We tend to stick to retractions in the peer-reviewed literature here at Retraction Watch, although we’ve made exceptions. Today’s post seemed like a good reason to make another exception, because while Nature Publishing Group-owned Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal, the science blogosphere and Twitter are lighting up this weekend with strong reactions to the magazine’s removal of a blog post by biologist Danielle Lee.

The incident was first noted by Dr. Rubidium, who wrote yesterday:

(You can read Lee’s original post on Dr. Isis’s blog.)

Yesterday morning, Scientific American editor-in-chief Mariette DiChristina responded on Twitter:

Re blog inquiry: @ sciam is a publication for discovering science. The post was not appropriate for this area & was therefore removed.

(Some disclosures: Ivan was the managing editor, online, at Scientific American from 2008 to 2009, and reported to DiChristina for some of that period. He was also invited by Lee to be part of a panel at the National Association of Black Journalists conference this past summer.)

In response to some of those questions, DiChristina said that the magazine’s partnership with Biology Online did not play a role in the decision to remove the post:

Later in the day, DiChristina gave BuzzFeed more details:

I’d like to elaborate on the original brief statement on Twitter that this blog fell outside Scientific American’s mission to communicate science. While we interpret that mission with a lot of latitude, Dr. Lee’s post went beyond and verged into the personal, and that’s why it was taken down. Dr. Lee’s post is out extensively in the blogosphere, which is appropriate. Dr. Lee is a valued member of the Scientific American blog network. In a related matter, Biology Online has an ad network relationship, and not an editorial one. Obviously, Scientific American does not want to be associated with activities that are detrimental to the productive communication of science. We are pursuing next steps.

Maryn McKenna, a WIRED blogger and Scientific American columnist (not to mention friend of Ivan’s), wrote that she hopes the magazine reverses itself:

By the testimony of their other bloggers, plus the guidance those bloggers say they were given, SciAm had no justification for taking down that post. If they felt Dr. Lee’s account was inaccurate, they should have said so. If they found her language inappropriate, the better response would have been to flag the post in some manner, obscuring it with an image or temporarily replacing it with a notice — instead of creating the appearance of censorship by disappearing it entirely — while they communicated with Dr. Lee and worked with her to bring her post under whatever their standards are.

McKenna also notes many other bloggers writing about the situation: Sean Carroll, Kate Clancy, Janet Stemwedel, Isis’s follow-up, Anne Jefferson, Greg Laden, and Dana Hunter.

Update, 3 p.m. Eastern, 10/13: As noted by a commenter below, DiChristina has published a more detailed explanation at Scientific American. Excerpt:

Dr. Lee’s post pertained to personal correspondence between her and an editor at Biology-Online about a possible assignment for that network. Unfortunately, we could not quickly verify the facts of the blog post and consequently for legal reasons we had to remove the post. Although we regret that this was necessary, a publisher must be able to protect its interests and Scientific American bloggers are informed that we may remove their blog posts at any time when they agree to blog for us. In removing the post, we were in no way commenting upon the substance of the post, but reflecting that the underlying facts were not confirmed.

Update, 8 a.m. Eastern, 10/14: As another commenter notes, Biology Online has now apologized to Lee and fired Ofek. Excerpt:

We would like to express our sincerest apologies to Danielle N. Lee (DNLee) and anyone else who may have been offended by the way our recently hired employee, Ofek, handled the conversation with her. Ofek’s behaviour was completely out of line and after gathering the facts we immediately terminated his employment. Ofek failed to show the respect and prudent behavior expected of him as a contributor to Biology Online.

Update 6 a.m. Eastern, 10/15: Lee’s post is back at Scientific American‘s site.

Share this: Email

Facebook

Twitter

