He allowed an article which was counter to present evolutionist dogma to be published. It was peer reviewed.
Hmmm, violate basic scientific tenets,
Since when is performing the duties of an editor a basic scientific tenet. You are venturing into loony territory with your comments now.
gave the quote. They were very careful to point out that any action must be solely based on his scientific work.
If NCSE was concerned about scientific work they would not have had to produce such a caution. But you did not provide any,(that is NONE), evidence of the statement. Provide a link to the communication which has those words in context to the Smithsonian, and their authority to make such a demand.
Then how can you be claiming he was persecuted if he's not even an IDer?
You can't be serious with that question. You do not have to be a card carrier for anybody to be "persecuted". He was hunted down by NCSE because of his beliefs. You don't see NCSE pursuing the real perpetrators of bad science such as those criticized in this article.
Improper citation, disregard for antecedent research, and shoddy experimentation - those are just a few of the allegations levied against a recent research paper written by a team of Stanford University scientists.
One of the paper's chief critics, University of Cambridge biologist Peter Lawrence, says that the problems with the publication exemplify a broader problem in scientific publishing.
...
Developmental biologist Jeffrey Axelrod, the paper's main author, defended the work, writing in an email to The Scientist, "our paper (Chen et al. June 2008) underwent Cell's rigorous process of peer-review prior to publication. We stand by our conclusions as stated in the paper, as well as by our use of citations, and I encourage your readers to look at the papers in question, as they speak for themselves."
But Lawrence claims that the Axelrod paper, which identifies a transmembrane protein called Flamingo (also known as starry night or stan) as a key signaling molecule in Drosophila PCP, is largely a rehash of his own group's work, which was published in the journal Development in 2004 and has been cited 35 times, according to ISI. (Axelrod's Cell paper has not yet been cited in any published papers.)
"The complaint is that the main point of the [Cell paper] is what we discovered and provided evidence for four years ago," Lawrence said. "It pretends to be much more novel than it is."
Lawrence wrote in a letter to Cell that the paper was "seriously flawed both scientifically and ethically and in my opinion amounts to a theft of our intellectual property (especially the results and conclusions of our prior paper, Lawrence et al., 2004)." Lawrence's letter was not published in Cell, but he sent it to The Scientist. At least four other researchers submitted letters independently - some also obtained by The Scientist - to the journal last July. Some of these also claimed that the Axelrod group's science in constructing a model for PCP was subpar.
"I hope you will agree with me that (i) this paper is a disaster for the field (it will set the community back by several years) and (ii) it is not good for the journal either," wrote Marek Mlodzik, chair of developmental and regenerative biology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, in a letter to the editor of Cell, Emilie Marcus.
Now go to the NCSE site and search for Sternberg. You will find 16 hits. Do the same for Axelrod. You will get this Your search - axelrod - did not match any documents.
Finally a letter from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, supported the claims that Sternberg was unfairly treated. It also points out that the journal was a NON-SI activity.
You can find the letter here .... http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1488
Who besides Sternberg, a person not qualified to review it, conducted peer review?
Since when is performing the duties of an editor a basic scientific tenet.
Peer review of research is central to science, and Sternberg didn't let that happen.
But you did not provide any,(that is NONE), evidence of the statement.
I posted it earlier. There are several quotes along these lines with sources here. If NCSE was concerned about scientific work they would not have had to produce such a caution.
Huh? Somehow you're twisting a defense of his beliefs, stating no repercussions should happen because of his beliefs, into doing something wrong to him? They wanted to make sure nobody was on a witch hunt, and that anything done was purely because of his professional behavior.
Then nothing happened, and you still complain. Isn't something bad supposed to happen to someone for them to become a martyr?