Primatologist Goodall delays book to fix errors
Renowned primatologist Jane Goodall and her publisher announced on Friday that they are postponing the release of her book, “Seeds of Hope.”
Questions surfaced in an article on Wednesday in The Washington Post that reported on several instances of copied material in the book. The borrowed language came from a range of websites, including Wikipedia and others on tea, tobacco, nature and astrology.
The author and the publisher said they decided on the postponement “so that we may have the necessary time to correct any unintentional errors,” Goodall said in a statement. “It is important to me that the proper sources are credited, and I will be working diligently with my team to address all areas of concern.”
No timetable was given for the book's release. “We look forward to publishing ‘Seeds of Hope' at a later date,” Sophie Cottrell, communications director of Hachette Book Group, said in a statement.
The book is published by Grand Central, an imprint of Hachette.
Goodall and the publisher combed selections from the book that were published in the March issue of Smithsonian magazine and satisfied themselves that no material in the excerpts was borrowed from other sources.
Goodall said her goal was to bring the book up to “the highest of standards” so that questions about sourcing would not distract from the work's message about protecting the environment. She co-wrote “Seeds of Hope” with Gail Hudson, with whom she has worked on two other books.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Law enforcement, intelligence agencies want to ‘like’ you on social media
- Tea Party opposition threatens House GOP’s border bill
- House’s vote to sue Obama is historic foray into checks, balances
- State Dept: ‘No American is proud’ of CIA tactics
- IRS calls right-wing Republicans ‘crazies’ in emails
- Witnesses added for Benghazi hearing
- Ground Zero ship dated to 1773
- Flat-out ‘miracle’ spares women on railroad span
- 6 narcotics officers charged with racketeering
- Charges against Fla. mom raise ire
- $17B emergency funding for Veterans Affairs health care system passes House, heads to Senate