From this link comes this analysis(by a real honest-to-god biologist and everything!):
There's some am-a-a-a-a-zing stuff in the appendix to the Rep. Souder staff report that the Discovery Institute is talking up.
The DI spin and the Congressional report spin are each severely divorced from reality. When one looks at the content of the appendix of documents and emails, one learns a lot about the character of Richard von Sternberg that Sternberg probably would have preferred stay out of public sight. Here are some of the things that reading the emails and other documents provided tell us:
Sternberg "requested" a grant or "any funding vehicle" from the Smithsonian in the amount of $300,000 to compensate for his claimed year of lost work. (he was denied, as the Smithsonian doesn't disburse grants) [p.11]
Sternberg ignored requests to return hundreds of specimens in his office space to the collections. [pp.16,27]
Sternberg had failed to properly curate 10 to 12% of specimens in his possession by not replenishing alcohol as the preservative agent. [p.27]
Sternberg's space contained specimens that had not been checked out according to established procedures. [p.16]
Sternberg's office space contained specimens apparently from other institutions without records in the transaction management system. [pp.48-49]
Sternberg handled specimens in another person's office without permission. [p.16]
Sternberg ignored requests to return most of the over 50 books and periodicals he had checked out from the Smithsonian library. [pp.27,48]
Sternberg falsely told someone that he had notified library staff about his overdue materials. [p.28]
Sternberg had removed Smithsonian books from the premises, contrary to Smithsonian policy. [p.48]
Sternberg was simply confused when he thought that he had no Smithsonian sponsor. [p.11]
The issue about keys that Sternberg raised was a red herring; the Smithsonian had gone to a badge system to control physical access, and Sternberg received a badge. [pp.11-12]
Sternberg ignored requests that he return his keys even after the switchover to the badge system. [p.12]
Far from losing his research affiliation with the Smithsonian, Sternberg received another invitation for a three-year period to go from 2006 to 2009. [p.13]
The issues over moving offices that Sternberg raised are shown to be completely explained by the general and widespread movement of staff to accommodate physical renovation and departmental re-organization. [pp.36,38-39]
Sternberg was listed by his Smithsonian affiliation in promotional materials for a talk on ID scheduled in Helsinki in 2004, contrary to Smithsonian policy concerning research associates. [pp.16-17,41,44,48]
Sternberg had a prior history as an editor guiding research papers that were substandard into print in PBSW. [p.20]
Sternberg's prior editorial lapses included leaving a submitted manuscript overlong without action. [p.37]
Sternberg permitted the Meyer paper to be published even though it did not conform to the PBSW formatting standards. [p.37]
Sternberg made "calamitous and inaccurate" statements on his web site. [p.47]
Sternberg agreed in a meeting with his supervisor that his possession of a master key to Smithsonian facilities was "unnecessary and inappropriate". [p.48]
While Sternberg was the primary editor for PBSW, there was a year in which authors submitted complaints about the handling of 17 different manuscripts. [p.52]
Two Mexican authors believed the managing editor, Sternberg, was predisposed against Latin-American authors. [p.52]
Sternberg has a history of saying one thing and doing another. [p.57]
Sternberg's access to freshwater crabs in the collections was restricted due to his destruction of many specimens. [p.57]
Sternberg failed to utilize on-site Smithsonian expert on Cambrian period paleontology and PBSW Associate Editor Brian Erwin in selecting reviewers for Meyer 2004b. [p.73]
Sternberg made "bad judgment calls" in his editorship at PBSW. [p.74] ---
And this is all in a 'friendly' report that's supposed to DEFEND the man! Well done, Souder and Santorum, way to ensure that your martyr never gets a job in the field again (which, of course, is their desire all along, how else is he supposed to get martyrdom!).
Excellent job and thanks forall your work. I'm saving this for the next time it comes up.
Thunderous applause!!!
I like the way that you choose to begin in the latter third of the issue, and use the pranks that the authoritarians directed toward Sternberg in punishment for being honest and scientific, as evidence against him.
And the allegations that you present are typical of complaints that are directed at editors by whiners. Everyone thinks that their manuscript is being dissed.
You've essentially proven the allegations through your own effort.
As for conflicts of interest, I purchased a copy of one of Sternberg's extracurricular talks on philosophy, religion and science. I found it provocative enough to engage, and I think he scores some good points. (notes here).
What concerns me is that the woman who sponsored and recorded this talk told me in the Fall of 2005 that she had received at least one investigative phone call about this lecture from the National Center for Science Education. I can only assume they were trying to dig up dirt on Sternberg. DI isn't the only polemical thinktank in this duel, and with so many people involved I am not surprised to find that there is a nice organized list of Sternberg's alleged sins.
What about that charge that one of Sternberg's Smithsonian colleagues was going around asking if he was an undercover priest? That seems surefire evidence of a hostile environment, though I cannot speak to its overall severity.