Windschuttle to 'Sharon Gould' on the article:
"I really like the article. You bring together some very important considerations about scientific method, the media, politics and morality that I know our readers would find illuminating… if you could re-work the intro along these lines, we would be very pleased to publish the article in our January edition. I would need to hear back from you as early as possible next week".A blogsite has been compiled to describe the origins of the hoax. Windschuttle has admitted the hoax but has described the article as 'fraudulent journalism'. That is one interpretation - another is that Windschuttle in making editorial judgements is not good at discriminating between sense and outrageous stupidity.
That in itself is not a crime. I edit a journal myself and am not expert on more than half the submissions made. But that is why all articles undergo a refereeing process. Quadrant might think of doing much the same. Its output on climate change issues (in particular) could not fail to improve.
It might also think about checking the bona fides of its contributors.
* Example (quote from the hoax Quadrant article)
"Let us suppose Australia had plans to commercialise a variety of wheat engineered with human genes.
Too far-fetched a scenario? Not at all. Human genes are at present engineered into tobacco plants in order to produce a protein called Factor VIII, and into rice crops to produce a protein that when consumed triggers human immune responses.
In July 2003, buried within a footnote of an article in the Plant Biotechnology Journal was an astonishing revelation. Researchers at the CSIRO had, according to the reference, abandoned plans to commercialise a variety of wheat that had been engineered with human genes. The genes were responsible for helping trigger immune responses in humans. When eaten, the wheat could potentially trigger a body’s immune response to fight pre-cancerous cells, but the company’s annual report, according to the footnote, stated: “the transgenic wheat was abandoned because of the potential of perceived moral issues among the public”."
Yep, Keith, I strongly recommend refereeing science-based articles or articles claiming to state facts. What confidence can anyone otherwise have in the content of Quadrant?