Field of Science

  • in Disease Prone
  • in The Culture of Chemistry
  • in Angry by Choice
  • in Pleiotropy
  • in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
  • in Protein Evolution and Other Musings
  • in The Greenhouse
  • in The Curious Wavefunction
  • in C6-H12-O6
  • in Variety of Life
  • in Labs
  • in The Biology Files
  • in Life of a Lab Rat
  • in Rule of 6ix
  • in Chinleana
  • in Memoirs of a Defective Brain
  • in History of Geology
  • in Games with Words
  • in RRResearch
  • in Sex, Genes & Evolution
  • in Moss Plants and More
  • in The View from a Microbiologist
  • in Doc Madhattan
  • in PLEKTIX
  • in The Large Picture Blog
  • in Field Notes
  • in Skeptic Wonder
  • in Catalogue of Organisms
  • in The Astronomist
  • in The Phytophactor
  • in inkfish
  • in A is for Aspirin

Nature Communications faux pas

This article in Nature Communications


has this figure showing the phylogenetic relationship between "contemporary human populations and Neanderthals":

Basically, the contemporary "out-of-Africa" individual is in a suit and a bowler hat, and the individual of "purely African ancestry" looks like a thug.

How does something like this get published in a prestigious journal nowadays?

2 comments:

  1. Couldn't they have done a cartoon of (for example) Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that would have been so much better. There are plenty of black role-models to choose from.

      Delete

Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS