The Sternberg Saga Continues

The Sternberg saga is turning into a creationist canard and martyr complex for all those "poor, persecuted" IDers. The myth is that Sternberg is some kind of heroic spotless lamb who was lambasted for choosing to believe in God by godless hacks like me. A guest columnist recently wrote that science is being "silenced":

Smithsonian scientist Dr. Richard Sternberg has his own story of persecution. Sternberg was the editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a scholarly journal. He received a submission by Stephen Meyer which argued that the Cambrian explosion is best explained by intelligent design, which he sent out for peer review, edited and published. Colleagues of Sternberg immediately began attacking him by circulating nasty emails, denying him access to the building and even his own office and creating a hostile work environment to force him out, according to the report by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Sternberg planned to speak on the panel at the Discovery Institute’s forum, but a family member’s illness prevented him from attending.

_____
Update 12/17/06: The "Lame Duck Congress" made sure they passed tax cuts and pardoned those involved in the Mark Foley scandal. Guess what else they did? Mark Souder, recently re-elected creationist Congressman, who co-hosted a Disco Institute event in May 2000, spearheaded a "subcommittee" investigating the years-old Sternberg saga. Isn't it lovely what a little lame duck will feel licensed to do? The Disco Institute has clamped onto this committee's findings, predictably slanted towards their POV. Steve Reuland thoroughly debunks the report.

Note that the claim of Sternberg's demotion from "Research Associate" to "Research Collaborator", cited from a letter to Mark Souder, is complete BS. According to the NHMH classifications, the only difference in those two appointments is the level of independence in research. In the former category, associates formally collaborate with other NHMH researchers and scientists; in the latter category, collaborators independently conduct research in the facilities. Thus, the boldened section of the executive summary contains a huge bold lie. There is no connotation of "demotion" -- there is only a difference in affiliation and collaboration. Another funny point that these thickheads don't seem to comprehend is that the Smithsonian doesn't have to renew his contract for RA or RC. But they did. Terribly discriminatory of them, right? You may call me cynical, but I'd love to read that letter for myself, and see the context, because I'll bet that Souder knew all of this. Some part of me doubts that, with all these accusations of violating Sternberg's rights, the Smithsonian would risk litigation by demoting him at all. In point of fact, if half of what this report alleges is true, I fully expect a lawsuit. But, since I doubt that half of Souder's claims are any more factual than this claim of "demotion", I wouldn't advise you to hold your breath waiting on a suit...
_____

Sagas are typically dismantled when people choose to...learn the facts:

Fact 1: Sternberg had resigned as managing editor from the journal (PBSW) long before Meyer even submitted the paper! From Sternberg's own website, he admits:

In October of 2003 I resigned as managing editor of the Proceedings ... I agreed to continue on as managing editor until such time as the Council could find my replacement. That happened in May 2004 ... in September 2004 Dr. Banks took over as managing editor of the Proceedings. This transition had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper. [emphasis mine]

Fact 2: Meyer's paper (a.k.a. "Meyer's Helpless Monster") was submitted in early 2004 and published during the "transition" Sternberg describes above, in June 2004.

Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2004):213-239. [published June 2004]

Fact 3: Sternberg held the paper until after a replacement had already been found for him. (see #1, and link) The paper had been submitted in January, by Sternberg's admission.

Fact 4: Sternberg had the Office of Special Counsel investigate his supposed mistreatment following the publication of Meyer's article. Unfortunately for him, the Smithsonian refused to allow the investigation to continue to completion, because the OSC had no jurisdiction to investigate the Smithsonian in the first place, because Sternberg was a research associate there, employed by the NIH, not the Smithsonian. [here comes opinion, not fact: Thus, its (the OSC's) mock authority was largely a stunt of political repurcussion from Bush-appoint special counsel James McVey (see Sternberg's comments on this).]

Fact 5: Sternberg has participated on the editorial board for a young-earth creationism journal for years prior to this whole fiasco. See Sternberg's website for "clarification" of why he would do such a thing, as a rational scientist. In short, he promises that he is solely interested in the methodology of taxonomy that baraminology uses...you can make up your own mind regarding whether you believe him or not. [I would have to draw an analogy, though, to myself serving on the board of an alchemy journal, as a self-described "skeptic", but giving them constructive criticism insofar as serving to help their journal become more respected and the articles about Pb to Au transformations more scientifically coherent...]

Fact 6: The PBSW's editorial board published the following in the next issue of the journal after Sternberg had published the article for Meyer:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings. [emphasis mine]

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (link), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (link) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.

So Sternberg did in fact act against the wishes of the entire board and council of the journal and society...according to their own website. He denies that he did not follow the standard procedures for peer review, but appears to corroborate that he did not involve any other editors at the journal. From the form letter he links to, which serves to outline the peer-review process, it is clear that more than one editor, at some point in the process, will be involved...but this was obviously not the case here, by his own admission. Sternberg defends this by citing an example where he had not agreed with a decision by an associate editor not to publish a paper, and had it published:

During my tenure as managing editor some problems arose in the process. In one case I strongly disagreed with an associate editor in his handling of a paper. To deal with the problem, I took control of the paper again, had it reviewed and edited, and published it. For various reasons the associated editor was upset, and denied that I had the authority to do this.

Although he goes on to say that the Council upheld the managing editor's authority to override associate editors, one thing he does not say is whether or not that gives the managing editor the right to solely review a paper, without involving the associate editors or anyone else in the journal's editorial board. In fact, it appears quite obvious that he involved "reviewers" that he "discussed" this paper with outside the journal itself. The retraction by the journal and their wording appears to confirm that the managing editor ought to have conferred at some point with the other editors, even if the final authority was his.

Fact 7: Sternberg has been listed as a fellow of the ISCID since before the article was published. The ISCID is a pro-ID, 501-3(c) [tax-emempt], organization that was spearheaded by Dembski.

Fact 8: The Discovery Institute's bloggers put out an article which simultaneously whines over allegations against the Smithsonian, which have not been substantiated, but were rather summarized back to Sternberg in the letter he posted on his website by the unofficial and incomplete investigation by the OCS...described by the special counsel as a "preliminary determination"; and celebrates their ability to circulate the review article by Meyer, via their website, since the BSW withdrew the paper and their support for it (see 6). The claims made by Sternberg have been countered by his own supervisor (see 9) and have not been officially investigated to a conclusion (see 4). Thus, Sternberg is posting a preliminary investigative "determination" as though it proves something. [opinion/rant: Furthermore, the Smithsonian does not take the time to defend itself from politico-religious movements with a mirror to DI's spin blogs. Therefore, we do not know the details of the investigation or the first-hand reports, nor do the people involved have the publicity that Sternberg does through the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture's long and affluent tentacles of "public relations".]

Fact 9: The only supervisor that Sternberg has ever had (one of his complaints was being moved under a "hostile supervisor" after the fallout) at the Smithsonian has personally commented on the embellishments and outright lies spun out by the DI in their typical fashion. This supervisor, Jonathan Coddington, (JAC), directly provides information that refutes the lies:

Jonathan Coddington wrote:
1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, "Research Associate," means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive.
3. I am, and continue to be, his only "supervisor," although we use the term "sponsor" for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever "assigned to" or under the "oversight of" anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.

Fact 10: Sternberg complained on O'Reilly that there was an:

an unstated rule that you do not accept a manuscript for per review that counters Darwinism, or seriously counters Darwinism.

Interesting, since Sternberg himself published a paper whose abstract ends with the phrase:

It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian "narratives" have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.

Now, what was that rule, again, Sternberg?* (for clarification on corrections, see below)
When one investigates the paper referenced above, it is apparent that Todd Wodd, of Bryan College, of the Baraminology Study Group, as in Young Earth Creationism...was one of the three people he sent out his** own paper to, to in order to qualify it for peer review. Who else? Paul Nelson, also involved with Baraminology Conferences as far back as 1999. And the third reviewer? Why, none other than Jonathan Wells, of course. Now at least we know that Sternberg's peers, those of equivalent scholarship and glory, include 2 YECs and a guy who once said that the reason he is motivated to redefine science (i.e. bring about a "renewal" of science and culture) is--

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

...i.e. his Moonie faith.

Lovely. Some "peer-reviewed article" this one turned out to be. And some saga.
__________
Correction:
**I earlier posted fact 10 after misreading Stranger Fruit's article, believing that Sternberg had admitted the identities of the three persons who reviewed Meyer's Helpless Monster, in fact it was the identities of the three persons who reviewed Sternberg's own article I was confusing. The major reason fact 10 is relevant is to illustrate the types of reviewers that Sternberg selected for his own review article critical of a Darwinian interpretation of an aspect of biology. It is hardly a non sequitur to infer that he may have hand-selected similar reviewers for Meyer's paper.

The admission of the reviewer identities would do much to validate Sternberg's pretense to objectivity in having the article considered meritorious for publication. However, it does not appear forthcoming. My prediction is that all 3 of the reviewers' identities are on the DI's "Top 400" list.

In Sternberg's "Acknowledgements" section, he divulges the identities of the 3 reviewers for his paper I wanted to comment on:

I warmly thank Drs. Lien (Linda) Van Speybroeck, Gertrudis Van de Vijver, and Dani De Waele for their patience, encouragement, and comments and suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript. I also thank Drs. Paul Nelson, Stanley Salthe, Jonathan Wells, and Todd Wood (alphabetical order) for their very helpful criticisms of the manuscript.

__________
Comments:
*Stranger Fruit broke the important facts on this story a long time ago. Read here for more at PT, or here at evolutionblog. Also read here for SF's analysis of Sternberg's appearance on O'Reilly. Here is the partial transcript of the O'Reilly show.
Of course, the facts are not useful to spin doctors at the Discovery Institute. Nearly at the moment the controversy began, they had media releases regarding "the ongoing debate in the scientific community". Sure...
Plus, they displayed some “amusing hypocrisy” over the affair, especially my friend Jonathan Witt (whose work I recently critiqued), with a recent write-in to the Seattle Times. Witt also commented on Sternberg's accusations, then fairly admitted there are "two sides to every story," but instead of posting the other side, just gave a small link to it. Typical stuff. Witt goes on to make a mind-bogglingly stupid remark:

Jason Rosenhouse, dismisses Meyer's peer-reviewed article with a website critique (there has been no peer-reviewed critique of Stephen Meyer's article)

Witt, science journals are not written to debunk creationism, but rather to distribute evidence and information. How stupid are you?

Sternberg and Paul Nelson were set to go present at some kind of forum at the University of Helsinki some months back, but it got cancelled. Sternberg and Nelson ended up instead at the TKK in a self-described "hastily organized substitute event". The talk took place in October 2004. Paul Nelson whined about this a few months back (June 2005), in his perception puling that science was being silenced, and that the cancellation of the pro-ID forum at the University of Helsinki proved this. The chair of this forum was Matti Leisola, a well-known Finnish creationist who is mentioned by name in the Finnish wiki on creationism, who kindly posted the presentations. Nelson rants on about science being silenced,

...“Mike Gene.” He’s a regular contributor at Telic Thoughts, a great new ID blog. Mike has a Ph.D. in genetics. He’s an insightful biologist with interesting ideas. So why is he writing under a pseudonym? Under what circumstances would you feel compelled to do the same?

Well, let's see, Paul...why do writers of various stripes use pseudonyms? Are you implying that they are all overtly persecuted/afraid to use their real identities? He goes on to complain when Elsberry points out the invidious comparisons ID-iots make to scientific McCarthyism as vacuous. And on and on...

The Wedge continues to be pounded into American culture--if you can't convince the scientists through evidence and reasoned debate, confuse the public and make out the movement to look like legitimate science is being silenced by some kind of Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Their Wedge strategy keeps backfiring, though, in that in vilifying the "enemy" of "materialism" to equivocate to science, they reveal the "God vs. Secular Humanism/Atheism/Materialism" debate that it really is...at least for people with half a brain. And for those select few of us who know the DI well, it is clear that this has never been about science. For the rest of America, ID-iocy will rage on.
_______________
Technorati tags:
Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Evolution-creation, Sternberg, Witt