Attn.: Kerry Elizabeth Grens
Staff Reporter, The Scientist
For some stupid technical reason, I was not able to post my third comment on your above stated report earlier. This is my reply to criticisms you have in what I called “Kerry’s 1st File”. Creationism related critique.
So let me to jump back into the troubled waters of the “creation Vs evolution” quasi – scientific clinch or, to be exact, to what I’ve done in it nearly 20 years ago.
An amazing glasnost & perestroika time gave me an unexpected opportunity to read some “heretic” books which were unknown to most of the Soviet readers before. Frankly, it was like a background-crashing “knock down” to learn that some brilliant scientists like geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti and Nobel Prize winner physicist Antonio Zichichi – or even the America’s most venerated Nazi, SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Werner Von Brown (US ballistic/space missile 1948 – 1969 programs key person) - were all devoted anti-Darwinian thinkers and … well … so to say …. Creationists !
As a biochemist, I was paying a special attention to such a weak side of Darwinian evolution as its usual exaggeration of homology principle in establishing of the fact of phylogenic relatedness (an existence of common ancestor postulated on the basis of “similarity” of biological structures compared). My creationist views (not only mine) in early 90s were all based on this and related subjects.
I have conducted some simple experiments but, most importantly, I’ve been engaged as a guest speaker and debater on “anti-evolution issue” by a very active group of creationists named The Institute for Creation Research (El Cajon, CA) back in 1990 – 93. That was a truly artistic work! Priceless experience for me as a polemist. I did not gain any other fruit than that for my further career though. That means, this “collateral” route in my professional life was obviously time consuming, interesting and temporal (1990 – 94) part-time engagement, more free lancing than duty-imposing. Talking of the debates related part of it, I could quote a sad-n-wise Friedrich Nietzsche who wrote: “… the truth is not something we have to discover, this is something we have to create”.
My paper appeared in the International Journal of Neuroscience (Due to Sir Sydney Weinstein, this journal’s Chief Editor invitation, I was serving there as an Advisory Board member in early 90s) were dealing with molecular homology as a target for the anti-Darwinian (pro-creationist) criticisms. That paper(s) now are in a focus of your fellow-whistleblowers-paper-diggers, Kerry.
My critics (almost all of them) - once they referred to my IJN-published “creationist work” - were noticed the numerous references to journal papers they were not able to find through Internet. Appealing to what they consider a “common sense”, these critics came up with a “firm” conclusion: these “ghost references” are fakes – therefore, the whole work is a fraud. Looks like a brilliant deduction, isn’t it ?
I am sick and tired, Kerry, to explain repeatedly (as a matter of fact, I gave up answering such criticisms about 10 years ago) that my only – but no doubt gravy!!! – mistake was that I was naïve enough to publish in the West-appearing periodical the references to articles originally published in Soviet / Russian as well as in Serbian, Bulgarian, …. journals in native languages (Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Bulgarian, …).
Noteworthy, there were no digital magazine versions whatsoever in these prosperous countries back in 90s. Besides, some of these “ghosts” were the bulletins of small (but alive!) provincial local universities in these countries that were released in a relatively small run (hundreds of hard cover copies sometimes). Most of these journals were closed in 90s due to financial and political troubles.
Acta Scandinavica or something like that wasn’t found by one of my “critic” as well … Frankly, so did I (now). Shame or not shame on me, I can’t recall how and where did I found this particular title as well as some others - nearly 20 years ago. My colleague and friend Dr Andrey Ivanov, currently a Senior Research Fellow with the RAS Institute for Analytical Chemistry and Geochemistry, Moscow, Russia, who used to assist me in my “hunt for quotes” in early 90s (and whom I’ve been talking to last week) recalls that some portion of the Reference list points were simply “extracted” from monographs and review articles without seeing the originals – that sin we both, Andrey and I, may confess about. Same with incomplete or shortened titles of some papers quoted.
Same with the so called “fake names” of some Soviet / Russian scientists I’ve mentioned in my publications: my “critics” were not able to identify them … by Internet. Nothing else should be expected from the Western-specific narrow minded “investigators”, actually. This fact, however, has a clear and simple explanation. A majority of Russian researchers were never publishing their works in English outside USSR/Russia. To start with, this was merely forbidden in 80s and before. This was a hardest task imaginable – to publish papers outside a so called “Iron Curtain” – I know what I am writing about! Since 90s, and till now – most of the Russian-performed studies were/are available predominantly in the inside-Russia-published science periodicals (in Russian, of course). Relatively recently (starting with late 90s till mid2000s), about 30-35% of Russian peer-reviewed science journals became bilingual due to appearance of their “twin copies” translated into English and published abroad. No Internet traces for most of the Russian journals exist (1980 – 2000).
From my past experience, Kerry, I know that some curious readers were keen to know how and why Sir Sydney Weinstein, a reputable scientist, invited me to join his IJN staff. Assuming that this is really interesting to you and others, I have to note that Dr Weinstein invited me to arrive to US first being a personal sponsor for my US non-immigrant visa (December 1989 – hardly possible to forget). I’ve got to know this bright person – neurologist, teacher, businessman, artist, writer, philosopher - starting with mid 80s. He published my biochemical toxicology papers, we were talking on the phone, writing letters and postcards (again, no Internet around!).
So it would be safe to say that I’ve been invited by Dr Weinstein due to my previously published studies (1979 – 1990) – which were published in the world circulated science journals despite a known fact that this was very, very (!!!) unusual for the USSR-settled young scientist: Cancer Letters, Toxicology Letters, Toxicology, Archives of Toxicology, Biochemical Pharmacology, Journal of Biochemical & Biophysical Methods, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (Amsterdam), International Journal of Neuroscience, Neurochemical Research, Acta Biomedica Germanica (Berlin), Trends in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology (Barcelona).
Same way I was invited to serve as a Chief Editor for two open access enfant-journals that were launched about three years ago by the ScienceDomain International Publishing House, Brit J Med Med Res and Intern Res J Pure Appl Chem. I was chosen by the Publisher due to my previous research record – just like in Sir Sydney’s case.
It is up to my readers and ex-authors now to judge which kind of the Chief Editor I was. This was not a job to me since I wasn’t get paid for doing this. Whatever you may call it (job, duty, post, hobby …), I lost it – thank to you and to your “diggers”.
One allusion just came through my mind. Have you ever study the case specified in Fluoride (1999), 32: 191 – 193 (entitled like “NAS fails to respond to Safe Water Foundation – fraud at the National Academy of Sciences – is fluoride a nutrient ?”) ? Same game: “diggers” – most of them are ignorant lay people, accused scientists, reputable journal papers, confused readers, enthusiastic reporters … Ecclesiastes was certainly right crying about the principal lack of news in the God’s World.
I kept silence in response to several attacks on me in the past ten years. I decided to ignore them just because th?se mosquito bites were absolutely harmless to my work. All of my Russian colleagues I am working with are on my side. Besides, I would never reply to a “critic” whose only tool is an Internet and whose platform is a magazine entitled as … Scienca & Paranormale …
In general, my current situation remain the very same as it always was except for one unexpected loss – I mean my deliberate step down (resign) from a post of the Chief Editor of two above mentioned journals. If this event would touch me alone, I’ll no doubt remain silent so far. However, it turns out this would probably affect somehow some good and innocent people affiliated with the ScienceDomain International Publishers and perhaps not only them. This is what I can’t tolerate. This is the only reason why I decided to respond. But this is the only and the last response on my part. As you may see from the above, I have no intention to make this “ping-pong” endless. I don’t have this habit – to waste my time.
Dmitry A. Kuznetsov,