Difference between revisions of "Smithsonian-Sternberg affair"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(tacking on a new intro)
(→‎Smithsonian Controversy: rearrange phrases)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
== Smithsonian Controversy ==
 
== Smithsonian Controversy ==
−
The '''Smithsonian controversy''' began with backlash over the publication of an article written by an [[intelligent design]] (ID) proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution ([[Smithsonian Institution|SI]]),<ref>{{hnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}},  {{hnb|Hagerty|2005}}, {{hnb|Sounder|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">[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>  An article titled ''The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories'' by [[Intelligent Design|ID]] advocate [[Stephen C. Meyer]] was published in the August 4, 2004 volume of ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,'' (PBSW)<ref>{{hnb|Meyer|2004|p=213-239}}</ref>  [[Richard Sternberg]] was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the [[Smithsonian Institute|Smithsonian Institute's]] National Museum of Natural History ([[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).
+
Objections surfaced within hours of publication of an article written by [[intelligent design]] (ID) proponent [[Stephen C. Meyer]]
 +
in the August 4, 2004 volume of 
 +
''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'',
 +
a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution ([[Smithsonian Institution|SI]]),<ref>{{hnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}},  {{hnb|Hagerty|2005}}, {{hnb|Sounder|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">[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>  An article titled ''The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories'' by [[Intelligent Design|ID]] advocate [[Stephen C. Meyer]] was published in the August 4, 2004 volume of ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,'' (PBSW)<ref>{{hnb|Meyer|2004|p=213-239}}</ref>  [[Richard Sternberg]] was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the [[Smithsonian Institute|Smithsonian Institute's]] National Museum of Natural History ([[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,<ref>{{hnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}</ref> with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."<ref>{{hnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}</ref>  Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education ([[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 [[Creationism|creationist]],"<ref>{{hnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}, Statement to Washington Post reporter Michael Powell</ref> and "Some <nowiki>[</nowiki>scientists<nowiki>]</nowiki> probably did speak intemperately,"<ref>{{hnb|Hagerty|2005}} Recorded statement to [[National Public Radio]]</ref> out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's editorial role.
 
Controversy ensued within hours of publication,<ref>{{hnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}</ref> with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."<ref>{{hnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}</ref>  Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education ([[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 [[Creationism|creationist]],"<ref>{{hnb|Powell|2005|p=A19}}, Statement to Washington Post reporter Michael Powell</ref> and "Some <nowiki>[</nowiki>scientists<nowiki>]</nowiki> probably did speak intemperately,"<ref>{{hnb|Hagerty|2005}} Recorded statement to [[National Public Radio]]</ref> out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's editorial role.

Revision as of 02:44, May 8, 2007

The Smithsonian peer review controversy concerned an article about Intelligent Design whose publication was stormily protested. At issue was the propriety of allowing an idea which runs counter to scientific orthodoxy to get any attention at all.

Specific objections were made about whether the peer review process was or was not followed properly in this case, and whether any irregularities justified the resignation or dismissal of writers or editors involved.

Smithsonian Controversy

Objections surfaced within hours of publication of an article written by intelligent design (ID) proponent Stephen C. Meyer in the August 4, 2004 volume of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution (SI),[1] contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.[2] An article titled The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories by ID advocate Stephen C. Meyer was published in the August 4, 2004 volume of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, (PBSW)[3] 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,[4] with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."[5] 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,"[6] and "Some [scientists] probably did speak intemperately,"[7] out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's editorial 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).[8] 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.[9] The USOSC ultimately concluded in a letter obtained by three media outlets that Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the NMNH.[10] 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.[11] Eugenie Scott, whose organization also consulted with the Smithsonian, countered that "[Sternberg] 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."[12] U.S. Representative Mark Souder's staff subsequently issued a report findng that the allegations of a hostile work environment and other retaliations including demotion were backed by "substantial, credible evidence."[13]

Opinions on the Smithsonian Controversy

Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. David Klinghoffer commented in a Wall Street Journal opinion article: "Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."[14]

References

  1. ↑ Powell 2005, p. A19, Hagerty 2005, Sounder 2006
  2. ↑ Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington
  3. ↑ Meyer 2004, p. 213-239
  4. ↑ Powell 2005, p. A19
  5. ↑ Powell 2005, p. A19
  6. ↑ Powell 2005, p. A19, Statement to Washington Post reporter Michael Powell
  7. ↑ Hagerty 2005 Recorded statement to National Public Radio
  8. ↑ Sounder 2006
  9. ↑ Sounder 2006
  10. ↑ Hagerty 2005, Powell 2005, p. A19 letter is referred to as a report in Washington Post article, but quotes in this article make it clear that the report was addressed to Sternberg. See also McVay 2005 USOSC pre-closure letter to Sternberg
  11. ↑ Powell 2005, p. A19, Hagerty 2005, Sounder 2006
  12. ↑ Hagerty 2005
  13. ↑ Sounder 2006
  14. ↑ Klinghoffer 2005

Sources

Other Links

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Smithsonian-Sternberg_affair&oldid=148528"