12 Responses to “Another Government Report Supports Sternberg”

1. bj Says:
   December 15th, 2006 at 10:39 pm

   I don't quite understand what this is. Is it a report prepared by Rep. Souders staff for him. Or is it something the full sub-committee worked on? In other words, is there any meat here that will result in some action being taken?

Comment by bj — December 15, 2006 @ 10:39 pm

2. MikeGene Says:
   December 16th, 2006 at 12:51 am

   Hi bj,

   I have no idea about any action, but the report is interesting. Here are some excerpts:

   Dr. Sternberg's OSC complaint describes efforts to discover or disparage his supposed religious and political beliefs, and the OSC investigation concluded that there was "a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article." The emails reviewed by subcommittee staff corroborate this finding. In a memo prepared on February 8, 2005, NMNH scientist Marilyn Schotte admitted that after publication of the Meyer paper, Dr. Coddington wanted to know "if Dr. Sternberg was religious."56 Dr. Schotte further admitted telling Coddington that Sternberg "was a Republican." According to Dr. Sternberg's OSC complaint, Dr. Schotte had also told him in August 2004 that Coddington wanted to know whether he was a "religious fundamentalist" and a "right-winger." By February 2005, when the NMNH was working hard to repair the damage done to its reputation by the Wall Street Journal article on Sternberg, Dr. Schotte had a convenient lapse of memory regarding these additional damaging details. Still, Schotte did not deny Dr. Sternberg's account, conceding that Dr. Coddington "might" have asked her whether Dr. Sternberg "was a fundamentalist" and whether he "was a conservative." Dr. Schotte insisted "Dr. C. was not being judgmental, only curious."57 But given the demonstrably hostile atmosphere toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH during the period in question, there is nothing innocuous about an official with supervisory authority inquiring into Sternberg's religious and political beliefs.

   From the very beginning of the Sternberg controversy, there was much speculation within NMNH and the scientific community as to whether or not Dr. Sternberg had followed proper procedures in having the Meyer article peer-reviewed. In numerous emails reviewed by the Subcommittee, NMNH staff and others in the scientific community, such as the NCSE's Dr. Scott, alleged that Dr. Sternberg must not have had the article peer-reviewed, and, if he did, the reviewers must have been either incompetent or a supporter of intelligent design.65 All of these allegations were very damaging to Dr. Sternberg's reputation within the scientific community as it is considered the ultimate demonstration of scientific irresponsibility to publish an article without proper peer review.

   As the controversy heated up in the ensuing months and the allegations about Dr. Sternberg's mishandling of the Meyer article remained unresolved, the BSW never issued a definitive statement about whether or not the peer-review allegations were true. Only in late January 2005, when Dr. Sues asked Dr. McDiarmid via email about whether the BSW was "satisfied that a proper review by specialists was undertaken,"66 was there any recognition that the article was properly peer-reviewed. Dr. McDiarmid replied to Dr. Sues: "I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process."67

   In Deputy Secretary Burke's response to Rep. Souder dated May 3, 2006, she acknowledged that Dr. Sternberg's viewpoint on evolution sparked "strong disagreement" among other scientists at the NMNH, but insisted that "[w]hile the tone of the disagreement between scholars may seem harsh, disagreement does not equal discrimination."72
   However, the issue is not the disagreement of Smithsonian scientists with Dr. Sternberg's views on evolution, but rather their effort to use their official powers to punish Dr. Sternberg by seeking to remove him as a Research Associate, and their effort to publicly smear him with false information on government time using government emails.

Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 12:51 am

3. Andrea Says:
   December 16th, 2006 at 5:57 am

   The Appendix is an absolute must-read. In fact, I think it should be read first.

   After that, one should read the report to understand what unbelievable prima facie factual distortions a couple of politically and religiously motivated hacks can introduce in a Government document that will enter the permanent historical record. Just stunning.

Comment by Andrea — December 16, 2006 @ 5:57 am

4. Bradford Says:
   December 16th, 2006 at 9:44 am

   After that, one should read the report to understand what unbelievable prima facie factual distortions a couple of politically and religiously motivated hacks can introduce in a Government document that will enter the permanent historical record.

   Is this statement indicative of religious or political motivation?:

   The Sternberg situation could not have been prevented by senior management because his CV looks credible and does not reveal his interactions with the creationist movement…

   Is there a statute that penalizes interactions with the creationist movement and was there enough evidence of such to proceed against Sternberg?

   You may be right in your own allegations but do you know what the "infamous Nizinski manuscript" refers to?

Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2006 @ 9:44 am

5. Krauze Says:
   December 16th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

   Hi Andrea,

   "The Appendix is an absolute must-read. In fact, I think it should be read first."

   Thanks, there's some really interesting things there. For example, it appears that the NCSE was responsible for spreading false information about Sternberg being a YEC. Doesn't this bother you?

Comment by Krauze — December 16, 2006 @ 6:52 pm

6. MikeGene Says:
   December 16th, 2006 at 7:26 pm

   There is a lot of interesting material. For example, consider this from Marilyn Schotte:

   After the Meyer paper was published, in June or July, 2004,l was in the Chairman's Office on the third floor when Dr. C. came out of his personal office. We started talking about the paper and Dr. C. asked me if Dr. Sternberg was religious.

   So Coddington did inquire as to whether Sternberg was [gasp] RELIGIOUS.

   I said as far as I knew he was an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Dr. C. had heard (via rumor) that Dr. S. had two PhDs, one in biology and one in theology.

   So the scientists were spreading a rumor that Sternberg has a (gasp) degree in theology. We can't have that!

   Some time later in the summer we talked again about the paper, as were many in the museum. I told him the paper didn't bother me but at that point I hadn't read but the first two pages. He might have asked me if Dr. S. was a fundamentalist but I am not sure;

   "I am not sure." LOL. The same forgetful Schotte that was able to remember some office trivia "“ "I also saw overdue notices from the NMNH library on Rick's desk, unopened" "“ can't remember if Coddington continued to inquire about Sternberg's religion.

   I do not recall that he asked me if he was a rightwinger.

   I can't recall.

   He might have asked if he was a conservative but I don't remember.

   I don't remember.

   I think I told him he was a Republican for whatever reason.

   For whatever reason? Perhaps Schotte has a history of telling other people about Sternberg's political views and thus we can't expect this to stand out in her memory.

   Hey people, it's just your taxpayer money at work.

Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2006 @ 7:26 pm

7. Bradford Says:
   December 16th, 2006 at 8:51 pm

   Thanks, there's some really interesting things there. For example, it appears that the NCSE was responsible for spreading false information about Sternberg being a YEC. Doesn't this bother you?

   It does bother her. Her take on it is: "one should read the report to understand what unbelievable prima facie factual distortions a couple of politically and religiously motivated hacks can introduce in a Government document that will enter the permanent historical record." Andrea takes it personally that likeminded people are exposed trying to ramrod Sternberg. Who but politically and religiously motivated hacks would put the evidence of this in a government document?

Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2006 @ 8:51 pm

8. edarrell Says:
   December 17th, 2006 at 11:55 pm

   There are still key questions unanswered — this report is a waste of paper and taxpayers' money.

   For example, were there any serious allegations of wrongdoing, why didn't Sternberg take them to the agency responsible to investigate such things, the Smithsonian's inspector general? Especially after the OSC's sloppy report which pointed to the Smithsonian IG as the authority to take it to, why didn't he do it?

   The fellow who wrote the letter from the OSC was an attorney licensed in D.C. Under ethical canons, wasn't he obligated to bring any findings of wrongdoing to the attention of the proper authorities? Under federal law, he should have communicated any findings of impropriety to the appropriate investigative authority — the Smithsonian IG. He didn't. Generally, his failure to report should be considered evidence that he had nothing to report. Is the OSC incompetent, as well as out of its jurisdiction?

   A third issue the Souder press release doesn't deal with is Sternberg's actions. If Sternberg had acted fully within his authority as editor of the journal, he would have something to complain about. But if the society that published the journal had to apologize for the ultra vires and non-peer-review procedural actions of its editor, as it did in fact apologize, then there needs to be an investigation to see whether Sternberg's actions were ethical or legal. Had there been federal money involved, his actions almost certainly would have been contrary to law.

   Can it be wrong to discuss proper disciplinary action for such transgressions? You call it "retaliation," but in most circles it would be simply corrective action. It's not against the law to discuss how to uphold the law.

Comment by edarrell — December 17, 2006 @ 11:55 pm

9. Bradford Says:
   December 18th, 2006 at 1:25 am

   The fellow who wrote the letter from the OSC was an attorney licensed in D.C. Under ethical canons, wasn't he obligated to bring any findings of wrongdoing to the attention of the proper authorities? Under federal law, he should have communicated any findings of impropriety to the appropriate investigative authority "” the Smithsonian IG. He didn't. Generally, his failure to report should be considered evidence that he had nothing to report. Is the OSC incompetent, as well as out of its jurisdiction?

   The OSC had jurisdictional restrictions. It was not up to the OSC to engage in findings of impropriety for what was outside their scope. An investigation by a body with relevant jurisdiction would preceed a finding of impropriety.

Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 1:25 am

10. edarrell Says:
    December 18th, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    But it IS the duty of OSC to send any information they have showing any impropriety to the Smithsonian AG. That's the law, and it's in the ethical canons for lawyers. We don't turn a blind eye to wrongdoing.

    Were there jurisdictional restrictions? Then it was the duty of OSC to give up the investigation and pass along what they knew to someone who had jurisdiction. That OSC made no such hand off is a prima facie showing that there was nothing to pass along.

    So far as that goes, official action by an agency would require that there be at least a showing of fair play. OSC gave no opportunity for response to the charges they made in their letter. Such behavior is scurrilous, and not worthy of the defense it's getting here.

    It's just one more showing that because there are no data or theory in intelligent design, scurrilous means must be used to keep it alive. The OSC letter was scurrilous, perhaps illegal, in defense of earlier scurrilous actions.

    Sternberg owes at least an apology to science, and to the public. Is there any chance we'll ever see it?

Comment by edarrell — December 18, 2006 @ 2:56 pm

11. Bradford Says:
    December 18th, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    Were there jurisdictional restrictions? Then it was the duty of OSC to give up the investigation and pass along what they knew to someone who had jurisdiction. That OSC made no such hand off is a prima facie showing that there was nothing to pass along.

    Or there was but the OSC did not act for whatever reasons which could include lack of clear cut evidence either way.

Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2006 @ 3:35 pm

12. Robin Levett Says:
    December 19th, 2006 at 10:58 am

    edarrell said:

    Were there jurisdictional restrictions? Then it was the duty of OSC to give up the investigation and pass along what they knew to someone who had jurisdiction. That OSC made no such hand off is a prima facie showing that there was nothing to pass along.

    to which Bradford replied:

    Or there was but the OSC did not act for whatever reasons which could include lack of clear cut evidence either way.

    Please reflect on what you have just said.

    Then consider - if the OSC view was that there was a lack of clear cut evidence either way to the extent that it was acting properly in failing to pass its findings to the IG of the Smithsonian, why did it write the letter publicly released by Sternberg - without referring it to the Smithsonian for its comment?

    While I'm commenting; MikeGene quotes from the report the passage that includes its quotemine of McDiarmid's email on the peer review process. That quotemine suggests that McDiarmid was perfectly happy with the peer-review proces. He was not - as the immediately following sentence, querying the appropriateness of the reviews, demonstrates.

Comment by Robin Levett — December 19, 2006 @ 10:58 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.