Gosh, I'm assuming you can read as well as I can, but the article says "Bryson believes she was punished for challenging evolutionary thought".
If someone challenges the second law of thermodynamics (and the US patent office gets hundreds of schemes that do that) I'm going to say that person shouldn't be running a chemistry department, because they really don't understand chemistry. I'll make an exception if they're a specialist in stat. mech. and they really have some basis for the challenge, though given the sound basis for the second law I'd be astonished. She, on the other hand, is not challenging evolution, the central paradigm of modern biology, on any research-based basis; her research, such as it is, is in chemistry. She's likely just parroting the usual creationist nonsense.