John Stockwell (among others) has suggested that there needs to be a baseline with which to compare Behe’s productivity as a scientist. Stockwell suggested Sean B. Carroll and, as always, I’m happy to oblige. (FYI, I’ve omitted Carroll’s review articles.)
Couple of things are of note here. Firstly, and most obviously, Carroll’s publication record makes (Full professor) Behe look like a piker, especially when you consider that Carroll’s papers appear in journals such as Nature, Science, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Secondly, we see the predicted shift from first-author papers to other-author papers as Carroll establishes himself (and his lab) as a productive center of research. Thirdly, while I have no access to Carroll’s tenure timeline, he clearly has remained highly productive throughout his 24+ year publication record (four years shorter than Behe’s).
One can argue that Carroll is exceptional and thus we are not comparing apples and oranges. That may be so, but what is interesting here is that prior to 1990, both Behe and Carroll had similar publication profiles and both were engaged in basic molecular biology. After 1991, Carroll was able to establish himself as a leader in the emerging field of evolutionary developmental biology, while Behe languished in the swamp that is intelligent design.
Oh, and Carroll also wrote four books between 2000 and 2006. That didn’t seem to alter his productivity one iota.
Humanities & Social Science
Education & Careers
Comments
There is a large coupling coefficient between one's cumulative growth in Science Citation Index, or raw publication count; and one's ideological commitement.
This can have a positive sign or a negative sign.
So the ID people doom themselves. As Larry Niven writes: "Think of it as evolution in action." They stop from corrupting grad students and post-docs with self-destructive stupidity and dishonesty.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | December 7, 2007 7:31 PM
I agree that ID is a stinking swamp of stupidity, and that Behe is an unproductive charlatan; however, I think that post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, even in a graphical format, qualify as magical thinking. I can just as easily imagine a scenario in which Behe suffered a series of small cerebral hemorrhages in the late 1980s/early 1990s, which led to the decline in his research publications, as well as to his acceptance and promotion of IDiocy.
Posted by: Barn Owl | December 7, 2007 7:50 PM
Barn Owl,
Do you think that Guillermo Gonzalez suffered a similar series of unfortunate events?
I suspect that both Behe and Gonzalez could have chosen to continue with publishable work, but instead appear to have chosen a different path.
Posted by: SWT | December 8, 2007 5:30 PM
Since he essentially functioned as the anti-Behe at the Dover trial, it would be interesting to see Ken Miller's publication record. Miller certainly spends a non-trivial part of his time and effort on outreach.
Always bearing in mind that it is much easier to suggest than to do and offering thanks for the Gonzalez, Behe and Carroll graphs.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | December 10, 2007 9:33 AM