Misplaced Pages

Sternberg peer review controversy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:36, 1 May 2007 editImprobabilityDrive (talk | contribs)718 edits Restoring correct version. It is important to be precise in the use of language. Sternberg was paid, just not by the SI← Previous edit Revision as of 23:37, 1 May 2007 edit undoImprobabilityDrive (talk | contribs)718 edits →Smithsonian controversy: Making account more objective less POVNext edit →
Line 25: Line 25:
Journalist ] has compared the Sternberg controversy to that of a paper published by climate change skeptics ] and ] in ''Climate Change'', where a sympathetic editor ] allowed it to be published, despite its poor scientific merit. <ref>, ], September 13, 2004</ref> Journalist ] has compared the Sternberg controversy to that of a paper published by climate change skeptics ] and ] in ''Climate Change'', where a sympathetic editor ] allowed it to be published, despite its poor scientific merit. <ref>, ], September 13, 2004</ref>


== Smithsonian controversy == == Smithsonian Controversy ==
After the peer review controversy became public, Sternberg filed a religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, where he served as a research associate.<ref> Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History</ref> Sternberg claims that he was "targeted for retaliation and harassment" and subject to efforts to remove him from the museum in retaliation for his views. He continues to cite a letter by the ] as supporting his version of events,<ref></ref> despite the Office of Special Counsel ultimately dismissing his claim. Pim Van Meurs and other critics observed that the Office of Special Counsel lacked jurisdiction over the matter and so his claim was unlikely to proceed,<ref> Pim Van Meurs. Pandas Thumb.</ref> and that even though it made no official findings or conclusions, the response from the Office of Special Counsel provided Sternberg and the Discovery Institute putative evidence and talking points supporting their claim that the scientific community discriminates against intelligent design proponents.<ref name="complaint_dismissed"> Nick Matzke. Panda's Thumb, August 19 2005.</ref><ref> Discovery Institute. December 18, 2006</ref> In a ] op-ed article, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer<ref></ref> portrayed Sternberg as a martyr and victim of discrimination,<ref> David Klinghoffer. OpinionJournal, January 28.</ref> a tactic used often by design proponents.<ref>"The "persecuted scientist against the establishment" hoax. Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas." Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. (10226K PDF file) </ref>


The Smithsonian controversy began with backlash over the publication of an article written by an ] proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution (]),<ref>{{harvnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}, {{harvnb|Hagerty|2005}}, {{harvnb|USHRCGR|2006}}</ref> contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.<ref name="statement"></ref> An article titled ''The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories'' by ] advocate ] was published in the in the August 4, 2004 volume of ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,'' (PBSW)<ref>{{harvnb|Meyer|2004|p=213-239}}</ref> ] was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the ] National Museum of Natural History (]), and the issue was the last he was to work on (he had previously announced his resignation from PBSW).
In response, Sternberg's supervisor at the Smithsonian, Jonathan Coddington, responded publicly disputing Sternberg's and Klinghoffer's depiction of events. Coddington states that Sternberg was never dismissed, nor was he a paid employee, and that he was never the target of discrimination, and remained in serving at the museum up to that time.<ref> Jonathan Coddington. Pandas Thumb</ref>


Controversy ensued within hours of publication,<ref>{{harvnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}</ref> with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."<ref>{{harvnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}</ref> Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (]), a think-tank that promotes evolution, defended the Smithsonian: "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist,"<ref>{{harvnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}, Statement to Washington Post reporter</ref> and "Some <nowiki></nowiki> probably did speak intemperately,"<ref>{{harvnb|Hagerty|2005}} Recorded statement to ]</ref> out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's role.
In August, 2005 the Office of Special Counsel dropped Sternberg's religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution. It was determined that as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian, Sternberg was not actually an employee, and thus the Office of Special Counsel had no jurisdiction. ], ] and other critics have commented that the Office of Special Counsel itself appears biased in its initial handling of the matter, given the links between the ] and the ], with ] appointee ] authoring its opinion.<ref name="complaint_dismissed"/><ref> Jason Rosenhouse. TalkReason.</ref>


Although Sternberg had announced his resignation from PBSW before the controversy irrupted, he continued to work at the Smithsonian as a ] (NMNH) Research Associate (RA).<ref>{{harvnb|USHRCGR|2006}}</ref> Sternberg states that he was subjected to a hostile work environment as an RA, and requested that the United States Office of Special Counsel (]) investigate his allegations.<ref>{{harvnb|USHRCGR|2006}}</ref> The USOSC ultimately concluded in a letter obtained by three media outlets that Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the NMNH.<ref>{{harvnb|Hagerty|2005}}, {{harvnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}} letter is referred to as a report in this article, but quotes make it clear that the report was addressed to Sternberg. See also {{harvnb|McVay|2005}} USOSC pre-closure letter to Sternberg</ref> However, the USOSC closed the investigation without taking further action due to the jurisdictional issue of Richard Sternberg's salary, which was not paid by the Smithsonian.<ref>{{harvnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}, {{harvnb|Hagerty|2005}}, {{harvnb|USHRCGR|2006}}, USOSC pre-closure letter to Sternberg</ref> Eugenie Scott, whose organization also consulted with the Smithsoian, countered that "<nowiki></nowiki> didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office....You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."<ref>{{harvnb|Hagerty|2005}}</ref> ] staff subsequently issued a report findng that the allegations of a hostile work envirionment and other retaliations including demotion were backed by "substantial, credible evidence."<ref>{{harvnb|USHRCGR|2006}}</ref>
In December 2006 a partisan report was issued by Republican representatives and intelligent design advocates ] and ], author of the pro-ID ], calling into question the Smithsonian's treatment of Sternberg and repeating many of Sternberg's claims.<ref> United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, December 2006.</ref><ref name="souder_appendix"> United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, December 2006.</ref><ref name="lame_ducks"> Reed A. Cartwright. PandasThumb.org, December 15, 2006</ref> Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report nor does the report appear to be an official report of the committee, but rather, a report from the staff of the committee to Representative Souder only.<ref name="making_martyr"> Ed Brayton. Dispatches from the Culture Wars, December 19, 2006.</ref> They say that the is Discovery Institute is using the report to portray Sternberg specifically, and design proponents in general, as victims of persecution. They also say the Souder report is a repackaging of the Office of Special Council's previous findings from August 2005 and contains nothing new, consisting of "the OSC findings restated and used as a form of evidence in and of themselves" and attacks the Smithsonian for "not accepting the OSC's findings at face value."<ref> Steve Reuland. Panda's Thumb, December 20 2006</ref> They cite as evidence of a biased motive behind the report the longstanding connections of the report's instigators, Congressmen Souder and Santorum, to the Discovery Institute, whose Program Director is Stephen C. Meyer, author of the paper Sternberg published: In 2000 Souder co-hosted a congressional briefing on behalf of the Discovery Institute intended to drum up political support for intelligent design and read a defense of intelligent design prepared by the Discovery Institute into the congressional record.<ref name="lame_ducks"/> Santorum worked with the Discovery Institute's program director ] in drafting the pro-intelligent design Santorum Amendment also in March 2006 wrote the foreword for the book, ''Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement'' a collection of essays largely by Discovery Institute fellows honoring Johnson as "father" of the intelligent design movement. Contained in the appendix to the Souder report is a letter from the director of the Smithsonian where it is revealed that Sternberg demanded that they give him a $300,000 grant to make up for his allegedly lost research time; he was turned down.<ref name="souder_appendix"/>


==Notes and references== ==Notes and references==

Revision as of 23:37, 1 May 2007

The Sternberg peer review controversy arose out of a conflict over whether an article published in a scientific journal that supported the controversial concept of intelligent design was properly peer reviewed. One of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that there are no research papers supporting their positions in peer reviewed scientific journals. On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . The journal's publisher claims the editor, Richard Sternberg, went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published in his last issue as editor. Sternberg disputes the claims. Meyer's article was an example of literature review, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design.

On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which claims that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.

Sternberg's response

Sternberg insists the paper was properly peer reviewed, and rejects the journal's allegations for disavowing the article saying:

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

Observers have pointed to affiliations that in most circumstances would have disqualified Sternberg from favorably reviewing an article on intelligent design. They note that Sternberg is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a Discovery Institute affiliated group dedicated to promoting intelligent design. Sternberg is also a signatory of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement which says "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Sternberg claims to have also checked with a Council member and to have followed the standard practice for peer review:

". . .Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. . . . four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication. . . ."

Sternberg's statement directly contradicts those of his former employer, the publisher of the journal, that proper review procedures were not followed resulting in the article's retraction. Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the "four well-qualified biologists", citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them. Identifying the reviewers would have allowed the journal's board to validate Sternberg's claim to objectivity in having the article considered meritorious for publication. The reviewers of Sternberg's own published paper were Sternberg's fellow Baraminology Study Group peer Todd Wodd, and prominent intelligent design proponents Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells both of whom are Fellows of the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement.

Criticism

In a review of Meyer's article The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry claimed it contained poor scholarship, that it failed to cite and specifically rebut the actual data supporting evolution, and "constructed a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down straw men, and tendentious interpretations." Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles.

Critics of Sternberg believe that he was biased in the matter. Sternberg's close personal and ideological connections to the paper’s author suggest at least the appearance of conflict of interest they say. They cite as evidence that in 2002, Sternberg presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference where Stephen C. Meyer, the author of the paper Sternberg published, also presented a lecture. The RAPID conference was organized and hosted by the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design, where Sternberg sits as an ISCID fellow. ISCID is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement, where Meyer serves as the Program Director of the Center for Science and Culture. The RAPID conference was closed to all but intelligent design advocates. Critics also note that Sternberg also sat on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, which studies "creation biology" and whose website is hosted by Bryan College, a conservative Christian school named after anti-Darwin lawyer William Jennings Bryan made famous by the Scopes Trial.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science in a position statement describing the events around the controversy said "Given these associations, Dr. Sternberg would appear to be, at very least, an advocate for 'intelligent design' and critical of standard peer review processes as they bear on the scientific assessment of the 'intelligent design' hypothesis." Critics describe Sternberg's explanation of events, that a pro-intelligent design paper just happened to find its way to a publication with a sympathetic editor ultimately responsible for ensuring proper peer review and editing of his last issue, and that he decided it was appropriate to deal with the review process in person on a subject in which he has a personal interest, as improbable and that "people who want us to believe that the publication process outlined was transparent and only had to do with science" are "disingenuous."

Journalist Chris Mooney has compared the Sternberg controversy to that of a paper published by climate change skeptics Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in Climate Change, where a sympathetic editor Chris de Freitas allowed it to be published, despite its poor scientific merit.

Smithsonian Controversy

The Smithsonian controversy began with backlash over the publication of an article written by an intelligent design proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution (SI), contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process. An article titled The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories by Intelligent Design advocate Stephen C. Meyer was published in the in the August 4, 2004 volume of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, (PBSW) Richard Sternberg was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), and the issue was the last he was to work on (he had previously announced his resignation from PBSW).

Controversy ensued within hours of publication, with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper." Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a think-tank that promotes evolution, defended the Smithsonian: "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist," and "Some probably did speak intemperately," out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's role.

Although Sternberg had announced his resignation from PBSW before the controversy irrupted, he continued to work at the Smithsonian as a National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) Research Associate (RA). Sternberg states that he was subjected to a hostile work environment as an RA, and requested that the United States Office of Special Counsel (USOSC) investigate his allegations. The USOSC ultimately concluded in a letter obtained by three media outlets that Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the NMNH. However, the USOSC closed the investigation without taking further action due to the jurisdictional issue of Richard Sternberg's salary, which was not paid by the Smithsonian. Eugenie Scott, whose organization also consulted with the Smithsoian, countered that " didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office....You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair." U.S. Representative Mark Souder's staff subsequently issued a report findng that the allegations of a hostile work envirionment and other retaliations including demotion were backed by "substantial, credible evidence."

Notes and references

  1. Judge John E. Jones III: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory...The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science.
  2. Intelligent design:The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories; Center for Science and Culture
  3. ^ Sternberg's statement on his website
  4. ^ Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington
  5. AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory American Association for the Advancement of Science
  6. ^ Creationism's Holy Grail: The Intelligent Design of a Peer-Reviewed Paper Robert Weitzel. Skeptic Magazine Vol. 11, Number 4, pp. 66-69
  7. Dissent from Darwin Discovery Institute.
  8. On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system
  9. "I also thank Drs. Paul Nelson, Stanley Salthe, Jonathan Wells, and Todd Wood (alphabetical order) for their very helpful criticisms of the manuscript. ..." On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System Annals New York Academy of Sciences
  10. Sternberg on O’Reilly John M. Lynch. Stranger Fruit, August 25 2005.
  11. ^ Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Fellows
  12. Meyer and Deja Vu Revisited Wesley R. Elsberry. Pandas Thumb, September 26 2004.
  13. ^ Sternberg and the "smear" of Creationism Andrea Bottaro. Pandas Thumb.
  14. ^ Sternberg and the "smear" of Creationism comment, Andrea Bottaro. Pandas Thumb.
  15. RAPID conference attendees
  16. ^ RAPID conference schedule
  17. The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes ISCID as a "virtual association created by ID advocates." Intelligent Design and Peer Review
  18. ISCID Fellows
  19. Intelligent Design and Peer Review American Association for the Advancement of Science
  20. Déjà vu All Over Again, Chris Mooney, September 13, 2004
  21. Powell 2005, p. A19 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPowell2005 (help), Hagerty 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHagerty2005 (help), USHRCGR 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSHRCGR2006 (help)
  22. Meyer 2004, p. 213-239 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMeyer2004 (help)
  23. Powell 2005, p. A19 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPowell2005 (help)
  24. Powell 2005, p. A19 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPowell2005 (help)
  25. Powell 2005, p. A19 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPowell2005 (help), Statement to Washington Post reporter
  26. Hagerty 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHagerty2005 (help) Recorded statement to National Public Radio
  27. USHRCGR 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSHRCGR2006 (help)
  28. USHRCGR 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSHRCGR2006 (help)
  29. Hagerty 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHagerty2005 (help), Powell 2005, p. A19 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPowell2005 (help) letter is referred to as a report in this article, but quotes make it clear that the report was addressed to Sternberg. See also McVay 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMcVay2005 (help) USOSC pre-closure letter to Sternberg
  30. Powell 2005, p. A19 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPowell2005 (help), Hagerty 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHagerty2005 (help), USHRCGR 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSHRCGR2006 (help), USOSC pre-closure letter to Sternberg
  31. Hagerty 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHagerty2005 (help)
  32. USHRCGR 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSHRCGR2006 (help)

External links

Categories: