Sternberg complaint dismissed

In essence, the OSC opinion, authored by Bush appointee James McVey, seems designed to give the religious right another talking point about how any criticism of ID or the ID movement's actions amounts to religious discrimination by the evil secular scientific establishment, even though ID is allegedly science, not religion. Somehow, it manages to do this (1) while telling Sternberg that OSC doesn't have jurisdiction, (2) without any contrasting opinion from the accused parties, and (3) without documenting any actual injury to Sternberg, who still has his unpaid research position, an office, keys, and access to the collections. The opinion is therefore a pretty strange document to read.

By Joyce Howard Price THE WASHINGTON TIMES August 16, 2005 A preliminary federal investigation supports a government scientist's complaint that he was shown bias by Smithsonian Institution colleagues after a science journal he edited published a report on the theory of "intelligent design." However, the Office of Special Counsel informed the complainant, Richard Sternberg, that it is ending the probe into the case because of jurisdictional questions and the Smithsonian's refusal to "voluntarily participate in any additional investigation" into his grievance. ...

Hostility toward religious believers at the nation's museum. By David Klinghoffer ... While the Smithsonian disputes the case, Sternberg's version has so far been substantiated in an investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency. ...

... Mr. Sternberg said Mr. McVay "found strong support for my complaint" and cited "concrete examples" of where Smithsonian personnel demonstrated "discrimination" against him for perceived religious and political views. Mr. McVay cited e-mail in which Mr. Sternberg was described as a "creationist." He said one message asserted that Mr. Sternberg had "extensive training as an orthodox priest" and that the paper he published was a "sheer disaster," which made the institution a "laughingstock."

In his complaint with the special counsel, Mr. Sternberg said he was belittled by a Smithsonian supervisor and other employees after the article appeared. He said museum authorities contacted his employers at NIH, seeking his ouster.

Advice to Mr. Sternberg: check Monster.com for job postings at the Discovery Institute, Seattle. Qualifications optional.

At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.

— Jonathon Coddington

6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such. On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can't speak to his interactions with anyone else.

— Jonathon Coddington

"...at the same time many other actions were taken during the uproar over the Meyer article, your [Sternberg's] supervisor was questioning your friends about your personal political and religious background."

— James McVay OSC Opinion

"they denied your access by taking your master key." The museum "prevented you from having the same access to the research specimens," access "given to others [who] do not have the same hindrances."

— James McVay OSC Opinion

Papers that covered this who should follow up include the Washington Post and the New York Times -- does anyone know whether they have anything brewing?

Their reporting should clear up a lot.

Andrew,

There's another option, the one where the same actions/events are perceived quite differently by Coddington and McVay.

I am very interested to know which is the truth.

— Andrew Rowell

"Within two weeks of receiving the Meyer article in the Proceedings, four managers at the SI and NMNH [National Museum of Natural History] expressed their desire to have your access to the SI denied." A typical internal e-mail on the subject fumed, "I hope we are not even considering extending his access to space." (All quotations from e-mails given here are taken from the OSC's letter to Sternberg.) Another expresses frustration that a good pretext for dismissing him had so far not been identified: "As he hasn't (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong,... the sole reason to terminate his appt seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If that's OK w/NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letter stating so." One manager huffed, "Well, if you ask me, a face-to-face meeting or at least a 'you are welcome to leave or resign' call with this individual is in order." The same e-mail indicated that a manager had been compiling trivial offenses by Sternberg that could be cited in telling him to get out. Among other things, the Smithsonian staffer had gone over Sternberg's library records. He "has currently 50 books checked out from the SI library (I checked this with the library)."

— Klinghoffer 'quoting' from McVay OSC

...your [Sternberg's] supervisor was questioning your friends about your personal political and religious background."

— Klinghoffer 'quoting' from McVay OSC

Gentlemen, why didn't you just pull the article before it was published? Why didn't you fire von Sternberg for thinking, writing, publishing arrant nonsense? Why didn't you just say, "The Smithsonian refuses to publish anything that is contrary to received Darwinian orthodoxy and will do what we can to stop other people from printing and spreading DI, including making sure anyone who tries to publish it, or the peer-review committeees that approve it, are roundly drummed out of the scientific community". Why not sign and publish a statement that you don't believe in DI?

But if I understand rightly, you planned instead to get rid of von Sternberg by subterfuge.

You planned to do it by stealth because you lack the courage of your convictions and didn't want anyone to know your beliefs.

When you learned that your efforts and emails would become public, you backtracked and made the approved noises about academic freedom, religious discrimination, ad nauseum. All of which is painfully absent from your emails.

Maybe it is just me, but the Smithsonian's behavior just seems gutless, backstabbing and plain unmanly.

In the future, rather than post here anonymously and make secret plans in interoffice emails, stand up. Show the courage of your convictions. Say it out loud: "No religious cranks at the Smithsonian! No DI believers here! No DI articles! No DI publications."

And to you of Pandas Thumb, rather than whining and fashioning yourselves as pathetic victims of some nationwide uber-Republican uber-hillbilly uber-Christian conspiracy, show some character and courage and say what you believe.

If the Smithsonian staff did that right away, they would have accomplished precisely what they most wanted to do: suppress publication of the article, preserve the reputation of the Smithsonian, get rid of von Sternberg, and trash his reputation.

Instead, they wind up skulking around like wormboys, mouthing groveling PC expressions of religious freedom and free access, as thought McKay's letter and their emails were still a secret.

They tried to silence von Sternberg until they realized they would get caught, and then, lacking all conviction, they quit.

People who lack the character to say nonsense is nonsense do not deserve to keep their jobs or reputations.

Mike Patton, I'm not sure which "you" you are speaking to but while I agree with the broad gist of what you say, I think you need to read up a little more about this case before spouting off about it. Sternerg was not, and never was, a Smithsonian employee; the journal he edited is not a Smithsonian publication, and the Smithsonian has no editorial control over it. It's clear that the editorial board of the journal was unaware of what Sternerg was doing, and they did indeed publish a rather strongly-worded disavowal of the article in the following issue of the journal. (At any rate, even before the article was published Sternberg had already, for unrelated reasons, turned in his resignation as editor, although he was still acting as editor until his replacement could be found.)

And it's still not entirely clear just what the Smithsonian's "behavior" was, but as an institution dependent in large part on funding by Congress I suspect it wants to avoid even the appearance of religious discrimination.

Mr. Patton,

If someone borrowing access to your business were discovered to be a forger of semi-great art, what would be your duty toward art lovers? What would be your duty toward the art forger?

Why do you pettifog about actions that would be indefensible in any other realm?

Just for the record, it is entirely appropriate, indeed wise and recommended, for the supervisor(s) of a scientist suspected of having engaged in scientific misconduct, to at the very least consider and discuss the opportunity of carefully monitoring/restricting access of said scientist to research material, files and documents. This is done to avoid tampering with evidence or other retaliatory actions by the scientist under investigation.

If I understand it correctly, Sternberg had a "master key" that allowed unchecked access at any hour to any (or most) parts of the relevant SI research facilities, including other people's spaces. In these conditions, considering withdrawing some access would not have been so out of the ordinary.

I have no idea what restrictions were discussed or implemented, whether they were appropriate and fair, or whether the accusations against Sternberg are true or not, but let's not forget that at the time the e-mails were sent Sternberg was (and still may be, as far as I know) suspected of having engaged in pretty serious misconduct ("piloting" the Meyer paper to friendly reviewers), not just "having expressed ideas contrary to Darwinian orthodoxy" (which, according to his publication record, he had been freely doing for a while before this affair broke out).

And to you of Pandas Thumb, rather than whining and fashioning yourselves as pathetic victims of some nationwide uber-Republican uber-hillbilly uber-Christian conspiracy, show some character and courage and say what you believe.

— Mike Patton

Does Jonathon Coddington maintain that he was unaware of this attempt?

Is McVay simply taking Sternberg's word for it? Does Jonathon Coddington maintain that he did not phone Sternbergs friends asking about his political and religious background? If SI were keen for the truth to come out fully and cleanly regarding this episode would they not have cooperated with McVay... how else are confused spectators to know what was going on? If McVay is simply a "biased Bush appointee" how is SI going to clear up the public misunderstanding of this episode?

The Washington Post has an article in Friday's newspaper (free registration required):
Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article

He mailed Meyer's article to three scientists for a peer review. It has been suggested that Sternberg fabricated the peer review or sought unqualified scientists, a claim McVay dismissed. "They were critical of the paper and gave 50 things to consider," Sternberg said. "But they said that people are talking about this and we should air the views."

Wesley,

Sorry to bother you still further....
1. Have you got access to the OSC report?
2. Having in view the data of the report in your view is Jonathon Coddington's comment (3rd February) a fair insight into what had been happening with respect to Sternberg at SI for the previous several months?

David Klinghoffer thinks that this comment is directly contradicted by the OSC report.
3. In your view are the two texts contradictory or not?
4. If they are and the OSC is wrong does Jonathon Coddington have any way of defending his testimony against McVay's report under US law?

I'll take up the last bit now...

"If they are and the OSC is wrong does Jonathon Coddington have any way of defending his testimony against McVay's report under US law?"

Defending against what? The OSC dropped the complaint.

Did McVay actually have access to the peer review files? Is he qualified to judge whether the paper was appropriately peer-reviewed? Was that even something he would be in charge of assessing? If not, how can he "dismiss" anything? That just sounds strange - perhaps the WaPo journalist got that wrong?

Andrea,

As far as I can tell and in my opinion, no, no, no, and political convenience. If the review process were less than spiffy, that would provide a legitimate basis for various of the actions at issue in the complaint. Therefore, asserting that there was nothing at all wrong with the review process, even without having anything other than the assertions of the complainant to go on, is simply par for the course.

I have a possibly related question - would the actual reviews of Meyer's paper, including the names of the reviewers, be revealed as a part of any further inquiry into this matter? Or do these items fall out of the purview of the investigation?

Wesley,

The OSC dropped the complaint because SI was not the employer not (as far as I can see) because there was no case. If SI had been the employer would OSC have dropped the case?

I said
"If they are and the OSC is wrong does Jonathon Coddington have any way of defending his testimony against McVay's report under US law?"

you said
Defending against what? The OSC dropped the complaint.

The OSC report (as I understand it) contradicts Coddington's defence of his own and SI scientists honourable conduct towards Sternberg. For me it looks like McVay is saying that Coddington lied. (David Klinghoffer implies that.) I don't like being called a liar... If I was Coddington and I was telling the truth I would be furious and I would want to see justice done and my good name vindicated. What I meant was... does Coddington (and the other people at SI) have any way of contesting the conclusion that it was only becuase Sternberg was not technically their employee that they are off the legal hook?

The OSC report (as I understand it) contradicts Coddington's defence of his own and SI scientists honourable conduct towards Sternberg. For me it looks like McVay is saying that Coddington lied. If I was Coddington and I was telling the truth I would be furious and I would want to see justice done and my good name vindicated. What I meant was... does Coddington (and the other people at SI) have any way of contesting the conclusion that it was only becuase Sternberg was not technically their employee that they are off the legal hook?

According to insiders, under Bloch, sexual-orientation cases must be sent directly to OSC attorney adviser James McVay, a political appointee of Bloch's. This is a highly unusual, perhaps unique policy, which has placed all sexual-orientation discrimination cases --- like Levine's --- beyond scrutiny, and into the hands of McVay, a former Marine drill sergeant and insurance attorney with no experience in employment law, whistleblower law, or federal-sector work.

I have a possibly related question -- would the actual reviews of Meyer's paper, including the names of the reviewers, be revealed as a part of any further inquiry into this matter? Or do these items fall out of the purview of the investigation?

The actions of the OSC in this affair are most unusual. Any report should have been made first to the head of the Smithsonian, and then to whoever that person reports to. These reports should have been done before any report was made to Dr. Sternberg.

I'm not so expert in inspector general-type actions as I was when I staffed the Senate, but the OSC's actions strike me as way out of bounds.

Working solely from my memory and a dozen investigations in the departments of Labor, HHS and Education, I believe that if there was no jurisdiction, the OSC would have no reason to have investigated any of Dr. Sternberg's allegations at all, and so no comment should have been made about them in the letter.

Who is the inspector general who oversees this particular OSC?

Answer to my question: The inspector general who would have jurisdiction is the Smithsonian's Inspector General:
http://www.si.edu/oig/

Why didn't Sternberg take his complaint to the proper office? Odd. Very, very odd. Why didn't the Washington Post pick up on that problem? It's probably their science or museum reporter covering the issue, not their government investigations experts covering the Hill or administrative agencies.

If I had to file a report today on what I know, I'd say Dr. Sternberg is very difficult to work with, and he made some serious misjudgments in publishing the article by Meyer, and in filing a complaint about actions that were not taken against him. This seems to be a story of bad judgments. It is odd that the spin comes out appearing to blame the Smithsonian and NCSE (!) for their good judgment in doing nothing to retaliate against those who exercised bad judgment.

It would be opera, except that with the stakes as they are, it would have to be comic opera.

It's also worth worrying about the Whistleblower Effect. With the notable exception of Ernie Fitzgerald (who blew the whistle on the C-5A cost overruns), most whistleblowers are a bit off when the news makes it out. With the whistleblowers we worked with, I wondered whether they became odd because they were ostracized, or if their oddness was what caused them to see things differently in order to blow the whistle. Also, about half the whistleblowers tweet about irrelevant, insignificant, or wholly appropriate things that they just disagree with. The WP's story about Sternberg leads me to believe he may be bucking to fall into the category of whistleblower.

I just read the letter. Fascinating.

The letter, while claiming that it supports Dr. Sternberg's claims, also makes a strong case against him. It's clear that his colleagues (not coworkers, we need to be careful to note) felt they had been rather stabbed in the back by pubication of the article. The comments in one e-mail, in which it was explained that one worker wanted his office re-keyed to be certain Dr. Sternberg did not have access to his materials, indicates the depth of the breach of trust: Apparently in this division people trusted each other to have keys to each others' private offices, even Research Associates. Dr. Sternberg's breach of this trust is certainly no indictment of Smithsonian, and the OSC's suggestion is quite telling against Sternberg, that changing the access rules away from the previously trusting atmosphere to one that, while it denied Sternberg access to others' private offices, was more in line with Smithsonian's security policies.

In short, he's got no gripe about having the rules he agreed to enforced against him. It wasn't as if others rifled his office -- there is no such allegation. The facts of the matter show that a very collegial research community felt a previously-welcomed member had betrayed their trust. In their wisdom, they did not retaliate beyond tightening up their security to prevent greater betrayal.

This leaves the Meyer article twisting in the wind where it has been since it was published. The only defense of the article would be solid science backing it. Neither Meyer nor Sternberg has offered such a defense, nor can they, it appears.

But what a spin from Sternberg's cabal!

I note that Sternberg has until Sunday to respond. I'd gamble he makes that response public by Monday. In a fair world, the OSC would offer Smithsonian a chance to respond, too. Anyone want to wager on that?

the evidence of Sternberg's actions just presented tend to support my hypothesis that there exists a psychological pattern that seems to predominate amongst supporters of ID that includes self-deceit, lying, and backstabbing as common features of it.

fascinating, indeed.

I am very sorry to hear yet one more institutions' trust violated in this fashion. Not only is this counterproductive to the furtherance of scientific knowledge, it is an affront to the standards of human behavior we all should adhere to.

Here's an interesting issue. If OSC has no jurisdiction, as they claim, then why did they waste taxpayer's money investigating the supposed mistreatment of Sternberg? Surely they should have settled the jurisdictional issue first, before investigating the factual basis of the complaint.

If I want to file a complaint against OSC, based on what looks like inappropriate use of taxpayer funds on an pointless investigation, whom do I complain to?

Let me suggest we tone down the rhetoric, shall we? At this time, there is no evidence anyone lied to or "back-stabbed" anyone else.

Hopefully, at some point all the details of the Meyer paper review process and the Smithsonian reactions to its publication will be properly investigated (unlike the odd mixture of second-hand personal interpretation of events, mind-reading, elements from Sternberg's testimony and transparent political agendas that Mr. McVay's letter attempts to pass for "preliminary inquiry"). At that point we may know if any ethical and professional rules were violated, and by whom.

Gerald:
I have a feeling the Smithsonian lawyers may be considering that (or should), together with the inappropriate disclosure of the content of personal communications which the OSC, by its own judgement, had no right to access in the first place.

The upshot is, but for a legal classification (which wasn't even fully determined at the time of the complaint) which placed Sternberg just outside the protection of the OSC, the OSC would probably be issuing court orders for further compliance by the SI in the second stage of a federal investigation into willful discrimination and persucution of a federal employee.

The upshot is, but for a legal classification (which wasn't even fully determined at the time of the complaint) which placed Sternberg just outside the protection of the OSC, the OSC would probably be issuing court orders for further compliance by the SI in the second stage of a federal investigation into willful discrimination and persucution of a federal employee.

Another [e-mail] labeled [Sternberg] a "Young Earth Creationist," meaning a person who believes God created the world in the past 10,000 years. This latter accusation is a reference to Sternberg's service on the board of the Baraminology Study Group, a "young Earth" group. Sternberg insists he does not believe in creationism. "I was rather strong in my criticism of them," he said. "But I agreed to work as a friendly but critical outsider."

Funky. The WaPo reporter missed the fact that Sternberg was a presenter at a closed ID-advocates-only conference in 2002. People who weren't known ID supporters could not even register. (I tried, but got told to try again at one of the public ID conferences.)

uh oh, looks like you finally made their permanent sh*t list wes; you're doomed now... DOOOOOMMMED, i tells ya!

*snort*

sorry to hijack the thread but . . . who is really surprised by this?

Frist voices support for 'intelligent design'
Senator encourages teaching of faith-based theory alongside evolution

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9008040/

One thing is for sure, the naturalists are right, politics and science don't mix! So why won't they take their political crucibles off their Bunsen burners and quit concocting. Those of us in the pro-ID camp are continuously asked what we are afraid of; I think it might be fair to ask the same of them. For a group so certain of themselves, as the Bard said, me thinks they protest too much.

— The Sheep's Crib

"(Ironically, the ID advocates have voluntarily opted out of actually working on seeing to it that their ideas pass scientific muster before urging their acceptance in K-12 classrooms.)"

now, now, you very well know that THIS week, the DI has decided that it is NOT urging the teaching of ID in the classroom... even tho they applaud president bush for encouraging the teaching of it in the classroom on their website...

i think my brain just popped.

"they support your decision to publish" (according to a quote from his email to Sternberg)

— Dr McDiarmid

What was done to Sternberg was wrong, whether or not it was illegal is irrelevant, it was wrong. If he were an editor of a physics journal who had let pass a anti releatvity articile he might be sniggered at and regarded with disdain, but nothing like this would happen to him. Clearly world views are at stake, and both sides are playing dirty. Yet it's those caught in the cross fire I feel sorry for. Honesty demmands that we admit Dr Sternberg has been mistreated, however one phrases it one cannot justify workplace harrasment and abusive emails.

Paulo, what happened to Sternberg? Can you detail it? Other than his key being replaced so that he no longer had access to private offices of others at Smithsonian in violation of the rules, what did he lose? He still has his job. He still has his research access.

On the other hand, do you think that the peer review process should be so abused as to allow the publication of articles that are outside the subject matter of a journal, and in a way that the memebers of the society are embarrassed by the action because the article is substandard, or wrong? What would be the appropriate penalty for someone who published such an article?

The issue should be dead. The article is published. Notably, no one in the ID camp is defending the article or the science it should have presented to be published there.

What Sternberg DID was wrong. That it's not illegal is not really irrelevant, it was wrong. If he had been the editor of a commercial journal, he'd have a pink slip.

How, exactly, is it "playing dirty" to insist that honor and honesty be maintained in the peer review process? This whine from the defenders of ignorance always tees me off.

Honesty demands that, first, Dr. Sternberg admit that the processes were, at best, bent irreparably when he published the article without fully informing the board of the society and without using a more careful and rigorous review process.

Where can we expect to see his apology?

And, exactly how is it "harassment" to discuss the fact that, though someone has violated the ethics of his profession, he cannot be fired? Can I get you to explain that to a judge, who has a professional canon of ethics which requires that the judge avoid even the appearance of impropriety?

'My client was wronged, your honor. He violated the ethics and procedures of his profession, he stabbed his colleagues in the back so that they no longer trust him to work with him, and he demands justice! They cannot fire him, so now he demands they be reprimanded!'

Chutzpah, indeed.

This is sort of off topic, but what was the story of Denton's demise at the Discovery Institute? The other fellows didn't like his last book and even posted a discussion of the book at ARN or ISCID that didn't include Denton, and then Denton was out.

Since they keep a guy like Berlinski around, you'd think that it would be worth the Fellowship to keep listing Denton. Creationist are still citing Denton's first bogus book, even though his second book pretty much makes it irrelevant.

I just sent off a LTE to the New York Times. The whole thing took me maybe fifteen minutes. C'mon, folks, don't be shy. Tell us when you've made your concerns known to a media outlet.

Andrew, the link you provided doesn't work.

Honesty demands that, first, Dr. Sternberg admit that the processes were, at best, bent irreparably when he published the article without fully informing the board of the society and without using a more careful and rigorous review process.

— Ed Darrell

"they support your decision to publish" (according to a quote from his email to Sternberg)

— Dr McDiarmid

Andrew,

That one can find three ID-friendly credentialed academics willing to give Meyer's deeply flawed manuscript a pass is not surprising. McDiarmid's comment doesn't mean that all was well with the review process.

Kevin,
Apologies....

Not having much joy with my links...

The link to Dr Sternberg's updated version of the events is:

www.rsternberg.net

Wesley,

Do you know who the reviwers are?
Do you know that they are ID friendly?

Andrew,

No, I don't know who the reviewers are. I didn't say that I did. No, we don't know that the reviewers *were* ID-friendly AND we do not know that they definitely *were not* ID-friendly. In the absence of that information, one can't take the observation that three reviewers gave the deeply flawed manuscript a pass as meaning everything was OK in the review process.

Mr. Rowell,

After reviewing the entire situation, Dr. McDiarmid joined in the letter from the Society saying the review process was inadequate and the publication was unfortunate, subsequent to his earlier comments.

Learning progresses. ID advocates and other creationists like to pretend knowledge remains static. It doesn't. One wonders what the Society learned (which has not been revealed) that would lead Dr. McDiarmid to change his mind. Whatever it was, we'll have to trust him, at least unless and until the full record ever gets out.

The best way for ID advocates to establish Dr. Sternberg's integrity, of course, would be to go to the lab and produce some results.

Of course, as you well know, no ID advocate has offered to do that. I predict no ID advocate will step up to the Bunsen burner to defend Dr. Sternberg with real results. They know Meyer's article was hooey as much as anyone else does, and such a defense would, in their view, be fruitless.

Given the tradition of anonymous and confidential reviews in scientific journals, we don't know who the reviewers were, nor what they said. Let us assume that the reviews were favorable. The big question is whether they were qualified and impartial. For example, reviewers for reputable journals are not affiliated with the institutions of the submitting author(s), except in very rare cases.

So a legitimate question for Sternberg is: "Were the reviewers affiliated with the Discovery (sic) Institute, since that is Meyer's employer?" As far as I know, copies of the reviews were forwarded to Dr. McDiarmid but not the identity of the reviewers. Were the usual correct processes followed in picking the reviewers for the Meyer paper? It seems pretty clear that they were not. Perhaps Meyer could release Sternberg from confidentiality and the reviewers could do the same.

A second point comes out about "scientific shunning" of Sternberg. I have creationist colleagues. I am currently collaborating intensely with a colleague who is a fundamentalist Christian, and definitely inclined to the YEC view. We argue in a friendly way about such things, but the ultimate test of our collaboration is whether it gets good science done. The scientific community is a remarkably tolerant meritocracy. As long as one plays by the rules of the game (i.e., doesn't cheat), most anything short of criminality is irrelevant.

Sternberg's colleagues were upset with him for publishing creationist non-scientific nonsense in a way that subverted the scientific process. He was free to do so in other forums, and I doubt his doing so inspired more than a little tongue-clucking and head-wagging. Nobelist William Shockley's peddled dubious statistics purporting to show that African-Americans were intellectually inferior to whites and Asians. Eventually, the controversy died down, although it recrudesces periodically, as we got a better understanding of the multifactorial nature of intelligence, human genetic variation, and human evolution. It took up a lot of time and effort, though.

So how do we react when a colleague deliberately hurts the enterprise? One is to try being helpful if possible (see A Beautiful Mind) and the other is to make sure that the damage is limited. This may involve removing the colleague from the classroom, or from a position of authority (like an editorship), or repudiating the work by retracting or disavowing it in print. Which is what PBSW did at the first opportunity. It is not persecution when such things happen; it is the logical consequence of activities that cannot be tolerated if the community as a whole is to succeed. "Fixing" a propaganda piece so that it can be cited as science is one of those activities, and Sternberg is smart enough to know that.

We learned from Shockley and others (e.g., Gajdusek,) that a Nobel does not automatically confer virtue or even good judgement. Neither does a Ph.D., or even two.

In his report of the Sternberg complaint, Matzke fails to mention that the investigation found support for virtually all of Sternberg's complaints. That it is recommended for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds is hardly cause for celebration at the SI or the NCSE for that matter. The fact is, neither group spared Sternberg from their diatribes, name calling, and guilt-by-association innuendos. For that, they should at the least show some contrition and apologize PUBLICLY to Sternberg for the trouble they have caused him. But I won't hold my breath. As we all know, Darwinists are never wrong in their excoriations of anyone they deem a "creationist".

"As we all know, Darwinists are never wrong in their excoriations of anyone they deem a "creationist"."

Correct. Because Creationists AREN'T DOING SCIENCE. If they were, they'd be doing it in the scientific arena and not playing these silly games.

the investigation found support for virtually all of Sternberg's complaints.

— Donald M

The anti-gay FRC had something about this in their Daily Bleating - and the Washington Post had a story that didn't cover this well. People should write letters to the editor. The Family Research Council will go back to their regularly schedule of all gays all the time - but it's interesting that this came up on their radar screen.

http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/08/idiocy-from-family-research-council.html

What I can't figure out is, if the pro-Darwinian scientific establishment has stacked the deck against them as much as they claim, why haven't ID proponents created their own journal to publish high-quality peer reviewed articles that are favorable to ID?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680_pf.html

Post article at URL above.

"What I can't figure out is, if the pro-Darwinian scientific establishment has stacked the deck against them as much as they claim, why haven't ID proponents created their own journal to publish high-quality peer reviewed articles that are favorable to ID?"

uh, they have in fact co-opted a journal to do just that:

Rivista di Biologia

in fact, check out another crank who can only publish in this journal as well:

http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/

and i do mean CRANK:

http://www.crank.net/evolution.html

addendum:

not implying that the scientific community has "stacked the deck" against ID (or JAD for that matter) - the point being the reason they don't get published in most peer reviewed journals is that what they do ISN'T SCIENCE. EOS

Ed,

Saying that the review process was "inadequate" and the publication "unfortunate" is different from saying "the processes were, at best, bent irreparably." Is there any clear evidence that Dr Sternberg "bent" any of the rules/processes laid down for the editor of the journal? I would like to see that evidence please. Is it simply that he broke an unspoken "rule" not to publish anything which disagrees with the overwhelming number of biologists on origins.

In his report of the Sternberg complaint, Matzke fails to mention that the investigation found support for virtually all of Sternberg's complaints.

— Donald M

The best way for ID advocates to establish Dr. Sternberg's integrity, of course, would be to go to the lab and produce some results.

— Ed Darrell

PvM

Dr. Sternberg's Complaints... from his website

1. Efforts to remove me from the Museum. After Smithsonian officials determined that there was no wrong-doing in the publication process for the Meyer paper and that they therefore had no grounds to remove me from my position directly, they tried to create an intolerable working environment so that I would be forced to resign. As the OSC investigation concluded, "[i]t is... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI." In addition, it was made clear to me that my current position at the Smithsonian will not be renewed despite my excellent record of research and publication.

2. Efforts to get NIH to fire me. Pressure was put on the NIH to fire me.

3. Perceived political and religous beliefs investigated. Smithsonian officials attempted to investigate my personal religious and political beliefs in gross violation of my privacy and my First Amendment rights.

4. Smeared with false allegations. My professional reputation, private life, and ethics were repeatedly impugned and publicly smeared with false allegations by government employees working in tandem with a non-governmental political advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

5. Pressured to reveal peer reviewers and to engage in improper peer review. I was repeatedly pressured to reveal the names of the peer-reviewers of the Meyer article, contrary to professional ethics. I was also told repeatedly that I should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand, in direct violation of professional ethics which require editors to find peer reviewers who are not prejudiced or hostile to a particular author or his/her ideas.

6. Creation of hostile work environment.
(a) Supervisor replaced. I was transferred from the supervision of a friendly sponsor (supervisor) at the Museum to a hostile one.
(b) Office space. I was twice forced to move specimens from my office space on short notice for no good reason, my name plate was removed from my office door, and eventually I was deprived of all official office space and forced to use a shared work area as my work location in the Museum.
(c) Unprecedented work requirements. I was subjected to an array of new reporting requirements not imposed on other Research Associates.
(d) Access to specimens limited. My access to the specimens needed for my research at the Museum was restricted. (My access to the Museum was also restricted. I was forced to give up my master key.)

OSC report gives evidence to substantiate at least 1,3,4 partially, 5, 6c and 6d partially as far as I can see.

Over here (at the moment) we are innocent until proven guilty.... by the sound of it... over there ...Dr Sternberg is guilty until proven to have real integrity .... not by his own actions or research efforts but by ...others... I am sure you did not mean that did you?

— Rowell

"Over here (at the moment) we are innocent until proven guilty.... by the sound of it... over there ...Dr Sternberg is guilty until proven to have real integrity .... not by his own actions or research efforts but by ...others... I am sure you did not mean that did you?"

He sure as hell meant that.

We're discussing SCIENCE, are we not? Stop trying to change the subject. Where are the research? Where are the results?

OSC report gives evidence to substantiate at least 1,3,4 partially, 5, 6c and 6d partially as far as I can see.

— Andrew

However, the SI is now refusing to cooperate with our investigation. OSC is not able to take statements and receive further paper discovery that would allow for final conclusions, The SI may in fact maintain documents that place our current information in a different context. As a consequence, I will detail only our preliminary findings below.

Our investigation also shows that there is a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article.

One senior S[ employee, when discussing the Meyer article stated, "The papet is a sheer disaster .., We are evolutinary biologist, and I am sorry to see us made into the laughing stock ofthe world, even if this kind of rubbish sells well in backwoods USA. ..Under no circumstances should the Institution support the journal with page-charges, which up to this point has been a mainstay of the Society."

SL Members of NCSE, furthermore, e-mailed detailed statements of repudiation of the Meyer article to high level NMNH officials.

You allege in your complaint that SI managers questioned people that they thought to be your friends at the SI, regarding your religion and your political affiliations. According to your complaint, this occuned on at leastwo occasions, You learned this through direct statements made to you by the individuals that were questioned. As stated above, our investigation has not been allowed lo proceed through the interview process. We have not been able to question the individuals involved in the alleged conversations to determine if the facts would support a specified legal conclusion.

Eventually, they determined that they could not terminate you for cause and they were not going to make you a "martyr" by firing you for publishing a paper on ID, They came to the conclusion that you had not violated SI directives and that you could not be denied accoss for off- duty conduct.This was actually part of the suategy advocated by the NCSE,

Undeterred, these same managers then embarked on a new strategy to change your working conditions and create a hostile working environment. Several e-mails complained that you should not be allowed to "live" on the same working floor with other scientists. Two very senior scientists wanted your supervisor to let you know that "you are welcome to leave or resign."

Ono important thlng to keep in mind, however, ls the equal treatment of all RAs In the section. You must not impose more onerous restrictions on one particular RA than on other RAs in the section

Anyway, on tho core point, I obviously im not going to be able to find a sponsor for Sternberg, yet his oficcial-status is as a rescearch associate for the next three years, If you don't want to make a martyr of him, I'll sponsor him.

Also, these indicate they are still attempting to find a reason to terminate you. You had not "yet" been found to have committed a terminable offense. They were still looking for a pretext,

Excuse me xxx, but I thought that we were addressing the issue of integrity of the museum's scientific research. In that respect, your are responsible for the actions of your researchers as well as those scientists who uso the name of this museum in any way related to research or collections [which includes research associates and those of the, euphemistically named, affiliated agencies].

Reviewer Anonymity, Don't Stemberg tell you that reviewers names must remain a secret. Reviewer anonymity ls a request by a reviewer to an editor that the reviewer not be directly and immediately ldentified to the author of a manuscript under review. ln fact, during the l5 years I was assoclate editor, we published a list of reviewers of manuscripts for the year at the end of oach year as a way of advertizing our interest in a rigorous revlew process.

So, were the reviewers people who could provide a balanced assessment of the manuscript and people who wero cited in the manuscript, especially those whose ideas were opinined to be wrong? Or were the reviewers peoplo who a priori support ID or structuralism, nuanced names for creationism?

Of course, that is easy for me to say, and as bosses it is you who have to decide what to do.

Ed, Saying that the review process was "inadequate" and the publication "unfortunate" is different from saying "the processes were, at best, bent irreparably." Is there any clear evidence that Dr Sternberg "bent" any of the rules/processes laid down for the editor of the journal? I would like to see that evidence please. Is it simply that he broke an unspoken "rule" not to publish anything which disagrees with the overwhelming number of biologists on origins.

I read some of the opinion. It is depressing how the theocrats have taken over all aspects of the Bush administration. In HHS, somehow the Traditional Values Coalition was getting hold of the list of NIH studies - so they could tell which ones should get funded or not.

For all the loud pronouncements of being "christian" - these characters lie through their teeth.

That Washington Post article was picked up by MSNBC.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9002297/

It's really awful.

I hope science in America isn't broken beyond repair, so I said "bent." I hope I'm not wrong; I hope we can pound out the dents and go on with mostly cosmetic injury.

"When has American science been better funded?"

there you go again, steve.

how bout 1975?

I keep telling you this, but you refuse to listen or do your own research.

actual useable dollar amounts for research have been steadily declining since 1980 (when Reagan took office).

go frickin look at the NSF reports before you keep spouting the same shit over and over again.

if you can't figure out what the trends indicate, then don't say anything.

addendum:

the only thing i agree with in your statement is that it has little to do with ID specifically, and much more to do with the folks behind the ID movement; I wonder if you grasp that?

I'm going to continue to believe what I've seen before w/r/t science funding, despite the claims of a guy who calls himself Sir Toejam. In the past on this site I've provided links to data indicating increased real dollar funding over the last 50 years. If anybody disagrees, fine, maybe I'm wrong, but give me some data.

For example, here are two charts of NSF funds in 2004 constant dollars. Seems to support my point.

top of pages 3 and 4 at:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nsf05c.pdf

I keep telling you this, but you refuse to listen or do your own research. ... go frickin look at the NSF reports before you keep spouting the same shit over and over again. ... if you can't figure out what the trends indicate, then don't say anything. ... I wonder if you grasp that?

Lordy, Ed, why on earth would you think the situation so dire? When has American science been better funded? In what distant time was it a larger enterprise?

Even if the environment at the Smithsonian became less friendly to Sternberg after publication of the Meyer article, I see no reason to presume that it was due to religious bias and not recognition of his scientific incompetence.

It seems hypocritical to claim that IDC is science and not religion, but when it is rejected in the scientific arena, this is due to religious discrimination.

It seems hypocritical to claim that IDC is science and not religion, but when it is rejected in the scientific arena, this is due to religious discrimination.

Comment #44218 Posted by Ed Darrell on August 21, 2005 09:57 AM (e) (s) In the Kennedy administration, in the Johnson administration, in the Nixon administration, in the Ford administration, in the Carter administration, and in the first year of the Reagan administration. Since 1981 funding has been systematically cut out of the federal budget for research, especially the smaller research projects that used to undergird our graduate degree programs. Total spending is up in non-constant dollars --- but NSF has less money and can fund less research, NIH has less money to send out to university and special laboratories.

Steve, how about as a fraction of GNP? Waaaay down.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to my point, I should say. My original point is that American science is healthy, ID is no threat, and the real threat is the increased difficulties faced by foreign scientists. I based the claim about the health of American science on vague memories of graphs I'd seen in the past about funding. After a pointlessly rude challenge by some pseudonymous commenter--typical traffic on the internet--I found a couple of charts which demonstrate that adjusted for inflation, the NSF is giving out more money than ever, and this has been a trend for decades. I think my point is pretty firmly established, at least about that part. The part about ID not being much of a potential threat is not something I'd defend as strongly.

Ed,

Thank you for you helpful comment. There was a good lot in there that I didn't know and had not seen before.

Do you know which usual procedures the board said were not followed?
Can I get hold of their statement somewhere?

steve, maybe your not taking into account that per individual research budget (as per university department) funding has gone down? I can't figure out how you can still think that funding has increased? how long have you been in the sciences?

I'm sorry if i get a little pissy about this, but i ran into several university adminstrators who also managed to convince themselves of your argument, to the detriment of departmental funding across most of the biological and basic science departments.

I'll go ahead and dig up the reports this week and post them for you.

btw steve:

" a guy who calls himself Sir Toejam"

i often flush out those with less than robust thought processes by how they choose to address the posting names of others. as if a posting name reflects anything about the person doing the posting...

It's actually one of the reasons i choose to post with that particular handle.

I certainly don't make anything out of the fact that you post with the name "steve", whatever that means...

Andrew, the statement from the board of BSW was posted here on PT several months ago, but I am having a little trouble finding exactly where. It listed several procedures that were not followed.

Want to know more about Meyer's Hopeless Monster?

The Meyer 2004 Medley

Biological Society of Washington repudiation

Steve and Andrew: It does indeed appear as though the total spending on research is up; the entire picture is more difficult. Defense research is a huge part of the increase, but medical research is up, too. Agricultural research really suffers in comparison.

In any case, for whatever reasons, federal research grants are tougher to come by than they used to be. Here is a link to the latest Statistical Abstract of the U.S. at the appropriate page:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/science.pdf

This issue merits more study, by me at least.

This business is getting wide publication. It even appeared in the Kansas City Star as Scientists accused of smear: Intelligent design article sets off government furor.

But the publicity machine has gotten the anti-science message through, but the background of all Sternberg's problems don't get the publication.

Consequences.

One must be prepared for consequences and apparently Sternberg wasn't.

It appears that the big bad Discovery Institute didn't fully inform Sternberg of the consequences of his actions. The Meyer paper is fiction from beginning to end. It's clear that Sternberg short-circuited the review process and blind-sided the Journal's board. Certainly, if that had happened in a corporation Sternberg would have been fired outright. Blind-siding is not a good thing.

I weep not for Sternberg. He's chosen his path, however not a scientific path.

don't cry for me argentina...

I do not see any happy resolution of these issues. Sternberg's decision has graced intelligent design with unearned and, IMHO, unmerited position in science indices.

— Ed Darrell

Another aspect is the "religious" persecution angle.

The problem is that the very standards used by the OSC for judging if there was discrimination against Sternberg are the ones that he appears to have violated.

The issue is not discrimination against Sternberg for his particular religious beliefs. Rather the issue is whether Sternberg used religion (whatever religion that might be) as basis for and involved in his decisions to publish the article without proper review or process and without the article actually having any scientific content.

It would not have mattered whether Sternberg published an article without scientific content which had an athiest purpose, or a Christian sect's purpose. No matter the case he would have been out of bounds to publish an article without scientific merit and for such a religiously based reason. The key point here is the background political organization of Discovery Institute and various creationist groups in pushing such articles into the hands of someone like Sternberg for religious reasons.

Science discriminates against all religions in the sense that articles whose content is primarily of religious backing and of no scientific value are descriminated against. This is not a discrimination against any particular religion (or lack thereof), but is an inherent property of the scientific method.

I weep not for Sternberg. He's chosen his path, however not a scientific path.

Responding to my comment #44117 wherein I stated that the OSC found support for virtually all of Sternberg's complaints, Reed Cartwright writes in post #44120, "No it didn't. The personal letter from political appointee McVay did not identify any injury to Sternberg. It cited many emails where people were upset at Sternberg's scientific misconduct but was unable to identify a single instance where anyone did anything to him about it." And PvM writes in post #44131: "Actually the report does no such thing. It mentions that it has found some evidence 'suggestive'..."

I didn't say the OSC identified injury to Mr. Sternberg, I said the letter indicated they found support for the complaint. From the letter from the OSC we read: "My decision is not based upon the substance of your allegations; in fact, our preliminary investigation supports your complaint." And a bit further on: "During our initial investigations, OSC has been able to find support for many of your allegations. However, the SI is now refusing to cooperate with our investigation." One wonders why the SI refused to cooperate if everything was on the up and up here. Pim should take note that word used in the letter is "support" not "suggestive" as he indicates.

A bit further on in the letter the OSC writes: "Nevertheless, the current investigative file reflects support for your allegations."

You guys can back-peddle on this all you want, but the fact is, Sternberg was singled out to be on the receiving end of a whole range of bad behavior on the part of the Darwinian crowd. We still await the public apology to Sternberg for this unprofessional and unnecessary bad behavior.

Chutzpah

er "We still await the public apology..."??? who is we, donald?

One wonders why the SI refused to cooperate if everything was on the up and up here.

We still await the public apology to Sternberg for this unprofessional and unnecessary bad behavior.

You allege in your complaint that SI managers questioned people that they thought to be your friends at the SI, regarding your religion and your political affiliations. ... As stated above, our investigation has not been allowed lo proceed through the interview process. We have not been able to question the individuals involved in the alleged conversations to determine if the facts would support a specified legal conclusion. Nevertheless, the current investigative file reflects support for your allegations. First, the e-mail traffic does show that there were meetings between the individuals in question during the time frame that you allege in the complaint. [#1] For some reason there was no official record kept by the SI of what was stated in the meetings, at least based on what has been provided to OSC to date.[#2] Further, a second e-mail drafted by this same manager several months later admits that one of these meetings took place [#3] and, more importantly, these issues were discussed.[#4] To put this in-context, at the same time many other actions were taken during the uproar over the Meyer article your supervisor was questioning your friends about your personal political and religious background.[#5]

One wonders why the SI refused to cooperate if everything was on the up and up here.

— Donald M

I said the letter indicated they found support for the complaint.

In comment 44326 Bayesean Bouffant writes: "2) That will probably come soon after Sternberg's apology for his unprofessional bad behaviour in publishing the Meyer paper."

And with that comment, you give away the game. It just bothers the heck out of the PT crowd that Meyer's paper passed peer review. And you think it "professional" the way Sternberg has been treated? Sternberg owes no one an apology as he is the only one who has acted professionally throughout. His detractors on the other hand think a public flogging is perfectly acceptable if someone actually has the audacity to even question the Darwinian story. That seems highly unscientific and unprofessional to me.

If the paper "passed" peer review, why is there no defense of the science by its author, its backers, or the editor, Sternberg? Donald M., this is a political fight. The trick for ID advocates is to get their press releases out as far and as fast as they can. In that task, they have no time for science, no time to observe nature, no time for experiment, no time for hypothesis.

If the paper "passed" peer review, can you kindly point me to the science it contains?

If the paper passed peer review, why did the board of the Society that published it call it "contrary to typical editorial practices?" Why did Sternberg go against policy and fail to present it to any associate editor? Why was any secrecy necessary if the paper were valid and capable of passing peer review without a behind-the-scenes goose from the editor?

You'll notice that no one has pulled the paper back. It's still there. It's still available. There is no censorship from the side of science. Instead, as Wesley Elsberry noted above, there is much scientific critique of the paper. None of the scientific critique has been answered by the paper's author or other ID supporters.

So, I think you need to get the facts straight. Sternberg bent the process to sneak the paper into the journal, inappropriately. Rather than consult with a broad number of editors and members of the board, as should be normal with any controversial paper or one that is outside the usual scope of the journal, Sternberg held it close to his own vest. He kept the size of the "review" team much smaller than is appropriate for proper peer review. He failed to tell associate editors or officers of the society.

Such variations from clear ethical paths do indeed bother the heck out of the PT crowd. Why is it that no defender of ID can get published within the ethical bounds of hard science? And why do you defend such ethical lapses as if they were of no consequence?

Those who have the "audacity" to question Darwin straight out, with observation, experiment, and loads of data, get famous -- like the late great Ernst Mayr, like Niles Eldredge and the late Stephen Gould with punctuated equilibria. Such audacity, when done ethically, is breathtakingly fun, and informative.

Science depends on scientists acting appropriately. Scientists are understandably upset whenever anyone trashes the processes that are carefully molded over the past 200 years to prevent error, and to find error and eradicate it.

This is not a low-stakes, penny-ante game. Those who study history note the millions who starved when the Soviet Union sneaked articles into publication without proper peer review, against the experimental results of the real researchers in their societies. America's agricultural industries depend on proper application of Darwinian theory in breeding of new foodstocks (both animal and plant), and in the eradication of pests and disease in agriculture and human medicine.

This ain't mumblety-peg.

One wonders why the SI refused to cooperate if everything was on the up and up here. Pim should take note that word used in the letter is "support" not "suggestive" as he indicates.

Donald, you obviously haven't followed any of this story up until now. Why not actually educate yourself as to how Sternberg weasled the article in the paper? "Professional" is hardly the term I'd use to describe his conduct.

"Why not actually educate yourself as to how Sternberg weasled the article in the paper"

because Donald is not interested in educating himself. He IS interested in ad-hominem attacks on the character of evolutionary biologists without knowledge of the facts, tho. seems de-rigeur for many supporters of ID.

Sad, really. they continue to paint themselves as victims of abuse, when the situations pertaining to such perceieved abuses are often contrived deliberately.

addendum:

I liken this to the equivalent of expecting someone to feel empathy towards someone who deliberately threw themselves in front of a car in order to fake injury and sue the driver. Moreover, in this case, there were plenty of witnesses to the illegitimate act, and the performer STILL expects us to buy into it. Bystanders who feel sympathy for those hit by cars can't come by later, ignore all the witnesses, and expect to know the truth of the matter.

And with that comment, you give away the game. It just bothers the heck out of the PT crowd that Meyer's paper passed peer review. And you think it "professional" the way Sternberg has been treated? Sternberg owes no one an apology as he is the only one who has acted professionally throughout. His detractors on the other hand think a public flogging is perfectly acceptable if someone actually has the audacity to even question the Darwinian story. That seems highly unscientific and unprofessional to me.

— Donald M.

And you never did answer: Who are 'we'?

"It just bothers the heck out of the PT crowd that Meyer's paper passed peer review."

— Donald M

And it must bother the DI crowd that the paper has been repudiated (retracted) by the Board of the PBSW. This happens very rarely: in cases of fraud, or complete lack of scientific merit.

I just keep hearing about this Sternberg quasi-martyr crap, and got fed up enough to write a lengthy post outlining the facts, and referencing various sources. It's high time the spin machine at DI gets a wrench named "facts" thrown in it...