Verified by 
It is a particularly American trait to believe that someone who is outstanding in one area is wise and knowledgeable about others. We tend to take the advice of authorities in subjects far outside their expertise and wonder why their advice is not always good. I remember my acute disappointment at finding out that Jack Kennedy, my childhood hero, was a womanizer and his seemingly perfect marriage was less than admirable. I even remember watching OJ Simpson when he was a beautiful running back – good-looking, athletically talented, surely a superhero, right? – who fell into the all-too-common idiocies of too much money and too much selfishness, to end up in a sordid murder trial. I had to remind myself while the trial was going on that the man I so admired was one I put on a pedestal for his athletic talent, not for his insight, learning, wisdom, or moral character (about which I knew next to nothing).
I’m more than a few years older now and you would think a bit less naïve. Yet it has happened again. Another person I have admired and respected has been shown to have behaved immorally and illegally. This heroine is Jane Goodall, internationally admired for her extraordinary observations of chimpanzees at a time when long-term primatology fieldwork was virtually unknown. For an anthropologist like me, Jane Goodall is a heroine, an idol. Further, Goodall has a soft-spoken, gentle, and yet compelling manner that she has used to good effect in fighting for conservation of chimps in the wild and better treatment for those in captivity.
And now her latest book, SEEDS OF HOPE, co-authored by Gail Hudson, has been found to be rife with plagiarism, misrepresentations of scientific studies and facts, and altogether a flimsy ham. Articles in the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, the Christian Science Monitor and elsewhere have revealed the problems. (See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/26/jane-goodall-s-troubling-error-filled-new-book-seeds-of-hope.html , http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-19/entertainment/37839718_1_web-sites-book-moves-plants, http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2013/0320/Jane-Goodall-seeds-of-plagiarism, http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news%2Fnational_world&id=9037800).
Goodall’s response to the scandal, cited in the Washington Post story, is: “This was a long and well researched book, and I am distressed to discover that some of the excellent and valuable sources were not properly cited, and I want to express my sincere apologies. I hope it is obvious that my only objective was to learn as much as I could so that I could provide straightforward factual information distilled from a wide range of reliable sources.”
The publication of the book is now indefinitely delayed. What will happen to Goodall’s speaking tour is not clear. Goodall pledges to correct any errors in “future editions” though it is somewhat difficult to see what can be done about sentences lifted wholesale from such sources as Wikipedia and other websites. I’m willing to give Goodall the benefit of the doubt and assume she was unaware of the blatant plagiarism.
An important side issue is that the book (which I have neither seen nor read) purportedly strongly opposes genetically modified crops as a danger. The catch is this. By definition, all domesticated species (including crops and animals) are genetically modified from the wild type. That is why our ears of corn grow 10” long and not 3” and why our apples are big and sweet. What Goodall and Hudson wish to oppose is undoubtedly those crops modified in the laboratory rather than by selective breeding, which is the old-fashioned, tried and true approach to modifying plants for better yield or pest resistance practiced for thousands of years. The distinction between modifying genomes by selective breeding or by laboratory technique strikes me as specious. However I will leave the arguments over genetically modified plants for another day,
The point here is that either Goodall did not read the book that bears her name before it came into print or she overlooked some extraordinary lapses. One such is a conversation quoted verbatim as occurring with an authority whom she has apparently never met. It is worth noting, too, that the same conversation was previously published as involving the authority and a journalist unrelated to SEEDS OF HOPE. Goodall apparently farmed the labor of actually writing and researching topics to a free-lance writer, a perfectly acceptable approach. Either she asked for no sources for statistics or statements damning genetically modified plants or, if she did ask for them, failed to notice that the sentences about them were plagiarized.
How could she put her name to a manuscript she had not read? I don’t know. I can only guess that she felt the theme of the book was important and she trusted her co-author. The means do not justify the ends, in my world view. Doing wrong to do good, stealing another person’s words, ideas, and structure to make an important point is still stealing. Perhaps Jane Goodall now feels her trust in Gail Hudson was misplaced or betrayed.
I too feel betrayed. Did I expect too much from her, just because she is a leader in my field? Do I hope so strongly for wisdom, honesty and decency in the world that I am willing to attribute those without evidence?
