As is usual with creationists, we find hooberus here putting forth one-sided and misleading information about this Dr. Sternberg's publishing a creationism-oriented article in a peer-reviewed taxonomic journal. I recently read an article on this in Skeptic magazine (Vol 11, No. 4, 2005, pp. 66-69) and so I was interested in hooberus' information.
In a nutshell, what happened was that Dr. Sternberg, a Christian creationist, misused his position as editor of the minor technical journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington to bypass the normal editorial reviewing process to get published an article by the Intelligent Design creationist Dr. Stephen Meyer. If the normal review process were followed, the article never would have been published, partly for obvious reasons and partly because its content was quite out of character with the articles on taxonomy that the journal normally handles. Furthermore, it appears likely that Sternberg chose some of his creationist buddies who hold science positions at several Christian colleges to do the required peer review. Naturally, the scientists at the Smithsonian Institution who were hoodwinked and embarassed by Sternberg's unethical conduct took action against him. I completely agree with all efforts that were made to censure Sternberg for his unethical conduct.
One website I found contains a good deal of information on this business ( http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/pbsw.html ), and I'm putting some of its information in this post.
On his website ( http://www.rsternberg.net/ ) Sternberg states that:
Smithsonian officials determined that there was no wrong-doing in the publication process for the Meyer paper.
Perhaps not wrongdoing in the sense of violating a specific rule (although the governing council of the journal disputes this), but Sternberg knew exactly what he was doing when he did an end-run around the normal review process. He knew what he was doing when he chose his creationist buddies to do the peer-review, and when he didn't run an article he knew would be extremely controversial by the board of editors of the journal. He knew quite well that the article wouldn't pass muster if non-creationists reviewed it, and that it was altogether inappropriate for that journal. So Sternberg certainly violated normal science ethics, and was guilty of professional misconduct. It's no wonder that other scientists now refuse to work with him. He violated the integrity of the scientific process.
Here is an official statement (undated) from the journal's editorial board ( http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html ):
STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
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. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.
We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.
Here is a dated statement from the board, from the National Center for Science Education ( http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/608_bsw_repudiates_meyer_9_7_2004.asp ):
BSW repudiates Meyer
A new development in the controversy about the publication of "intelligent design" advocate Stephen C. Meyer's article "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories" in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
The Biological Society of Washington issued a statement on September 7, 2004, reading, in its entirety:
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.
We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), 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 (www.biolsocwash.org) 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.
According to the PBSW's instructions for contributors, "Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees." It seems, therefore, that Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure.
On his website, Sternberg complains that his reputation was smeared by false allegations, but gives little supporting evidence. He complains that he was:
Pressured to reveal peer reviewers and to engage in improper peer review. I was repeatedly pressured to reveal the names of the peer-reviewers of the Meyer article, contrary to professional ethics. I was also told repeatedly that I should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand, in direct violation of professional ethics which require editors to find peer reviewers who are not prejudiced or hostile to a particular author or his/her ideas.
Since the peer-reviewers he chose were almost certainly his creationist buddies, of course he would come under pressure to reveal them. But he certainly didn't want to do that, and he knew that peer reviewers are normally kept anonymous, and so he knowingly used the normal ethics of the review process to engage in unethical conduct. A simple solution would have been for the peer-reviewers to allow Sternberg to reveal their names, but it's quite obvious why none of these guys wanted that done.
Sternberg states his view of what happened:
In sum, it is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I failed in an unstated requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena. Instead, I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy.
In view of the above facts, it's clear that Sternberg's summary is a misrepresentation of what happened. He was targeted, not for violating the unstated requirement he mentioned, but for violating normal professional ethics. He knew perfectly well that Meyer's article would never pass normal peer review, and so he misused his professional position to get around the normal process. The article could not pass normal peer review for a very simple reason: the ideas of Intelligent Design it promoted are not science but Christian religion. Really, simple common sense should have told Sternberg that he should have gotten a buy-in from the entire editoral board before publishing an article he knew perfectly well would be highly controversial.
Sternberg states that he actually did run his plan to publish the article by a fellow staffer at the National Museum of Natural History, but he does not name him. I suspect that this staffer is also a creationist. And of course, the entire editorial board has stated that it would have rejected the article, as shown above.
Sternberg argues that the paper was not outside the scope of the journal's normal contents, but the editorial board disagrees with him.
Sternberg complains of being labeled a young-earth creationist, but in all of his website, he does not deny being a creationist. He's closely associated with the "Baraminology Study Group" (he's on the editorial board of its newsletter), which is basically a young-earth creationist think-tank sort of group. He published some words about his association here: http://www.rsternberg.net/BSG.htm . Reading between the lines, it appears that Sternberg is an old-earth creationist of some sort -- a position held by most of the major players in the Intelligent Design community. Sternberg's statements are more interesting for what they don't say than for what they do. More information on this can be found here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_and_t.html#more . Furthermore, according to one web article ( http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml ), "He is also a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID), which promotes intelligent design." According to another ( http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/002980.html ), "Sternberg was also a signatory of the Discovery Institute's “100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism” statement." The Discovery Institute is the official home of the self-styled Intelligent Design Movement.
I'll summarize with a comment from one website ( http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/evolutioncreationism/002031.html ):
Sternberg is simply getting what he deserves. If I was the deacon of some church, or some paid staff member of the Southern Baptist Convention, or some other group, and I inserted an atheistic screed into the monthly magazine, I think that I'd have failed in upholding the standards of conduct that the church expected of me and have generally acted irresponsibly and I'd expect to be fired.
This is the same prinicple at work. Sternberg was required to publish scientific articles and not articles that had as a central thesis that life is created by magic. This isn't science and doesn't belong in a science journal. He brought disrepute to the journal and the sponsoring organization and as is clearly evident by how his colleagues are treating him, and onto himself as well, for he seems to have placed personal religious belief over his responsibilities and training as a scientist and editor.
Let him make scrambled eggs with the mess he's made. I have no sympathy for his plight and that no other scientists want to co-author research with him. I wouldn't want my name attached to research with someone of ill-repute.
AlanF
