Sternberg in The Scientist
by KrauzeA reader notified me of this article about the Sternberg affair in The Scientist:
According to the report, NMNH officials sought to discredit Sternberg and force him out of his unpaid RA position after he allowed an article by Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, to be published in the August 2004 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed journal of which he was managing editor at the time. While legally separate from the NMNH, Proceedings is governed by a council that includes NMNH scientists and receives public funds from the museum. …
Sternberg, who is also a staff taxonomist at NIH's National Center for Biotechnology Information, said he is "thinking hard" about whether to file a discrimination lawsuit. "I do not think any Federal government employee should be discriminated against on the basis of their outside activities or their intellectual views, concerning theories of evolution or any other subject," Sternberg told The Scientist in an email.
The article also contains a quote from our own Public Information Project Director at the NCSE, Nick Matzke:
NCSE spokesman Nicholas Matzke said his group was not part of an effort to dismiss Sternberg. "A lot of people at the Smithsonian were mad because their journal was dragged into a political issue. We wanted them to focus on the science and not persecute or discriminate against Sternberg on religious grounds," Matzke told The Scientist.
Not quite. As the Congressional report shows, the NCSE was more interested in the political aspect, wanting the journal to issue a statement, written by the NCSE, repudiating the article. It's true that they adviced against persecuting Sternberg, because they were afraid of the political backlash. But Matzke's "focus on the science" line won't hunt.
"We advised them not to fire Sternberg," he said, "and they eventually followed our advice."
In other words, the NMNH wanted to fire Sternberg until the NCSE talked them out of it. This supports the findings of the report, which revealed emails from within the NMNH, calling for Sternberg to be fired.
This provides a dose of reality for those critics claiming that supporters of intelligent design should just submit their articles to peer review. Any editor receiving a paper favorable to intelligent design will have to consider whether publishing it is worth alienating his colleagues, putting his or her job in jeopardy. To assume that this won't have any effect on the decision whether to publish it is to live in a dream world.
December 23rd, 2006 at 2:18 am
Any editor receiving a paper favorable to intelligent design will have to consider whether publishing it is worth alienating his colleagues, putting his or her job in jeopardy.
That's the real lesson of the Sternberg incident. Anyone can be targeted. The publication's peer review process is the red herring. If it is without flaw and an ID paper is published, expect a firestorm.
Comment by Bradford — December 23, 2006 @ 2:18 am
December 23rd, 2006 at 3:04 am
Irrelevant now. Once the Biologic Institute starts generating breakthroughs in biological research based on IDism, in this information age no-one will be able to suppress the dissemination of the knowledge thereby generated. Businesses in the areas of medicine, agriculture and other biological industries will ignore it to their peril, because their competitors who exploit ID research will reap the rewards.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 23, 2006 @ 3:04 am
December 23rd, 2006 at 9:16 am
Not so fast, Aagcobb. For years, we've heard about how ID supporters should just submit some articles to the peer reviewed journals, where they would get a fair and objective treatment. Do you agree that this is an unrealistic dream?
Comment by Krauze — December 23, 2006 @ 9:16 am
December 23rd, 2006 at 10:26 am
Hey, Krauze:
Ha! My memory was jogged by that line, and it reminded me of an ancedote I once read (and just dug up here):
Comment by Deuce — December 23, 2006 @ 10:26 am
December 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 am
Hi Krauze,
No, Behe, Denton and Axe have all been published in this century, years after the Wedge Document became public revealing the DI's agenda. I'm not sure why you are beating the drum so hard that there is no hope of IDists getting published; are you trying to depress yourselves?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 23, 2006 @ 11:17 am
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"No, Behe, Denton and Axe have all been published in this century, years after the Wedge Document became public revealing the DI's agenda."
We've already been through this before: According to ID critics, none of those papers are ID papers. And from what I've heard, Behe (the only well-known ID supporter of the bunch) got rejected several times before he found a willing editor.
"I'm not sure why you are beating the drum so hard that there is no hope of IDists getting published; are you trying to depress yourselves?"
Where did I say that ID supporters have no hope of getting published?
Comment by Krauze — December 23, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Hi Krauze,
That doesn't sound very hopeful. In several threads, the message you're sending is that, if you are a scientist, forget about doing any ID research, and if you are an editor, spike any ID paper, because otherwise your career will be destroyed. If I were you, I would emphasize the positive: Axe wasn't fired, Sternberg's research position was extended to 2009, there is a place to go to to conduct ID research, and IDists can be published.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 23, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Wow Aagcobb is still repeating claims that have already been responded to elsewhere. I guess thats what happens when you lose your favorite argument (IDers don't do research), you go into cognitive dissonance and become a skipping record.
Anyway, one of the benefits of ID research will likely be the heavy borrowing of engineering principles to understand biological complexity. ID predicts that the study of human intelligent design (eg protocols) will broaden our knowledge of complex biological systems (and the other way around). Perhaps a kind of unification will occur.
Comment by Guts — December 23, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:19 pm
They were probably just afraid of making him a martyr.
Comment by Guts — December 23, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Aagcobb:
Appparently, Aagcobb didn't read the article Krauze linked to:
It would seem that it's not a good career move to "enhance the academic argument for intelligent design." As for Behe, Denton and Axe, has Aagcobb asked them what they think about this issue?
Comment by MikeGene — December 23, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
December 23rd, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Aagcobb,
I like that. But it's missing something, I think. Let me try:
There; I feel a sense of closure. But all that emphasis on "now" begs the question of how things were before, and whether or not we can be really all that confident that things now will be all that different than how they were before.
Comment by Douglas — December 23, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
December 24th, 2006 at 1:10 am
Hi Guys, Dembski says ID papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals. But if you want to tell young scientists who are intrigued by the idea that ID is radioactive, and they had best not touch it with a ten foot pole if they want to have careers, who am I to stop you? Merry Christmas!
Comment by Aagcobb — December 24, 2006 @ 1:10 am
December 24th, 2006 at 2:21 am
I thought lawyers were supposed to be good at debate.
Comment by Guts — December 24, 2006 @ 2:21 am
December 24th, 2006 at 2:42 am
I throw in the towel, Guts. You guys have convinced me that any scientist would have to be crazy to get involved with IDism.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 24, 2006 @ 2:42 am
December 24th, 2006 at 2:46 am
Thats what I'm talking about, no one ever claimed that.
Comment by Guts — December 24, 2006 @ 2:46 am
December 24th, 2006 at 2:50 am
Sheesh, Aagcobb - does it have to be all or nothing? Can't we agree that there is a formidable bias against intelligent design (justified or no) that will often effect the hearing that such papers receive in peer review, but that nevertheless some might also get a fair hearing?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 24, 2006 @ 2:50 am
December 24th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Guts, in thread after thread after thread, y'all harp one how dangerous it is for a scientist's career to either engage in ID research or publish ID papers, and how its an "unrealistic dream" (Krauze's words) to imagine that a peer-reviewed journal would publish ID research. Based on what is being posted on the board, why wouldn't a young scientist conclude that getting involved in IDism is career suicide?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 24, 2006 @ 2:51 am
December 24th, 2006 at 2:52 am
According to Krauze, thats an "unrealistic dream".
Comment by Aagcobb — December 24, 2006 @ 2:52 am
December 24th, 2006 at 2:57 am
Again thats what I'm talking about. No one ever said that it is so difficult as to be impossible. After all , it did happen. We are saying that ID is and can be rejected for unethical reasons, and it does occur, but you won't acknowledge that it occurs because you know thats wrong, but the wrong doing is comming from your side. Do you really think that misrepresenting our argument and making it seem like we are saying it is impossible and ID is destined to fail equates to a good point? I don't think so. No one ever said that.
Krauze wrote:
We are saying this has an effect, as we all have argued in thraed after thread after thread this does not make it impossible but it makes it difficult. So not only are you misrepresenting our argument, you're putting words into Krauze's mouth. When you tried this argument on him he responded:
Is there a specific reason why you ignored this? Did you not see it?
Comment by Guts — December 24, 2006 @ 2:57 am
December 24th, 2006 at 7:13 am
Looks like Aagcobb is quotemining me here. What was it I described as an unrealistic dream?
In other words, it isn't the prospects of getting ID articles published that is unrealistic, but the rhetoric of the ID critics about the fair and objective treatment such articles will get. An ID article can still get published, especially if the author doesn't make the ID implications explicit until after the article has been published. Of course, to Barbara Forrest, this will be yet another Trojan horse to be scared about.
Comment by Krauze — December 24, 2006 @ 7:13 am
December 24th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Whatever. The cumulative tone of the message from the threads here is that IDism is a career killer, whether you want to admit it now or not. Have a Merry Christmas everyone!
Comment by Aagcobb — December 24, 2006 @ 10:36 am
December 24th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Merry Christmas to you, Aagcobb!
Comment by MikeGene — December 24, 2006 @ 11:25 am
December 24th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Mike,
In the spirit of secular political correctness, and Aagcobb's responses here, I am moved to reply to your season's greetings to Aagcobb, in the appropriate way:
Whatever!
(P.S.: In an obsequious display of shameless fawning, I will now abase myself before those with incredible religious sensitivities [myself included]:
Jesus is the Reason for the season! [Merry Christmas!])
Comment by Douglas — December 24, 2006 @ 11:32 am
December 24th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Well, Richard Dawkins would like to make it illegal for parents to celebrate Christmas with their children. Unless, of course, it was done in a government-approved secular fashion.
Comment by MikeGene — December 24, 2006 @ 11:35 am
December 24th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
You can't make this stuff up. An editor allows a pro-ID paper to be published, and his fellow scientists turn his work environment into a snake pit. But instead of criticizing those scientists, Aagcobb criticizes us for reporting it.
Comment by Krauze — December 24, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
December 24th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Can anyone produce an article that has ever been submitted to a science journal in intelligent design, favorable to ID, that was rejected? I am unaware of any such articles in existence.
In short, there is not a shred of evidence that ID articles will have difficulty getting published. In point of fact, every article submitted has been published, even though they didn't deserve it. But there is no evidence that any ID article has ever been rejected.
Comment by edarrell — December 24, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
December 25th, 2006 at 12:20 am
Hi Krauze,
In the U.S., work environments are snake pits. If IDists don't have the stomach for it, they best stick to anonymous internet blogging.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 25, 2006 @ 12:20 am
December 25th, 2006 at 12:29 am
here
Comment by Guts — December 25, 2006 @ 12:29 am
December 27th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Krauze said:-
Hmmm. "Allows" Is it not established that the article was solicited - and on a topic outside the usual run for the journal?
The editor chose to retain full control of the paper himself, despite the fact that (i) he has no expertise in the subject of the paper (unless he's magically grown a PhD in Cambrian palaeontology which no-one's noticed) and (ii) there were associate editors who did have such expertise.
He also had an interest - as a Fellow of ISCID, which exists to promote ID - which one would have expected him at least to disclose, and perhaps to have considered sufficient to disqualify himself from handling the paper.
While the reviews he obtained recommended publication, there are considerable question marks over whether the reviews were appropriate since the editor has refused to identify the reviewers, and the President of the BSW, who has seen the review file, has expressed doubts about their appropriateness.
Despite all of this, Sternberg did not discuss the paper, its topic, publication or peer-review with anyone else on either the society's Council or the journal's editorial board. He claimed, when it became an issue, that he was the best-qualfied member of the editorial board to handle the paper - apparently an absurd claim, unless he distinguishes between the ID-friendliness of the paper and its actual content. Even if this were true in every particular, it only covers the reason why he handled the paper, and not why he kept its existence secret until publication - nor does it even address the doubts over the peer-reviews.
He has also claimed that he discussed the paper on a number of occasions with a Council member who agreed the paper should be published. The Council has stated that it unanimously considers the paper inappropriate; which suggests either that Sternberg didn't have the conversations he claims, or that while he had the conversations, the Council member was misled either deliberately or inadvertently by Sternberg, or that the Council member doesn't recall the covnersations - an odd circumstance given the issues involved.
I wonder why his fellow scientists reacted negatively to the situation and his exemplary conduct?
Comment by Robin Levett — December 27, 2006 @ 9:16 am
December 27th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Well, in Sternberg's defense, he didn't really grasp, on a gut level, the fact that there are special rules for Darwinian critics. Nobody expects Darwinists, or Darwinist sympathizers, or scientists that belong to groups that promote Darwinism and criticize alternatives, to disqualify themselves for ethical reasons from the peer review process in the biological fields.
Maybe if we just made it explicitely clear what the rules are for Darwinian critics, we can avoid this unpleasantness in the future.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 27, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Hi Robin,
"Is it not established that the article was solicited - and on a topic outside the usual run for the journal?"
No. All that has been established is that Meyer talked about the Cambrian explosion at a conference to which both he and Sternberg attended, and that they "discussed the possibility of publishing the work" (here). It's quite a jump to interpret that as the article being "solicited".
And even if it was, that wouldn't change the fact that Sternberg was harassed because he let a submitted paper friendly towards ID get peer-reviewed and follow the reviewers' recommendations.
As for the topic being "outside the usual run for the journal", I seem to remember another article where that was also the case.
"The editor chose to retain full control of the paper himself, despite the fact that (i) he has no expertise in the subject of the paper (unless he's magically grown a PhD in Cambrian palaeontology which no-one's noticed) and (ii) there were associate editors who did have such expertise."
The subject of the paper wasn't Cambrian palaeontology. Meyer made some claims about the lack of interphyletic transitional fossils, but explicitly said that it was peripheral to the main subject of the paper - the origin of information involved in the generation of bodyplans.
"He also had an interest - as a Fellow of ISCID, which exists to promote ID - which one would have expected him at least to disclose, and perhaps to have considered sufficient to disqualify himself from handling the paper."
The purpose of ISCID isn't to "promote ID".
"While the reviews he obtained recommended publication, there are considerable question marks over whether the reviews were appropriate since the editor has refused to identify the reviewers, and the President of the BSW, who has seen the review file, has expressed doubts about their appropriateness."
Not exactly. Here is what the President, Roy McDiarmid, wrote:
In a later email, he expresses discontent that Cambrian paleontologist Douglas Erwin wasn't among the reviewers, suggesting that he too was confused about the topic of the paper. Considering that a clear reading of the paper would have disabused him of this notion, I can't help but wonder where he got it from. A got bet would be an email from the NCSE, who were instrumental in spreading the "Meyer's paper is all about missing transitionals" meme.
"He has also claimed that he discussed the paper on a number of occasions with a Council member who agreed the paper should be published."
I have a copy of an email from said Council member which acknowledges that Sternberg in fact did mention that he was working on a paper on intelligent design, although the member never read it. But as with Matzke's emails from Scott, I can't release it.
Comment by Krauze — December 27, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
RogerRabbitt said:-
Perhaps you could identify the special rules that exist for "Darwinian critics" - I'm not aware that anyone has proposed any.
Perhaps you could start by describing what you mean by a "Darwinian critics" In the obvious sense of the words, that term describes the vast majority of evolutionary biologists.
Comment by Robin Levett — December 27, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Krauze said:-
We have different views of what constitutes solicitation. I would regard inviting a fellow speaker at a conference which we had both attended as solicitation. You think different.
I am sure that there are many papers published in inappropriate scientific journals; the issue here is whether the editorial board were kept in the dark, and whether they would have agreed with the editor's decision to publish the paper if they'd known about it in advance.
The paper was described as an "information-based analysis of the Cambrian explosion". Forgive me if I tentatively suggest that a proper review of such a paper would have to involve knowledge of Cambrian palaeontology.
So, for example, the motto "Retraining the scientific imagination to see purpose in nature" that still appears on its website masthead is mere verbiage?
This is, with respect, a little like Sternberg's claim that Meyer isn't a creationist; which I find a bit difficult to believe of someone whose continuation on faculty at PBAU depends on his continued belief that mankind was specially created by God (whatever the evidence says…).
While I'm on that subject, I still don't understand how Sternberg can claim not to be an ID advocate. The conference at which he and Meyer were speakers was the 2002 RAPID event at BIOLA, a closed event which only ID advocates were permitted to attend - or at least that was the reason given to Welsey Elsberry when refusing his registration.
I know what he wrote, and it tallies with my description. You will have noted that the ISC and Souder's personal staff report don't quote the final sentence. Do you not find that a little disturbing from such a source?
Perhaps he was misled by reading the paper and its self-description, which I cite above?
Your description of the email falls short of substantiating Sternberg's claims. He claims to have "discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."
Does the email confirm that he had discussed the paper three times with Sternberg? Does it explain how he could have meaningfully discussed the paper without having seen it? Does it confirm that he encouraged Sternberg to go ahead and publish without reference to the rest of the editorial boad or the board of the BSW?
Comment by Robin Levett — December 27, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 2:36 am
Krauze writes,
The way I heard it, the council member that Sternberg references in his defense (a) was never given the actual paper, (b) had no familiarity with the creation/evolution issue and didn't know what "intelligent design" was or what the paper argued, and (c) therefore feels exploited by Sternberg's usage of this communication with the council member in Sternberg's defense.
Comment by Nick Matzke — December 29, 2006 @ 2:36 am