imageIf you should go back and read Tom Chivers’ blog in The Telegraph – why would you unless you were tipped off that it had been modified – you might notice some carefully crafted, much needed corrections. One is admitted to below, one he just snuck in.

One paragraph now reads:

I mention this because today, we report that a group of scientists – working, unexpectedly, for the Italian sustainable energy agency ENEA – claim that the marks on the cloth may have been made by ultraviolet radiation. [Note: originally I quoted them as saying it could "only" have been made by UV. Dr Paolo Di Lazzaro of ENEA has emailed to say that’s not the case, so I’ve updated it.] They say that "When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things like miracles and resurrection," and that they "hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate". They do, however, say "as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes." (bold emphasis mine)

This has been confirmed to me by Dr. Di Lazzaro.

Here is the sneakier change. This is how a paragraph read before (I kept a copy):

Regarding the ENEA findings, he is similarly sceptical. "Just because you can create similar results using an ultraviolet laser, that doesn’t mean it’s the only way it could have been made in the first place," he says. "There are several possibilities, and it could just be a chance effect due to a number of different phenomena. But in archaeological science, being able to reproduce something, doesn’t imply that that’s the technique used; it may simply show that you’ve got a new technique you want to try out." He adds that the confidence in the medieval result is such that, were it not suggested to be a relic, there would be no more discussion over its age.

Here is how it now reads.

Regarding the ENEA findings, he is similarly sceptical."There are several possibilities, and it could just be a chance effect due to a number of different phenomena," he say. "But in archaeological science, being able to reproduce something doesn’t imply that that’s the technique used; it may simply show that you’ve got a new technique you want to try out." He adds that the confidence in the medieval result is such that, were it not suggested to be a relic, there would be no more discussion over its age.

Chivers, after the fact, recently removed this sentence from the quotation attributed to Dr. Ramsey: “Just because you can create similar results using an ultraviolet laser, that doesn’t mean it’s the only way it could have been made in the first place.” He doesn’t tell us, in any obvious way that I can see, that he changed it in the online article. Did he do so because Dr. Ramsey didn’t say it or did he do so because Dr. Ramsey based that part of his statement on erroneous information fed to him by Chivers. He has not informed his readers, that I can see. Has he informed Dr. Ramsey?

Worse than the sneaky change is the downstream effect. In today’s blogosphere, quotes get repeated over and over. Chivers changing of facts in this story is very regrettable. As a journalist he should publish a clear retraction, not try to sneak one over on us.