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 ...
And what would be your "reasonable inferences" here?
I read the article. I did not find it at all polemical. Why do you?
Oh, I'm sure it is an "informed one." But "informed" -- by what???
It would be a fascinating exercise to "try" this case on a separate thread, letting a true attorney with judicial temperament be the judge. But I doubt any of us have the time such an effort would require...
Ph.D. in the biological sciences, 20 years experience doing research and teaching in biophysics...nothing much.
You seem to be fascinated by courts this morning. We're not in court.
But does this make you an impartial scientist, or a partisan?
Thanks for the ping.
Pulling out that old half-truth again, eh?
Nor the inclination to do so, I imagine. Few people so far are talking about the simple issues of fairness and academic freedom here....
The problem is that much of the injury to his reputation appears to be self-inflicted. He published that awful thing of his own free will, and not to put too fine of a point on it, but you don't get to be a martyr when you nail yourself to a cross ;)
Also, professional opinions are not protected when they turn personal and are maliciously intended to destroy a person's reputation and therefore, his future earnings capacity, based on his beliefs.
This is the same type of scenario we had in the Texas student case where the professor was demanding the student disavow his religious beliefs before he would approve him for medical school - and again in Ohio when the student's doctoral thesis was derailed in the eleventh hour based on his beliefs.
This is also like the case I previously researched where the student's acting career was brought to a halt because she could not comply with the instructor's demand that she speak lines which denied her beliefs. Her case was established on appeal. The Texas case was resolved before it went to court.
Even in the university environment which is legally protected to speak all kinds of things, a person does not give up their his Constitutional rights on admission.
Ditto for mass media. In this environment - which is not so protected as either universities or media by legal precedent - "professional opinions" to not extend to authenticate tortious conduct or discrimination against others based on their beliefs.
Science isn't fragile and I have no concerns for the long run.
I have been on these threads a long time, and I do indeed read and carefully consider both sides. I am one of the few people on the evo side who take AndrewC's posts seriously. I will listen to anyone who argues the merits of the positions.
But I have been posting a request every day on every crevo thread for ten days -- asking ID proponents to outline their points of agreement with mainstream science. I'm trying to locate some common ground upon which to base a dialog.
So far I have not received one response that was not insulting. Not a single ID poster will tell me what they would teach in science classes. What core findings of science they accept. What procedures and methodologies.
How exactly would you apply the First Amendment to a physics class, say, or to a physics journal?
Christ clearly said that He laid down His own life - that noone could take it from Him (John 10:17-18). And yet the guilt remains, especially on Judas Iscariot (Matthew 26:24) but also on the entire generation (Luke 11:29-31).
In simpler terms, you may stand there and hand me a loaded gun - but that does not mean that I am therefore justified in killing you.
Excuse me, but an actor is paid to say whatever is in the script. You don't mention whether this was a high school or whatever, but actors are playing a roll, and most actors cherish the opportunity to play an evil character.
Wrong school, or wrong profession. This is not a conservative cause I could identify with.
The medical student case is not one where I know the details. As a teacher, I would demand that students be able to answer questions about the subject, even if they disagree with them. I am somewhat sympathetic to the professor because there is a famous case of a little girl murdered by a surgeon who transplanted her with a baboon heart. When asked why he would do a thing that was so transparently stupid from an evolutionary standpoint, he replied that he didn't believe in evolution.
As for the motive behind the published article, I can only point to the use made of the article. This was a journal read, at most, by three people in a very narrow field. An yet suddenly ID was real science because it had a peer-reviewed article.
However, there should be no prohibition against the student saying plainly that he disagrees with the professor in any open forum.
You know my attitude about journals. It is fine to have peer-reviewed professional journals but there needs to be another outlet for scientists who have been rejected.
A number of Nobel prize winners had been previously rejected, Einstein never had to pass a peer-review, etc.: Refereed Journals: Do they insure quality or enforce orthodoxy?
The acting class was at the university level. There are still a number of professional actors who refuse to do nude scenes (such as Jim Caviezel), speak lines which deny God, etc. They simply do not accept those roles. The university's action would have derailed the student's career.
Concerning the medical student, he passed all the tests on evolution with flying colors but was not willing to deny his religious belief - a statement (illegally) demanded by the professor.
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.