I find this excerpt particularly offensive to my open science sensibilities (29:40 ff):
We were able to, after 10 years, actually get it published in PLoS Biology, took us 10 years, yeah, we were rejected every single place that we ever sent the manuscript. I find that interesting too, and we even had editors say to us that they didn't want to say anything against Stephen J Gould. Isn't that interesting?Interesting indeed. As I wrote in my review of the Lewis et al. (2011) paper on the Gould vs. Morton affair:
It is remarkable that 30 years after the Mismeasurement of Man Gould's errors are uncovered. Why did it take so long? While one could understand why the (totally unfounded but -on the surface- plausible) idea of measurement bias could have gone unnoticed until someone actually re-measured the skulls, but the statistical error that Gould committed was there for anyone to see.We now know why it took at least 10 out of these 30 years: stuck in journal limbo.