That said, there is a book available from amazon.uk.co called The Darwin Conspiracy by Roy Davies. From the book site, here is the synopsis:
"Charles Darwin has been hailed as the greatest scientist of the 19th century for his discovery of the secrets of evolution. Today, the impact of his work is still felt throughout the world.
But did Darwin really come up with the idea of evolution himself or did he take it from a young researcher trying to impress him?
The Darwin Conspiracy examines how Darwin struggled for years in scientific dead-ends until he was presented with the solution to the greatest scientific puzzle of his day by a naïve naturalist collecting beetles in a tropical jungle.
So began the conspiracy by which eminent scientists promoted the ideas of Darwin ahead of those of Alfred Russel Wallace in order to achieve ever-lasting fame for their greatest friend.
Using extensive research about contemporary shipping time tables and Darwin's own correspondence, the author challenges the commonly-held belief that Darwin scored a scientific breakthrough when in reality he used another man's insights for his own benefit, and committed one of the greatest scientific crimes in history.
The Darwin Conspiracy is a true story about deceit and deception and stands as an outstanding metaphor for the idea of survival of the fittest."
Based on the site, a review (see below) and a portion of the book provided, it would appear that The Darwin Conspiracy is an overview of previous research into the history of Darwin's research. I would find this interesting to see how Darwin fits in with other research done by Lamarck, Blythe and Wallace (among others).
As for the "conspiracy" charge, there may or may not be something to it. Let's grant for the moment that the upper-class Darwin was favoured over the lower-class Wallace. That Darwin was favoured over Wallace doesn't surprise me either since it is almost "natural" that the upper class will support one of their own over someone "below" them. From this alone, I don't see an active conspiracy.
For fun, let's pretend Darwin did "plagiarise" Wallace. Would this affect the science of evolution? I say no, but Darwin being the academic equivalent of common thief kind of puts a damper on Darwin Day celebrations, eh?
(HT to David Tyler @ ARN)
