Review of Sutton’s first book

Nullius in Verba – Review by Ton Munnich, April 2018

The ongoing digitization of archives enables the application of the new scientific method called Big Data. It shows patterns that can not be discovered with traditional methods. Dr. Mike Sutton, an award-winning criminologist at Nottingham Trent University, applied Big Data to an unresolved issue regarding Charles Darwin. The results are remarkable.

Darwin publishes his theory of natural selection in 1858 and 1859. He calls it “my theory”. The Scottish naturalist Patrick Matthew then declares that he has published the exact same theory in 1831. Darwin counters: he writes that Matthew only mentioned the idea in the appendix of an obscure book about a different theme, and that nobody knew that passage, he himself included. Matthew gets little opportunity to reply again, and Darwin continues to call it “my theory”. Since then, Darwin counts as the discoverer of the idea of natural selection. In the biological community a critical utterance about Darwin is professional suicide. But Mike Sutton is not a biologist, he is a criminologist, specialized in matters of plagiarism. He investigates what happened between Matthew’s book (1831) and Darwin’s book (1859). Here are some of his results :

• In 1831 England is the most important seafaring nation. The British Empire will only stay afloat provided there is enough naval timber. Matthew’s book on arboriculture for the production of naval timber touches on national interests and is well known. In that book Matthew presents his theory of natural selection. In the main text and in the appendix.
• Nowadays countless scientific publications appear. In Matthew’s time that was different, in 1831 only seven books on botany were published in England. Every expert knew Matthew’s book.
• Darwin claims no one knew Matthew’s book. Sutton checked this claim by applying Big Data technique to the now digitized archives. He found that between 1831 and 1858 Matthew’s book has been reviewed or quoted in a printed publication by 24 people. Seven of them are naturalists, four of whom belong to Darwin’s inner circle. Enough to safely assume that Darwin knew the book. The web of connections is dense. With 24 people writing about it, many more read, heard or talked about it. Sutton introduces the concept of “knowledge contamination”. It is like a virus: when two people talk, the flu virus jumps. When two naturalists talk, the Matthew virus jumps. Darwin is in the center of the infected group, eager to take it all in. He cannot be virus-free.
• In 1831, in order to clarify his idea, Matthew takes a novel and unusual detour. Being a professional tree grower, he first talks about the domesticated situation of nurseries. There the breeder selects the specimen with which he wants to breed. Thus Matthew introduces the professional breeder’s term ‘selection’. And then he says that selection also happens in the wild, where nature itself does the selecting. Hence ‘natural selection’. Later, Darwin takes exactly the same detour: his Origin-book starts with two chapters about nurseries (selection) and then talks about wild nature (natural selection). Darwin’s argument is a copy of Matthew’s argument.
• Matthew introduces the term “the natural process of selection”. Darwin speaks about “the process of natural selection”. The same. Plagiarism.
• Sutton’s new evidence, combined with known facts that he refreshes, leads to his conclusion : not Darwin but Matthew is the originator of the theory of natural selection. All elements of the theory are present in Matthew’s book in 1831, then his insight is spread for three decades by J.C. Loudon, Edward Blyth, Robert Chambers, P.J. Selby, A.R. Wallace and others, all well known to Darwin. Then Darwin copies it, calls it “my theory” and says no one knew Matthew’s book.

There is more, Sutton’s book is a gem. With irony and wit he presents “independently verifiable data” and “fact-based evidence”. Although he repeats some of his points more often than necessary, the conclusion must be : this is brand new science, executed well, on a high-profile subject, and with remarkable results.

De bovenstaande recensie stuurde ik op 31 augustus 2018 naar het blad Bionieuws. Het antwoordde dat het geen Engelstalige kopij plaatst, maar het deed me een aanbod. In het nummer van 8 september 2018 kwam Sutton ter sprake, Bionieuws nodigde mij uit om daarop te reageren, ik kreeg 500 woorden ruimte. Ik stuurde een stukje van 475 woorden, het werd zonder al te veel verminkingen geplaatst. Hieronder volgt dat stukje. De verminkingen zijn hersteld en het is iets uitgebreid :