells, I understand that my colleagues operate in good faith and are making an attempt to be responsible when using terminology, even terminology that I cannot agree with. Subsequently, I do not feel the need to control what terms they use by
3
bullying my colleagues when they do not give me my way. However, I do expect my colleagues to be able to defend their positions. After Wells shockingly unprofessional and unscientific display, it seems that he should explain himself on this topic more before he is allowed to use this term without question. There are several solutions to this problem. First, minimum PMI is really very peripherally relevant to the topic of the paper, and he could easily remove the term without impacting the quality of the manuscript. Alternatively, he can choose to keep it in, but in that instance I think that he needs to embrace the underlined "given certain circumstances" comment he felt was so necessary in his EAFE abstract. Wells does not get to talk about assumptions to defend minimum PMI, but then reject assumptions when his colleagues point to them in defense of terminology that they prefer...especially when violations of assumptions can mean that what Wells tells a courtroom that he calculated is actually a maximum PMI instead of a minimum. Minor points: Some citations are in brackets The gel images are a bit blurry. It would help to provide higher resolution images of these or similar gels.
4
