Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Smithsonian Scientist's Complaint Backed [or "unsupported" -- about the Meyer ID article]
The Washington Times ^ | 16 August 2005 | Joyce Howard Price

Posted on 08/17/2005 4:37:36 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

A preliminary federal investigation supports a government scientist's complaint that he was shown bias by Smithsonian Institution colleagues after a science journal he edited published a report on the theory of "intelligent design."

However, the Office of Special Counsel informed the complainant, Richard Sternberg, that it is ending the probe into the case because of jurisdictional questions and the Smithsonian's refusal to "voluntarily participate in any additional investigation" into his grievance.

[Snip, because we must excerpt articles from this source]

Mr. Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History, said he was "singled out for harassment and threats" by others at the Smithsonian, who viewed him as a "creationist" after the publication of the intelligent design article last year.

Mr. Sternberg said Mr. McVay "found strong support for my complaint" and cited "concrete examples" of where Smithsonian personnel demonstrated "discrimination" against him for perceived religious and political views.

Mr. McVay cited e-mail in which Mr. Sternberg was described as a "creationist." He said one message asserted that Mr. Sternberg had "extensive training as an orthodox priest" and that the paper he published was a "sheer disaster," which made the institution a "laughingstock."

[Snip, because we must excerpt articles from this source]

From December 2001 until last fall, Mr. Sternberg served as managing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. In the August 2004 issue of the journal, Mr. Sternberg published an article on intelligent design written by Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

In his complaint with the special counsel, Mr. Sternberg said he was belittled by a Smithsonian supervisor and other employees after the article appeared. He said museum authorities contacted his employers at NIH, seeking his ouster.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; crevolist; enoughalread; intelligentdesign; richardsternberg; science; smithsonian; stephenmeyer; sternberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141 next last
To: Alamo-Girl
I'm sure they'll find several legal theories to pursue - discrimination, abuse of power, tortious conduct and who knows what else

I doubt it. But we'll see.

21 posted on 08/17/2005 8:11:46 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (ID: the 'scientific hypothesis' that somebody did something to some gene or other sometime somehow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Indeed, as when some one notes that "Mr. Sternberg had 'extensive training as an orthodox priest'...." As if this somehow makes him unfit as a scientist -- with two doctorates in evolutionary biology no less.

So very true. And I join with you in hoping he gets his day in court. It'll actually help the "mainstream" too - for they need to know where the line is drawn. Too bad some people have to touch a hot stove to learn...

22 posted on 08/17/2005 8:12:13 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I suppose if you have nothing to say in the arena of science you can put it before a jury.

The primary problem here, and the reason for the hostility, is that creationists are misrepresenting the significance of the article's publication. They have geared up to use the publication of a peer-reviewed article -- not even original science, but a summary article -- to support the false claim of respectability for ID.
23 posted on 08/17/2005 8:15:11 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: js1138
He wasn't an employee.

Indeed, but according to him they contacted his employer to "seek his ouster".

I also wonder about the Federal regulations concerning contractors, agencies, etc. wrt the Smithsonian. They may be legally bound to non-discrimination there as well.

But in any case, there are various legal theories which apply in this matter.

24 posted on 08/17/2005 8:15:45 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I doubt it. But we'll see.

Indeed, we will. I believe it will go to court - if for no other reason, to vindicate the assault on his reputation.

25 posted on 08/17/2005 8:17:23 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
In any event, such malicious conduct is a legal tort.

There is no tort if he can't show harm - given that he apparently still has his job at NIH, good luck with that.

26 posted on 08/17/2005 8:17:43 AM PDT by general_re ("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Thank you for your reply!

The primary problem here, and the reason for the hostility, is that creationists are misrepresenting the significance of the article's publication. They have geared up to use the publication of a peer-reviewed article -- not even original science, but a summary article -- to support the false claim of respectability for ID.

This is no justification or excuse for illegal conduct - whether discrimation based on another's (presumed) beliefs, abuse of power, malicious libel or slander, etc.

The defenders of evolution theory must learn to stay within the bounds of the law - whether at the universities or the museums, etc.

To the contrary notwithstanding - if your assertion were a legal defense (and it is not) it would still require the presentation of motive, i.e. "to support the false claim of respectability for ID". And that in turn would require the defense to prove that ID is not respectable either as science or as a belief.

27 posted on 08/17/2005 8:24:34 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

He shot his own reputation by sneaking around peer review with an article that is being used to demean science.

You are so certain that his reputation has been damaged, but the whole point of sneaking his article into a peer reviewed publication was to damage science.


28 posted on 08/17/2005 8:28:34 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Thank you for your reply!

Indeed. He still has his job, so that would not qualify for actual damages.

Nevertheless, I believe he could convincingly assert lost earnings capacity due to injury to his reputation, mental anquish, etc. If he has counsel, he may be advised to seek mental therapy to establish those damages.

As I recall he did suffer the loss of his position with the journal. That would also be actual damages.

29 posted on 08/17/2005 8:28:57 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Having two doctorates is not a plus. It's a red flag for weirdness.

Thank you for sharing your opinion of the matter, RWP.

30 posted on 08/17/2005 8:31:01 AM PDT by betty boop (Nature loves to hide. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Nothing illegal was done. I would not have done what the Smithsonian did, but it wasn't illegal. And as others have pointed out, his job is unaffected. He has no claim other than wounded pride.


31 posted on 08/17/2005 8:31:01 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Thank you for your reply!

He shot his own reputation by sneaking around peer review with an article that is being used to demean science. You are so certain that his reputation has been damaged, but the whole point of sneaking his article into a peer reviewed publication was to damage science.

I believe his claim in the press has been quite to the contrary, i.e. that the peer review was customary.

Nevertheless, if the defense were to use your assertions - they would have to prove every point, i.e. that he sneaked around peer review, that the article was intended to demean science, etc.

I've read the article. It doesn't strike me that its intention was to demean science but rather, to expand the boundaries of investigation.

32 posted on 08/17/2005 8:33:40 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

There isn't likely to be any defense because he can't show any loss. I don't think being ridiculed is actionable.

Let's say you are a guest in my home and you publish and article that negatively portrays my family. I toss you out and call your boss to complain. Your boss laughs it off.

Where is the lawsuit?

I think bot sides have been less than professional, but wedging a silly article past peer review as part of a campaign to change educational policy is pretty slimy.


33 posted on 08/17/2005 8:40:50 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Alamo-Girl; PatrickHenry
Sternberg made an ideologically motivated editorial decision that ignored the policy of the journal he managed.

(1) You are imputing motives to Sternberg that you cannot possible have direct knowledge about; (2) you seem to indicate that the journal's policy is only to publish the orthodox view. Is that correct? To my mind, both (1) and (2) are indefensible. FWIW.

34 posted on 08/17/2005 8:41:48 AM PDT by betty boop (Nature loves to hide. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Behold, The Darwiniacs' neat little circle .

Dan

35 posted on 08/17/2005 8:44:16 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
(1) You are imputing motives to Sternberg that you cannot possible have direct knowledge about

None of us have direct knowledge of anyone's motives. We can however make reasonable inferences.

you seem to indicate that the journal's policy is only to publish the orthodox view

No, the journal's policy is to publish science, not polemic. Meyer's article was a long and misinformed argument with no results or new scientific conclusions.

36 posted on 08/17/2005 8:48:26 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (ID: the 'scientific hypothesis' that somebody did something to something or other sometime somehow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you for sharing your opinion of the matter, RWP.

It is at least an informed one.

37 posted on 08/17/2005 8:50:09 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (ID: the 'scientific hypothesis' that somebody did something to something or other sometime somehow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Thank you for your reply!

Nothing illegal was done. I would not have done what the Smithsonian did, but it wasn't illegal. And as others have pointed out, his job is unaffected. He has no claim other than wounded pride.

I'm sure a court will determine one way or another, if the Smithsonian acted within its legal authority, should the case be filed.

And concerning "wounded pride" - especially where "lost earnings capacity" is involved with an assault on a person's reputation - there have been many very large awards, e.g. Largest awards against mass media for loss of reputation

38 posted on 08/17/2005 8:54:02 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

That might be the case if something untrue was said, in other words, slander. Professional opinions are not likely to be judged slander.


39 posted on 08/17/2005 8:58:50 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Alamo-Girl
...the whole point of sneaking his article into a peer reviewed publication was to damage science.

Jeepers, js1138, I never realized that science was so "fragile" that it had to be "defended" by such tactics. Plus it seems you are employing the famous tactic of attributing nefarious motives to an opponent to spare yourself the tiresome experience of actually having to listen to his argument. Which may or may not be meritorious. But how will you know, if you refuse to hear it?

This is simply childish.

40 posted on 08/17/2005 8:59:37 AM PDT by betty boop (Nature loves to hide. -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson