Gossiping about Sternberg
by MikeGeneThe e-mails contained within the OCS report about Richard Sternberg's treatment at the Smithsonian Institute raises many interesting issues. Let's pick one for today.
One scientist wrote:
Legally, unless you can present me with evidence that Sternberg has represented himself as an employee of NMNH, my hands are tied. I have extensively researched and consulted on this issue as I fully share your point of view. Indeed, I was strongly advised that we do not make a "martyr" out of Sternberg; you may be aware that there are powerful members of Congress who would rush to his defense.
This whole embarrassment can be credited to the late [____] who nominated this man and to the BSW who entrusted him with the editorship of the Proceedings. Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and simply a Google search would have exposed these connections. Please place the blame where it squarely belongs. I immediately resigned from the BSW.
The following points emerge from this message:
1. The message contains distinct political undertones. The person is arguing that they had been advised not to terminate Sternberg for political reasons.
2. The person advocates snooping on the internet when making hiring decisions.
3. So strong is the belief this should be done that the person is willing to blame another colleague for failing to snoop.
4. The person cites the internet to label Sternberg as a "well-established figure" in "anti-evolution circles." This looks like "˜guilt by association.'
August 24th, 2005 at 9:06 am
MikeGene said:
"4.The person cites the internet to label Sternberg as a "well-established figure" in "anti-evolution circles." This looks like "˜guilt by association.'"
It may look that way to you, Mike, however a closer look at Sternberg's activities would give one reason to believe that he was a YEC:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html#more
Not to mention that he took advantage of his editorship of a science journal to avoid peer review in order to publish a schlock piece of pseudoscience, the only apparent purpose of which was to score propoganda points for the DI. Sternberg made his own bed; he chose to associate himself with creationists and promote pseudoscientific nonsense, and now he wants to whine about being a martyr to a cause he claims not to believe in.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 9:06 am
August 24th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Aagcobb, this is not Pandas Thumb so please mind tone of your posts
Comment by inunison — August 24, 2005 @ 9:43 am
August 24th, 2005 at 10:09 am
Something is wrong when a society is so rabidly political that one cannot freely associate in a spirit of goodwill with people whom you disagree with. I can't speak to Sternberg's motivations or his true beliefs, but I can say that it is sad that the possibility of Sternberg being a genuine but friendly critic is not even entertained.
Say I'm a scientist who thinks that human activities are really contributing to global warming (and I do). Now say that I have a friendly relationship with several scientists who are skeptical, and though I believe that there views are wrong, I accept their invitation to provide criticism on a paper. Or say I edit a journal that is handling an issue on global warming and want to provide space for a dissenting view. Does this implicate me as a conspirator?
Comment by bipod — August 24, 2005 @ 10:09 am
August 24th, 2005 at 10:26 am
Bipod, Sternberg was doing more than providing friendly criticism to YECs, as the link I provided showed:
"In his presentation there, he argued that process structuralism (a theory, which Sternberg adheres to, about the origin of biological types that aims at understanding "laws of form" underlying morphology, independent of the historical process of evolution) "provides a ready-made, although as yet incomplete, theoretical foundation for baraminological thinking", and that "Some structuralists are striving to establish a "rational systematics""¦ that would reflect the "˜Plan of Creation'." "
That sounds like he is promoting his own scientific specialty as a foundation for creationism, rather than criticizing creationism. Understand, I'm not saying Sternberg is a creationist, because I can't read his mind; but his involvment with creationists went much farther than friendly criticism.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 10:26 am
August 24th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Hi Aagcobb,
"It may look that way to you, Mike, however a closer look at Sternberg's activities would give one reason to believe that he was a YEC:"
Did this "closer look" include contacting Sternberg and asking if he was a YEC? Or the BSG, his involvement with which was the key piece of "evidence" used to label him a YEC?
"Not to mention that he took advantage of his editorship of a science journal to avoid peer review in order to publish a schlock piece of pseudoscience, the only apparent purpose of which was to score propoganda points for the DI."
Sternberg avoided peer review? When was this established?
Also, let's not forget what Coddington wrote:
Comment by Krauze — August 24, 2005 @ 10:29 am
August 24th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Sorry you feel that my tone is too harsh inunison. I'm just trying to be honest; I do think the DI is promoting pseudoscience. If you just want folks posting here to say how wonderful ID is, and how awful those atheistic scientists like Dawkins are, just say so, and I won't bother you anymore. Of course an echo chamber might make for an awfully boring blog.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 10:34 am
August 24th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Hi Krauze,
"Did this "closer look" include contacting Sternberg and asking if he was a YEC? Or the BSG, his involvement with which was the key piece of "evidence" used to label him a YEC?"
Please note, Krauze, that the "closer look" wasn't done; thats what the e-mail was complaining about. And the article I linked to noted that Sternberg denies he is a creationist.
"Sternberg avoided peer review? When was this established?"
http://www.biolsocwash.org/
Coddington's comments indicate that Sternberg's martyrdom is a bit overblown.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 10:43 am
August 24th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Aagcobb, it is not necessary to get defensive. You are not a bother at all to me. Disagreements are essential if we want to get clear picture about any controversial issue. However honesty does not give you an excuse to be impolite. As far as I am concerned your criticism is welcome, just keep it more civilized.
Comment by inunison — August 24, 2005 @ 10:57 am
August 24th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Just try not to have a double standard, inunison. If its ok to call Dawkins a fanatic, it ought to be ok to call the DI pseudoscientific.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 11:02 am
August 24th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
"Not to mention that he took advantage of his editorship of a science journal to avoid peer review in order to publish a schlock piece of pseudoscience, the only apparent purpose of which was to score propoganda points for the DI."
With your unwarranted adjectives and your 'shock & awe' tone, who are you trying to score propoganda points with?
Comment by Doug — August 24, 2005 @ 1:20 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Doug asked Aagcobb:
A better question might be why Aag continues to propagate a known falsehood that has been pointed out as a falsehood to him numerous times. Including right here in this blog by Krauze just 4 posts above yours.
What is the purpose of repeating a lie long after it has been established to be a lie? It's all just propaganda point-scoring for the peanut gallery scorekeepers.
Comment by Joy — August 24, 2005 @ 1:51 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Hello Doug, you may think that the adjectives are unwarranted, however a review of the article indicates that, "Meyer's paper omits discussion or even citation of vast amounts of directly relevant work available in the scientific literature."
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html
I just call it like I see it.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 1:56 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
What lie would that be Joy? That Sternberg avoided the peer review process? If thats the case, why is the Biological Society of Washington still saying he did?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"Please note, Krauze, that the "closer look" wasn't done; thats what the e-mail was complaining about."
You've managed to spin the meaning of the e-mail 180 degrees around. Let's look at it again:
The mail isn't complaining about some "closer look" not having been made; the only thing it complains about is that a late colleague failed to perform a Google search on Sternberg's background.
"And the article I linked to noted that Sternberg denies he is a creationist."
Given that the PT article wasn't even written by the time the e-mail was sent, how is that relevant?
Krauze: "Sternberg avoided peer review? When was this established?"
Aagcobb: "http://www.biolsocwash.org/"
In their statement (direct link), the council of the BSW writes:
Yet according to Sternberg, such a process was in accordance with the standard practice, and had been performed before:
"Coddington's comments indicate that Sternberg's martyrdom is a bit overblown."
The OSC thought otherwise. Besides, I few posts ago, you were arguing that Sternberg's "martyrdom" was well deserved because of his publication of the Meyer paper. What made you change your mind?
Comment by Krauze — August 24, 2005 @ 3:19 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Let's also not forget this:
Should all of these editors also have be accused of having circumvented the peer-review, and be pressured to reveal the name of the reviewers?
Comment by Krauze — August 24, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Aagcobb responded:
The Meyer article was peer reviewed by three [that's 3] qualified members of BSW, described by Sternberg (and confirmed by OSC investigation) -
"The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]."
What is it about standard peer review process that you don't understand? Or do you just not believe Sternberg, McVeigh or the President of the Council of BSW?
I would suggest you drop this falsehood from your character assassination campaign against Sternberg, as it has been demonstrated to be a falsehood. Moreover, BSW is NOT still saying he did avoid the process, but [again] the President of the Council has acknowledged the process was completed properly in support of the decision to publish.
So propagating this falsehood further at this point does nothing to help any of the principals now subject to tort claims if Sternberg cares to file suit. Should that occur, the defendants will be defending themselves against what are now official OSC findings of illegal activities and discrimination at NMNH. Telling more lies in public is a good way to show a jury exactly what's going on – it'll add bucks to the damage claim every time it happens, and you can bet your booty there are people keeping score.
This is why you don't see any of the principals telling the same old lies at this point. You should take their hint.
Comment by Joy — August 24, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Hi Krauze,
"The mail isn't complaining about some "closer look" not having been made; the only thing it complains about is that a late colleague failed to perform a Google search on Sternberg's background."
Wouldn't that be a "closer look" I'm not sure why you think a google search isn't a "closer look".
""And the article I linked to noted that Sternberg denies he is a creationist."
Given that the PT article wasn't even written by the time the e-mail was sent, how is that relevant?"
I guess its not, but then there was no "closer look" done, so we don't know if the hypothetical "closer look" would have included asking Sternberg if he was a creationist.
"Yet according to Sternberg, such a process was in accordance with the standard practice, and had been performed before:"
I don't find Sternberg to be particularly credible in comparison to the Council of the Biological Society of Washington.
"The OSC thought otherwise. Besides, I few posts ago, you were arguing that Sternberg's "martyrdom" was well deserved because of his publication of the Meyer paper. What made you change your mind?"
First, Sternberg may feel vindicated that a Bush appointee was sympathetic, but the fact that a lawyer chose to see the matter in terms of politics and religion instead of stuff I can't mention anymore because the term is too harsh for this blog isn't of any great significance since the investigation was closed. Second, I didn't say he deserved martyrdom; I said he was whining about being a martyr.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 4:04 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Well Joy, I guess Sternberg should file suit, because the comment of the Biological Society of Washington saying he avoided normal review procedures is still on their website, unless I'm just imagining it. Why hasn't Dr. McDiarmid had the comment removed from the website, or posted any vindication of Sternberg there? After all, its a statement from the council and he is president of the council.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 4:15 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Hi Krauze, you wrote:
"Let's also not forget this:
"Let's admit it "“ and this is the real dirty secret of academic publishing "“ one can publish just about anything if one goes far enough down the list of impact factors. There are papers all around us containing problems glaring enough to fail their authors in undergraduate midterm exams. The only reason they are not in the spotlight is because they do not deal with the theory of intelligent design."
Vladimir Svetlov, "The real dirty secret of academic publishing", Nature 431(7011):897 (2004)
Should all of these editors also have be accused of having circumvented the peer-review, and be pressured to reveal the name of the reviewers?"
First, lets note that Vladimir Svetlov doesn't know much about ID if he thinks that there is an intelligent design theory. Second, those other editors are merely guilty of being poor editors. Sternberg appears to have been participating in a scheme with the DI to help confer scientific credibility on stuff which is too harsh for me to mention on this blog, which is a significantly different offense than being a poor editor.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2005 @ 4:25 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Well, Aag, he might be a glutton for punishment. Or his webmaster is a slacker. Or just maybe that webmaster is being 'slow' on purpose, you never know. I'm sure McDiarmid will get a chance to explain all this from the dock.
Care to come out of hiding and let 'em know who YOU are, since you're so high on spreading demonstrated falsehoods in furtherance of character assassination that is already actionable? Or would you like to be just another "John Doe" for whom they'll have to subpoena ISP data?
Comment by Joy — August 24, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Purely as an FYI:
In case you all didn't hear, there is a chance Sternberg will make a Televeision appearance.
Sternberg on O'Reilly
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
Thanks, Sal. I don't 'do' television (and wouldn't watch O'Reilly if I did), so if you could post a link to the transcript or give us some highlights when it's over I'd sure appreciate it.
Comment by Joy — August 24, 2005 @ 5:16 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Aagcobb:
There is no evidence that this scientist was thinking of these links. After all, even Elsberry and Matzke made no mention of this in their blog that originally labeled Sternberg a YEC.
But you miss the point. I'm more interested in the fact that there is a scientist at the Smithsonian advocating that other scientists use Google searches to prevent the hiring of someone because of "guilt by association" according to internet sources. This, by itself, is worthy of comment.
Furthermore, let's entertain your beliefs and pretend Sternberg is indeed a creationist. One has to ask why being a creationist is sufficient reason for discrimination at the Smithsonian (as indicated by the author of that e-mail). After all, being a creationist didn't hinder Sternberg's ability to get a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. It didn't hinder his ability to earn the respect of his advisors. It didn't hinder his ability to secure the position at the Smithsonian in the first place.
He got the position at the Smithsonian in 1999 as a post-doc. He was able to publish five articles on evolutionary biology during that year. He then added five more peer-reviewed publications on evolution during the next two years. He impressed someone enough to get a Staff Scientist position in 2001, where he stayed on at the NMNH. They even entrusted him to be the Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 2001-2004. And apart from the Meyer paper, no one seemed to have any serious complaints.
In other words, by all objective criteria, Sternberg was a successful scientist. Even his supervisor Coddington publicly acknowledged this.
So again, so what if Sternberg was a creationist? You'd be acknowledging that acceptance of evolution is superfluous when it comes to succeeding as a scientist who studies evolution. You'd be saying that a creationist can get a PhD in evolutionary biology and publish articles on evolutionary biology. So why did this scientist advocate that the Smithsonian discriminate against creationists?
Comment by MikeGene — August 24, 2005 @ 10:01 pm
August 24th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
Sternberg's appearance on O'Reilly was only a few minutes. His answers were clear and dispassionate.
O'Reilly had to add a lot of drama. Sternberg said that the initial reaction was "tepid" until the NCSE got involved and started work in conjuction with the smithsonian institution in a concerted campaign for his ouster. That is my take second hand, but that is consistent with the OSC report.
Sternberg was very mild mannered, but it was O'Reilly who got everything going. O'Reilly labeled the campaign against intelligent design by the SI and NCSE as "facist". Holy smokes, he called them facists!!!
Salvador
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2005 @ 11:16 pm
August 25th, 2005 at 6:41 am
Aagcob: "…he took advantage of his editorship of a science journal to avoid peer review in order to publish a xxxxxxx piece of xxxxxxxxxxxxx…"
inunison: "Aagcobb, this is not Pandas Thumb so please mind tone of your posts."
DataDoc: Can he quote David Klinghoffer's piece in the Wall Street Journal, where he reports, "…Hans Sues – the museum's No. 2 senior scientist–denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it 'unscientific garbage.'"
Comment by DataDoc — August 25, 2005 @ 6:41 am
August 25th, 2005 at 6:52 am
Mike Gene, quoting "One Scientist":" Legally, unless you can present me with evidence that Sternberg has represented himself as an employee of NMNH, my hands are tied. I have extensively researched and consulted on this issue as I fully share your point of view. Indeed, I was strongly advised that we do not make a "martyr" out of Sternberg; you may be aware that there are powerful members of Congress who would rush to his defense."
From that he deduces, "The message contains distinct political undertones. The person is arguing that they had been advised not to terminate Sternberg for political reasons."
In looks more like he betrayed the Biological Society of Washington by publishing a piece of "unscientific garbage", but he can't be punished because he has political protection.
"One Scientist" writes, "Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and simply a Google search would have exposed these connections." Mike Gene says, "The person advocates snooping on the internet when making hiring decisions." My goodness, doing a Google search is "snooping on the internet"!
And, "The person cites the internet to label Sternberg as a 'well-established figure' in 'anti-evolution circles.' This looks like 'guilt by association.'" For being a well established figure in anti-evolution circles? Then I presume that if he had been a well established figure in conventional science circles, this would be "praise by association"
Comment by DataDoc — August 25, 2005 @ 6:52 am
August 25th, 2005 at 7:03 am
This case looks like an ID double whammy to me. First, Sternberg betrays his professional trust by sliding a piece of "unscientific garbage" into an obscure scientific journal, thus embarassing the society that publishes the journal, but achieving his and Meyer's goal of getting an ID article into a peer reviewed journal.
Then, when he's asked to move to the office he had picked out well before publication, he shouts "religious discrimination" and files a false complaint against his supervisor, Jonathan Coddington.
To "juice up" the complaint, Sternberg also claims that he was ordered to "…turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs. Mr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution." What does Coddington say? "Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access." "I am, and continue to be, his only "supervisor," although we use the term "sponsor" for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever "assigned to" or under the "oversight of" anyone else."
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000786.html
Of course, Coddington is completely discounted here because everybody just "knows" that he's guilty, just like an IDist "knows" that something is designed.
I'm hoping that Coddington and the Smithsonian have enough guts to sue Sternberg for defamation of character. That's the only way they'll ever get justice.
Comment by DataDoc — August 25, 2005 @ 7:03 am
August 25th, 2005 at 8:23 am
Joy, having reviewed the comments of the BSW, I see I made an error. They did not say he circumvented peer review but rather editorial review. Sternberg says he chose himself to review the article because he was most qualified, but its clear from the BSW's comments that they think he did it because he knew that the other editors would not approve the article for publication. My apologies for my error.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 25, 2005 @ 8:23 am
August 25th, 2005 at 8:33 am
MikeGene said:
"Furthermore, let's entertain your beliefs and pretend Sternberg is indeed a creationist. One has to ask why being a creationist is sufficient reason for discrimination at the Smithsonian (as indicated by the author of that e-mail). "
First, Mike, please quit putting words in my mouth. I said I don't know if he is a creationist because I can't read his mind. I was only pointing out that there was evidence, generated by Sternberg's own activities, which strongly suggest he was a creationist; I bet even many YECs thought he was a YEC. Second, being a creationist is not, by itself, reason to discriminate against Sternberg.
"They even entrusted him to be the Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 2001-2004. And apart from the Meyer paper, no one seemed to have any serious complaints."
But this is a very serious complaint, Mike. Sternberg violated the trust placed in him by the BSW to conspire with the Discovery Institute. Sternberg doesn't seem to understand that you can't conspire with p_____scientists and also retain credibility with the scientific community. All of his troubles, which as DataDoc has pointed out are pretty minor, are a direct consequence of his choice to conspire with the DI.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 25, 2005 @ 8:33 am
August 25th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Here is a link to the transcirpt:
Sternberg on O'Reilly Show
(link courtesy Paul Nelson)
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 25, 2005 @ 5:15 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Aagcobb:
Very good. But it sure looks like a scientist at the Smithsonian does not agree with you.
These are rumors born of a conspiracy theory. Either prove that Sternberg did as you accuse of him of doing or I will delete this latest round of gossip.
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2005 @ 5:57 pm
August 26th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
[...] ;s complaints about his treatment after publishing the Meyer paper. (Thanks to MikeGene @ Telic Thoughts) Leave a Reply Comment here often? You could [...]
Pingback by Fresh Wallaby Juice » “Peer review” re-viewed — August 26, 2005 @ 8:35 pm