Update on Sternberg

And it only reinforces and clarifies the utter vacuity of any claim to discrimination towards the man, although the Disco Institute purports, of course, that the opposite is true. See the updated section of my Sternberg Saga post for details. See the outline for a full review of the debacle.

**UPDATE: Steve Reuland has the goods:

That pretty much does it for any material harm that Sternberg may have suffered -- quite simply, there was none...In the end, the appendix attached to the Souter report not only fails to support any of the report's conclusions, it directly contradicts them. Sternberg suffered no harm as a result of the row he created when he inappropriately published the Meyer paper. Indeed, the emails paint a picture of the staff doing what they could to accommodate him in spite of a long history of causing problems, both with his mishandling of the collections and library materials and his bad editorial practices.

________________
Technorati tags: Politics, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

Outline of Sternberg Situation

A review of l'affaire de Sternberg:

1. 12-14-05: I posted The Sternberg Saga Continues on Wednesday, December 14th. The post was a summary of the facts in the case, and was basically a review of what other bloggers and media outlets had put out already.
2. 12-16-05: By that Friday, enough attention had been turned to the post that I summarized its coverage in Honorable Mention. I have found a few more references to the saga and updated accordingly.
3. 12-18-05: By Sunday, I realized a little follow-up was necessary, ergo The Lingering Questions re Sternberg appeared at 5 AM. I focused mainly on Sternberg's handling of the paper, and on the OSC's handling of the investigation. To this day, one of the most troubling aspects of the situation, (to me at least) is the fact that the OSC didn't realize that Sternberg did not work for the Smithsonian, only at the Smithsonian, and that the "proper authorities" have not conducted an official and conclusive investigation since. If Sternberg has a case, there are other outlets for the OSC to hand its "evidence" over to. Also, the OSC's James McVay issued a personal letter (not in the capacity of representing the OSC) to Sternberg which lends credence to his claims. Problem is, this letter, self-described as a "preliminary determination" does nothing to give the Smithsonian a response or defense. Further, is this typical OSC conduct, or is Sternberg's case so politicized that when the agency drops a case it never had the legal right to begin they feel "compelled" to issue an explanation?
4. 12-18-05: A little later Sunday morning, Thinking Christian notified us that a response from the DI was forthcoming, and I commented on it in Here Comes Trouble.
   
5. 12-19-05: The next evening, Get Busy Livin', Or Get Busy Smearin' appeared on idthefuture, thanks to Jon Witt.
6. 12-19-05: I mentioned Witt's post in I Expected None Other a few hours after it appeared.
7. 12-19-05: I replied in full to Witt's "two strawmen and mushy spin-ach" in Dissecting a Frog, posted at 11 PM.
8. 12-17-06: An update to the Sternberg Saga, in response to creationist Mark Souder's Congressional effort to further the spin. Steve Reuland has details.
   

So for those few curious ones out there, this is the whole shebang. I don't expect any kind of formal response again from the DI. Feel free to comment here or at any of the posts above with questions or corrections. I don't intend to post any more on Sternberg until I have more information.
________________
Technorati tags:

Sternberg, Witt, Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism

Dissecting a Frog

Intro:

After an 11-hour drive with my 150-lb Saint Bernard to Virginia, I find myself comforted. Considering their money and staff resources, I was quite surprised at the two strawmen and mushy spin-ach I was served by the DI-CRSC. I actually expected something worth having…but maybe they were all too on edge due to the ruling by non-activist, Christian, Bush-appointed Judge Jones telling us all what common sense had long ago: that ID is refried creationism and that the Establishment Clause rightly and legally keeps it out of the classroom as such. I also suspect that most of the attention that had been following this “back-and-forth” has been diverted to the conclusion of KvD.

Overview:

First, I do want to say that I came into this whole (Sternberg) thing with no knowledge of the situation only a few days ago, besides hearing some TV news reports during the past year or so, and carefully reviewed the blogosphere and news articles for about 6 hours to obtain my information before the original post. I sincerely and wholeheartedly agree that some of Sternberg’s peers at the Smithsonian were likely harsh towards him in the fallout. I do not pretend, as Witt asserts, that everyone “played nice” after Meyer’s Hopeless Monster was published. Furthermore, I am quite willing to correct any misstatements of fact. The spin that the DI and others have applied to this saga is unbelievable−painting Sternberg as a sacrificial lamb for the cause of freedom:

Inquisitors at George Mason University, Ohio State University, and the Smithsonian have recently hunted down and tried to disgrace scientists and educators for daring to defy the Darwinian orthodoxy.

And

The independent federal agency has now released a report about the discrimination that biology journal editor Richard Sternberg faced…

[lie, no agency report, but a personal “closure letter” self-described by McVay as a “preliminary determination”…hardly the substantiation for Sternberg’s allegations that they wish it was]

However, it does not make a martyr to shave one’s head and paint a swastika on one’s chest then walk into an “World’s Strongest Man, Male Edition, Black / Jewish Division”, contest. Sternberg, with his respectable credentials, knows that creationism is 100% unscientific, and thus foreknew that his peers would regard him as incompetent for publishing Meyer’s Hopeless Monster in PBWS. Disparage and derision come with any stupid decision, and RS was walking into the preponderance of evidence for evolution with a sign trumpeting, “DOES NOT!”. Sternberg did not hide his long-standing association with the DI through the RAPID conference where he spoke and solicited Meyer’s paper, through the ISCID (where he was listed as a fellow pre-Meyer), and as an associate editor of a Young Earth Creationism (YEC) journal. He can use “ham-fisted reasoning” (Witt or Sternberg) all day long about that, but to those of us with half a brain, his motives and agenda were clear from the start. He did something he knew he would be “branded a heretic” for−by circumventing his own journal staff and single-handedly (without an associate editor, as he admits is necessary) publishing a review article by a philosopher arguing ID within a scientific journal. He knew he was being political, admitting in a Washington Post story that he was using his authority to “stir the pot”…and now he is reaping the whirlwind. Scientists are going to hold him in contempt for his shady actions. That is unavoidable, and is not tantamount to professional “attacks” or “persecution” … or martyrdom.

This does not excuse professional persecution (a.k.a. losing one’s job or work privelages or professional authority)…if any of that happened. But, that has yet to be shown as having happened at all, especially considering the rebuttal right from his supervisor’s mouth. Furthermore, one claim of Sternberg’s “persecution” in particular is falsified−he claims he was put under a “hostile” supervisor following the fallout, but J.A. Coddington is the only supervisor (“sponsor”) RS ever had at the Smithsonian, and the guy Coddington replaced in the position had died! This had nothing to do with RS’s blunder as editor.

Analysis of JW's Reply:

The Witt-less one blunders forth the following:

1) He accuses me of a strawman even as he paints my face upon one−This is kinda funny, watch how many times I can use the word “claim”: Jon claims that I claimed that the DI and/or Sternberg claimed that Sternberg lost his editorship due to the Meyer’s Hopeless Monster fallout. Unfortunately, this is a strawman as I never said what he accuses me of saying (that the DI or Sternberg “claimed” that he was “fired”). −see below for more in-depth on the strawmen Witt employs then attacks−

2) That I dismissed the OSC “investigation” “so lightly”, mostly due to its political ties, is yet another strawman. I reported the facts, and clearly bracketed my “opinion/rant” as just that. Further, I linked to the OSC letter, or “preliminary determination” by McVay (described in the Pheonix article as “a former Marine drill sergeant and insurance attorney with no experience in employment law, whistleblower law, or federal-sector work.”) so that people could read it for themselves. −see below for more in-depth on the strawmen Witt employs then attacks−

3) Although I listed, verbatim, Sternberg’s acknowledgments section, Witt finds it meritorious to play semantics because I used the phrase “the three reviewers” concerning Sternberg’s paper, rather than “three of the reviewers” as I should have, as though I was “hiding” the other reviewers (although I listed them all, verbatim).

4) He accuses me of “either/or” reasoning as I lay out clearly the dilemma that Sternberg faced by his own words about whether or not he ought to have sought counsel from the editorial board to make the decision to publish Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, realizing as he did “the controversial nature of the paper”. See overview above or this article #2-3.

5) He claims that my invitation to obtain permission from the reviewers to reveal their identities would not relieve Sternberg of the accusation he has faced of cherry-picking some reviewers, and would subject them all to the same “attacks” he has supposedly faced. Unfortunately for Witt, this is a double-edged sword, in that the entire question of malfeasance on Sternberg’s part lies with his claim that he acted in accordance to the procedures of publication for the journal, this he says, although he admits on the same webpage that there is supposed to be an associate editor involved in the process , and that he himself instead went outside the editorial board to a member of the Council with whom he discussed the publication. Because sufficient evidence thus arose to suspect wrong-doing on some level, and to accuse him of it in the general public sphere, the burden lies with Sternberg to validate himself, not with the public to read the facts and come to any conclusion but the obvious one − concluding that Sternberg was unethical in his handling of the paper.

6) Witt totally ignores the major lingering questions about: Sternberg’s handling of Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, whether Meyer submitted this paper anywhere else, ever, why no abstract was provided, when Meyer paid the $1600 (exact date), who the three reviewers are (to prove Sternberg didn’t cherry-pick obvious DI sycophant/ sympathizers) and why Sternberg never even mentioned the paper to anyone at the journal if he knew it was going to be a controversy.

Witt actually makes one good point:

7) He actually scores one with my confusion of wording over the peer-review process for Sternberg’s own article−score one and only for the DI. I do understand peer-review, especially considering that I had just pointed out that Sternberg, acting as managing editor, selected the three reviewers of Meyer’s Hopeless Monster. I also understand it as a graduate student in a physical sciences program…a student who is currently working towards enough research for his own first peer-reviewed article. The reason this “Fact 10” sounds so confusing is that it was a hasty edit of an earlier mistake that Stranger Fruit helped me correct. When I read SF’s earlier article about Sternberg on O’Reilly, I confused Meyer’s Hopeless Monster for Sternberg’s ANYAS article. Thankfully, SF commented on this almost as soon as my article was up. I was hasty in fixing the wording of this error and so it sounds much like the original, which was rendered out of context. The major thrust of my post was that Sternberg chose people he felt were experts/peers to help him revise his own manuscript−and it is not a to infer that where he looked for help with early revisions to his own article was a probable source of safe advisement as managing editor on Meyer’s Hopeless Monster as well. on the confusion. SF pointed out that this doesn’t “demonstrate Sternberg’s support for creationism”, but his choice to serve as an associate editor of a YEC journal for years and soliciting this paper from Meyer during his talk at ID conferences clearly does (see overview).

Witt ends this heaping portion of cold mushy spin-ach with a promo for Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, so I figure I should end with the following quote from three experts underscoring why good science, and not dogma, dictate that this paper belonged in typical creationist archives and not in a scientific journal:

Meyer tries to evaluate morphological evolution by counting taxa, a totally meaningless endeavor for investigating the evolution of morphology. Most paleontologists gave up taxa-counting long ago and moved on to more useful realms of research regarding the Cambrian (see Budd and Jensen 2000). (themselves not in relevant scientific journals). [funny, huh?]

Analysis of Witt's Strawmen:

Let’s look at the caricature Jon paints of me then attacks--

1) Straw man regarding “Fact 1”:

Most obvious among the errors, neither Sternberg nor the Discovery Institute claims he was fired from his editorship. To claim that we have claimed this is pure straw man.

Did I claim this? Read my words for yourself. Wesley Elsberry caught this strawman all of maybe 5 seconds after the post went up. Jon Witt (JW) is addressing with my “Fact 1”−where I simply emphasize that Rick Sternberg (RS) did not lose his position at the journal as a result of the fallout, as has been somewhat commonly misconceived. 95% of my “Fact 1” is a quote from RS own website. Aside from the evidence of poor journalism and purposeful spin-blogging which support the idea that stating “Fact 1”, for information purposes only, is worthwhile, JW decides to make a straw man of it. Does he really think that I said/believed that Sternberg claimed to have been fired, or forced to resign, as a result of the fallout? I quoted from RS own website!!! Does JW think I attribute schizophrenia to RS? That I believed RS would tell us all that the resignation had nothing to do with Meyer’s Hopeless Monster, on his own website, then turn around and claim persecution drove him out of the managing editor position? Sorry JW, but strawmen only scare off crows and morons.

2) Strawman regarding “Fact 4”:

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).]

Does this statement of fact, and clear separation of opinion, really sound "taken so lightly" in the first place? Nonetheless, let’s go more in-depth − Obviously, JW’s interpretation of the actions of an agency which had already been questioned for its handling of anti-discrimination lawsuits, though supposedly understaffed and overworked, which somehow failed to realize that Sternberg was not an employee of the Smithsonian until after spending unknown sums of dollars and man-hours on the “investigation”…is different than my own. Realize, though, that Chris Mooney, and others, have pointed out the OSC’s clear bias in its issuance of this letter to Sternberg−with wording like,

It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists...

This, in the face of the PBWS own statement is absurd. Another fact is that the letter that McVay issued was self-described as a “preliminary determination”, and the OSC had not collected documents or depositions to make an official conclusion, so in a legal sense, IS this something to take lightly. Considering that the OSC has had some problems in the past, and all of these facts, should we take this so seriously?

Conclusion:

Good job at attacking caricatures of my argument, JW. Care to tackle the real deal? The devil is always in the details. And the god of DI apparently resides in the spin cycle of their media complaints division. I guess the good news is that this time you didn’t make a comment purporting that a response to Meyer’s Hopeless Monster ought to have been contained in the peer-reviewed literature. So I guess the DI’s intelligence is evolving…

I would love to hear from Sternberg himself regarding the lingering questions. He can email me anytime (dmorgan AT chem.ufl.edu).

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

Still just as true…science is still speaking quite well, thanks in part to Judge Jones. see here for more opinions about the Sternberg saga.

________________
Technorati tags:
Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Sternberg, Witt

I Expected None Other

Than my good buddy Witt to respond to my pieces on Sternberg. I guess Thinking Christian really has some "insiders" at the DI. You know you've moved up in the blogosphere when you get an "idthefuture" spin off of your blog name: "Get Busy Livin', Or Get Busy Smearin'". Pretty Witt-y, I actually did laugh at the title...not so much the content, though. I'm pretty tired but I think I can pick out the most obvious ID-iocy in Witt's blog before leaving for Virginia bright and early tomorrow.
________________
Technorati tags:
Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Witt, Sternberg

Here Comes Trouble

Some people think bad attention is better than no attention at all. Regarding blogging, at least, I am inclined to agree.

After my Sternberg review, Thinking Christian promises he has received information that the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture is going to respond. My anal sphincter muscles lock up in protest at what will be forthcoming, but I will attempt to keep a little humility at the idea of having aroused such a reaction with my simple review of the media reports of the Sternberg case.

Considering the length and girth of the tentacles of DI's public relations (how many full-time bloggers, I have to wonder?)...I am sure glad I have my K-Y jelly with me. I stand ready...well, bent over clutching my ankles, actually...to correct anything that I misreported. That's a fact (#11, I think).

Who ever knew blogging could be so much fun? Here I am in the blogosphere for a measly month, and I may have already awakened a sleeping giant. *pats own back* IMHO it's better to at least have some kind of back and forth with my blogging than being in the situation of so many bloggers who rant and bitch [like me] but never elicit a reponse from the source of their angst. I'll keep you posted if this turns out to be true.
________________
Technorati tags:
Humor, Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Blogging

The Lingering Questions re Sternberg

I want to present a positive spin on the Sternberg saga by offering some questions, which, when answered, will likely evaporate much of the lingering air of malfeasance. I think that if Sternberg really feels he is still being viewed as a "heretic", the remedy for him is to answer the questions I have collected below. As Jesus is attributed as having said, "...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

1) Did Sternberg solicit the paper from Meyer at an ID conference? Meyer reported that he did:

According to Mr. Meyer, this is the first time that proponents of intelligent design have published an argument for the theory in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. He said he had chosen the journal because Mr. Sternberg attended a conference where Mr. Meyer gave an oral presentation advancing the same arguments. The two discussed the possibility of publishing the work, he said.

Now, if there is any question that Meyer did not know his paper would be received there, a simple check would suffice of two things: 1) the date of the $1600 check he made out to PBWS (this ought to be obtainable given the DI's corporate status as nonprofit) and 2) how many other places did he submit the article?

Regarding 1, Sternberg reports:

Dr. Meyer became a paid member of the BSW after the paper was accepted and before it was published, the standard practice for first-time authors or authors whose previous membership has lapsed. He also paid all the appropriate "page charges" for his article, a bill amounting to approximately $1600.

Regarding 2, NCSE had this to say:

According to the article, Meyer “said he had chosen the journal because Mr. Sternberg attended a conference where Mr. Meyer gave an oral presentation advancing the same arguments. The two discussed the possibility of publishing the work.” Although the conference is not named in the article, it is likely that it was the Research and Progress in Intelligent Design Conference, held at Biola University in October 2002, at which Meyer spoke on “The Cambrian information explosion: Evidence of intelligent design” and Sternberg spoke on “Causal entailments in convergently developed, irreducibly complex organ systems.” Only advocates of “intelligent design” spoke at the RAPID conference, and at least one critic of “intelligent design” was expressly forbidden to attend.

Sternberg talked at this conference, and it was entitled:

“Causal entailments in convergently developed, irreducibly complex organ systems”

2) What does the document that Sternberg alludes to on his website say about the role of the managing editor?

...formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts. The Council asked me, moreover, to draft a formal process document describing the procedures of the Proceedings including their ruling on the role of the managing editor. [emphasis mine]

He reports that after a conflict of authority, the managing editor was given clear authority over, and the choice to select, the associate editors. Thus, he could have published the article over the authority of the associate editors. That is not my question. The question is--he seems to make it clear that he never notified the associate editors of the paper, ever, and it appears that he equivocates authority over and discretion to choose with ability to entirely circumvent these editors...is this a fair assessment? He even links to a form letter which clearly indicates that associate editors would be involved at some point in the process. This does nothing to further his position, nor does it answer my question. After stating the above, he goes on to say:

As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")

Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respected. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review.

When the president here says that the manuscript did not get passed on to an associate editor, is it the same thing as "the managing editor never consulted with, gave a copy to, or discussed in any way the Meyer paper with anyone within the journal staff, nor notified them of the paper he intended to publish until it just appeared in the journal"? Had this ever happened before? Not just taking "editorial authority" to have the paper reviewed, but not even discussing a paper with the associate editors? And, is this "OK" by the formal process document? Further, what does the rest of the email say, because after the ellipsis, it may say something to the effect of, "...but given the controversial content of this paper, you ought to have known better than to choose not to involve anyone else at the journal..."? Who knows? After all, in the same article in which Meyer admits he and Sternberg spoke about publishing this article at an ID conference, the President of the PBWS at the time (McDiarmid) said,

[McDiarmid] did not learn about the paper until after its publication. "My conclusion on this," he said, "was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part."

Did the president change his mind, or are we only being given selective slices of the picture by Sternberg? What part of the editor's judgment is the president here deriding--Sternberg's choice to keep the paper from the attention of anyone at the journal?

Since Sternberg alluded to a formal document outlining the role of the managing editor, and he used this as a sort of trump card in his argument, I think it is quite fair to ask him to present the document on his website. And it would clear him fully of the ambiguity surrounding the process and prerogative issues.

3) If he admits, as he has, that he wanted to "stir the pot"...why pretend otherwise?

Sternberg harbored his own doubts about Darwinian theory. He also acknowledged that this journal had not published such papers in the past and that he wanted to stir the scientific pot. "I am not convinced by intelligent design but they have brought a lot of difficult questions to the fore," Sternberg said. "Science only moves forward on controversy." [emphasis mine]

That is, why not just admit that he intended to publish this paper from the moment he spoke with Meyer at a conference about it, rather than pretend that Meyer's paper is "just another" that he processed according to the formal process that he followed to the letter? Why pretend he did not have a motive to incite controversy, and why feign surprise at the exact reaping of what he said he intended to sow? It appears there is a serious question here: is Sternberg standing by the position that this paper was like any other he received and he handled it as such, or did Sternberg want and expect this controversy? From his own words it appears unfounded to conclude anything except the latter.

A former professor of Sternberg's says the researcher has an intellectual penchant for going against the system. Sternberg does not deny it. "I loathe careerism and the herd mentality," he said. "I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal."

And, from his website:

Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published.

So if you really recognized it, unless you wanted to "stir the pot", why did you then think it wise to keep the knowledge of the paper from the associate editors entirely...?? Did you know that the associate editors would disagree with your decision, and although you still had the authority, you didn't want them to know about it? Why? If the document you alluded to keeps you from having to mention this to them, and gives you full authority over them, and you had nothing to fear from the editorial board, yet you knew what a stink this would become, why?

There is nothing I could agree more with Sternberg on than his opposition to dogma. Sternberg's last sentence in the above quote on herd mentality, however, begs the question of what exactly he thinks "popular opinion" is. From every poll I've ever seen published, the idea of divine involvement, somewhere, somehow, in the origin of life is hugely popular. Is this what he "loathes"? Is this [ID/creationism] what is being obscured, or is this obfuscation itself? Did Sternberg really make this judgment call because he feels there is scientific data to support some kind of minority opinion which is being silenced by the majority? Riiiiight...

Furthermore, Meyer's paper offers no way to reclassify taxa, no constructive solution, and thus does it really "reveal" anything, at all? Even granting the premise (for argument's sake) that Meyer is right about the need to develop a new system or classification...does this paper do anything to promote Sternberg's desired "revelation"? I think the scientific community at large is still waiting on ID's long-promised revelation.

And if Sternberg admits that he decided to "stir the pot", long before sending this paper off to review, then two questions--

i) Is it the place of scientific journals to argue politico-religio-cultural questions that have nothing to do with data?
ii) Should he be surprised that he caused such a backlash? I'm not talking persecution, here (or unsubstantiated allegations thereof, as I documented elsewhere), no one deserves persecution. It is still unclear that he has been persecuted, but leave that aside for a moment. However, simply by his inciting this controversy, knowingly and willingly, by publishing this article, was he unprepared for the response?

4) Who were the three reviewers? This question is self-evident in its central importance to this saga. If it can be shown that Sternberg knowingly chose reviewers sympathetic to ID, say, anyone in the ISCID or on the "400 Scientists Who Dissent From Darwinism [But We're Not Sure If This Really Means Anything Considering Darwinism Is The Discovery Institute's Equivocation For Evolutionary Theory] List" (see here for my comments on that list)...then I think he would have to admit that he just wanted quasi-validation lent to a decision he had already made. According to his own words,

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. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

Sternberg is using the three reviewers here as substantiation. If he really wants "this whole thing to go away", a simple revelation of who these three were (obviously, with their permission) would relieve a lot of the burden that he claims to bear. All they have to do is simply support his claims here, and have no obvious ties to ID/DI (same thing, considering ID is basically solely in the hands of the DI) prior to this fiasco. This would show Sternberg was interested in an objective review and opinion on the merit of the paper, and not just a fancy ass-cover to keep the flames away post-debacle. And this may even lend some credence to Meyer's Hopeless Monster.

5) Why did Meyer's paper have no abstract? See here. Every single other paper in that issue had an abstract--

Pseudopaguristes shidarai, a new species of hermit crab (Crustacea: Decapoda: Diogenidae) from Japan, the fourth species of the genus. Akira Asakura, pages 153–168.[Abstract]

A new species of Procambarus (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae) from Veracruz, Mexico.
Marilú López-Mejía, Fernando Alvarez, and Luis M. Mejía-Ortíz, pages 169–175.[Abstract]

Brackenridgia ashleyi, a new species of terrestrial isopod from Tumbling Creek Cave, Missouri (Isopoda: Oniscidea: Trichoniscidae). Julian J. Lewis, pages 176–185.[Abstract]

New species and records of Bopyridae (Crustacea: Isopoda) infesting species of the genus Upogebia (Crustacea: Decapoda: Upogebiidae): the genera Orthione Markham, 1988, and Gyge Cornalia & Panceri, 1861. John C. Markham, pages 186–198.[Abstract]

Three new species and a new genus of Farreidae (Porifera: Hexactinellida: Hexactinosida).
Kirk Duplessis and Henry M. Reiswig, pages 199–212.[Abstract]

The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Stephen C. Meyer, pages 213–239.[Abstract]

--but not his...Why?

Answering some of these questions would take a lot of the purported heat off of Sternberg. And, in the process, maybe he would find himself set free by the truth. But as has been pointed out, maybe the matryr myths do more to appeal to the public's sympathy (and thus garner politico-religio-cultural support) than the truth would do to repudiate allegations of malfeasance.
________________
Technorati tags:
Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Meyer, Sternberg

Honorable Mention

You've gotta love the blogosphere...

I feel like the guy who got a Purple Heart for getting a BB shot in his ass during training on a domestic base…I got some serious mention for my Sternberg review. I got a hat tip from (in no particular order) The Panda's Thumb, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Dangerous Idea, Jim Lippard, Pooflingers Anonymous, The Uncredible Hallq, and some others.

Most of the groundwork was laid for this review months back by PT and others, so I feel all I did was scrounge around for the facts.

Thanks to Ed Brayton and Reed Cartwright for helping me see a misquote.

I am brand-spanking new to bloggin' in general and quasi-reporting in particular, so I feel pretty honored to be mentioned...

Update: 1-3-06
Some other linking sites-I'll add more as I find them---
Thinking Christian
Right Wing Professor
Farrellmedia
He Lives
Comment on Jesus' General
ID the Future
Illiterate in Four Languages
Frankenblogger
The Daism Forum
Les Lane (UNL)
________________
Technorati tags:

Humor, Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, Creationism

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