Lessons from a retracted editorial

By Felix Salmon
April 6, 2011
Larry Summers before deciding to publish his editorial on semen in the trade mag's February edition.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Lazar Greenfield, the former editor of Surgery News, would have been well advised to confer with Larry Summers before deciding to publish his editorial on semen in the trade mag’s February edition. Timed to coincide with Valentine’s Day, the piece reads like a quirky blog post. It starts with the effects of a starch diet on fruit flies, moves quickly on to rotifers (microscopic wheel animals), and finally moves on to humans:

As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you’d be surprised by new findings. It’s been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%. Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests.

So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.

These “wacky musings,” in the words of Retraction Watch’s Ivan Oransky Adam Marcus, have resulted in Greenfield’s resignation from his post as editor of the magazine; his appointment as incoming president of the American College of Surgeons being put under review; and the entire February issue of the magazine being removed from the web while the ACS “prepares the issue” for reposting — presumably sans the offending editorial.

There are three lessons here. Firstly, the more important you are, the less leeway you have to do something silly or lighthearted — or, for that matter, to make mistakes. Secondly, if something is going to appear under the imprimatur of a venerable institution like the World Bank or the American College of Surgeons, it should be written in a tone of high seriousness, without a hint of irony or playfulness. And finally, even surgeons turn out to be rather more squeamish when it comes to the mechanisms of sexual reproduction than you might imagine.

The flipside of all this is that science blogs will continue to gain in popularity, and more generally that large and serious organizations are always going to find it difficult to communicate in a human manner, with voice and humor. Which is ultimately a shame, since in principle most of these organizations do actually want to communicate effectively. They’re just too conservative to do so.

Update: Figleaf, in the comments, suggests that the issue might be with the quality of the research being cited, rather than the tone of the editorial. It does seem reasonable to expect Surgery News to hold scientific papers to a higher standard than the titillated mainstream press.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

I´m probably stupid, but I don´t understand what I should react negatively towards. Is it that he encourage unprotected sex?

Posted by Nemi | Report as abusive

Hmmm. I’m just a lowly sex blogger but I’m… pretty sure there’s another possibility that goes beyond squeamishness or primness on the part of American College of Surgeons board members.

It could instead have something to do with the credibility of the researcher he cited. Technically speaking there’s nothing wrong with the editor of a premier surgical journal citing the work of an evolutionary psychologist who’s other work includes assessing coed breast size for evolutionary advantage, whether homosexuality is evolved, and whether your tone of voice is evolved to signal your fertility. And so there’s technically nothing wrong with citing his work on the anti-depressant qualities of hawt bareback sex on… once again… 293 college coeds. (The researcher, Gordan Gallup, remains oddly silent on whether the ingredients in semen ward off depression in, oh, say, gay men. Even though more conventional applications of all the named active ingredients allegedly found in semen work pretty much identically in both men and women.)

But I digress. Whereas there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with a serious physician citing a social scientist’s speculation from nine years ago on the alleged pharmacological effects of body fluids, other physicians… might be inclined to quibble when a number of other, larger, less agenda-driven studies of less homogenous groups of women fail to corroborate those speculations.

Just because readers of the Wall Street Journal enjoy reading editorials that engage in wish fulfillment and cherry picking of data doesn’t mean readers of Surgery News are similarly inclined.

But then just because WSJ readers are notoriously humorless is no reason to imagine American surgeons have none. But the humor should probably rely on something besides rehashes of disputed research. No matter how much one imagines one’s readers might wish it were true.


Posted by figleaf | Report as abusive

Nemi, the problem is that it’s bad science. The author ignores the possibility of a confounding factor. For instance, perhaps women who engage regularly in unprotected sex are either (a) extremely uninhibited in general (which might make them subjectively happier, as well as more likely to go out in the rain without a coat, as it were), or (b) in long-term committed relationships where they feel they can trust that their partner is not screwing around (again, a cause of both happiness / lower stress, and more unprotected sex).

Posted by Auros | Report as abusive

commenting that “Just because readers of the Wall Street Journal enjoy reading editorials that engage in wish fulfillment and cherry picking of data doesn’t mean readers of Surgery News are similarly inclined” is the new killing it

Posted by johnhhaskell | Report as abusive

I had the same thoughts, Auros.

Posted by drewbie | Report as abusive

Another problem might be, that other media might quote Surgery News, obviously without including the caveats a scientist would know about. It’s the sort of titillating nonsense newspapers love to print, and I can imagine they don’t want their name attached to a frivolous bit of speculation.

Posted by Greenaum | Report as abusive