Was Richard von Sternberg expelled?
Richard Sternberg has two Ph.D.s in biology and
a significant record of published research related to evolution. He is a Christian and a supporter of ID. As editor of a small-circulation scientific
journal, Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington, he accepted for publication a paper that advocated
ID. The paper and the decision to publish it were
publicly repudiated by the journal, and Sternberg was
severely criticized - some say chastised - for his role. Sternberg stepped down from the
editorship. Expelled claims The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy
merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how
life began...[Sternbergs] life was nearly ruined when he strayed from the party
line...
This is a more turbid case, but the following
seems clear. First, the film
mischaracterizes the focus of the paper, which was not about the beginning of
life, but about the origin of major new kinds of organisms. This is actually not just a minor point,
because evolutionary theory doesnt propose an explanation for lifes origin,
nor do we even have an agreed upon theory from any scientific field outside of
evolution. But we do have a virtually
universally accepted theory for the origin of biotic diversity. That alone does not make it a correct theory,
but it does mean that repudiating it is going to create a spectacular
firestorm. But so would claims of
geocentrism in an astronomy journal. Of course the challenge in science, as
with forestry, is which fires to put out and which to let burn. But that is the second question again: should they be expelled?
Was Sternbergs life ruined? We cant assess that statement and its not
clear from the film why Stein makes such a striking claim. What does seem clear from the public record
is the following. After the article was
published, rumors circulated that Sternberg was a young earth creationist. Hes not.
Rumors circulated that Sternberg, contrary to standard policy for
scientific publications, did not send the paper out for peer review. He definitely did. It was also claimed that Sternberg did not
conform to the journals typical standards for seeking input from an associate
editor. This is contested. Finally, it has been documented that
communication between those associated with the journal and the Smithsonian
Institution (involved in the journals publication) and/or the National Center
for Science Education (a leading anti-creationist organization) inquired about
Sternbergs religious beliefs, political affiliations, and even discussed
whether he should be terminated, formally disciplined, or made to resign. And it was decided none of these things
should occur.
So what actually did happen? Sternberg stepped down from his post as
editor, but everybody agrees this has nothing to do with the article, and his
term was set to expire before it appeared anyway. He was not fired or asked to resign at the
Smithsonian. In fact, he didnt even
have a job at the Smithsonian to begin with (he is an employee of the National
Institutes of Health). His was a
courtesy appointment as a researcher, which was not rescinded. But after the term ran out, it was commuted
to a lower prestige designation. From
here the claims seem to get considerably more modest and also a bit more
difficult to adjudicate. Sternberg
claims his name was taken off his door, he had to move to worse work space, had
to trade in his master key for another key, had to endure bureaucratic demands
that others did not, and had his access to collections restricted. The Smithsonian claims some of this happened
and some didnt, but much of what did happen also happened to others for
reasons of general policy, some even before the article came out. The worst case scenario - which does not seem
altogether unlikely - is that Sternberg indeed experienced a hostile work
environment. It seems clear that
colleagues viewed him as having betrayed the standards and reputation (but not
the policies) of the organization, they were ticked with him, and as is not
uncommon in such situations, he was subjected to gossip and the diminution of
discretionary professional courtesies.
If Sternberg used his position to get an article
published, of tawdry scientific merit, but which he had a vested ideological
interest in promoting, then this actually seems to be getting off easy. On the other hand, if he published something
containing credible arguments for a position, however heretical, which he took
pains to have thoroughly reviewed by competent scholars, then he has taken some
regrettable lumps for being an iconoclast.
Whether or not his life was ruined, the latter scenario would raise
sobering questions about free inquiry.
Which is the case? In terms of
the review process, we know it occurred, but we dont know if this highly
controversial paper was assessed by an appropriate range of scholars, or
primarily, if only, by sympathizers. Sternberg will not reveal their identities
out of concern for piercing the veil of peer review, the promise of anonymity
many feel is essential for candid evaluations.
[However, he could ask if they would be willing to identify
themselves.] With respect to the crucial
question of whether the article was credible, well, that brings us back to the
importance of question two: should
they be expelled?
Printer-friendly
| Feedback | Credit: Jeff Schloss and
ASA
|