Re: More fusillades in the ID wars

Charles,
 
I agree completely that the consequences being established are much harsher than the problem. Sternberg has a long and very distinguished career that allowed him to have the editor's position. In addition, he clearly states that he did go to at least one associate editor for further review and the article was peer-reviewed.
 
Sheila
 

Charles Carrigan <CCarriga@olivet.edu> wrote:
Keith,
 
I appreciate your reservation and share those feelings. However, this paragraph you quoted sounds fishy to me. It seems like the article is trying to say that the paper didn't go through the proper review process because the editor handled all the editorial responsibilities himself. Do all papers go through both an editor, an associate editor, and outside reviewers? Not in my experience. I am under the impression that editors handle manuscripts on their own with outside review quite often. I think the burden of proof of wrongdoing is on those who are the accusors. This article goes on to state that:
 
"As biologists, as well as ordinary citizens of a democracy who are presumably ready to defend freedom of speech, what should our position be? The first point to emphasize is that, by short-circuiting the normal review process as Editor of a journal, Sternberg is guilty of professional misconduct. Second, this professional misconduct is of a type that calls into question the integrity of the scientific process on which we rely every day when we trust each other’s work published in peer-reviewed journals. Third, it is therefore entirely reasonable to have doubts about the scientific integrity of Sternberg’s own work. Consequently, not only is it reasonable to “ostracize” him in the rather weak sense of refusing to collaborate with him (one of Klinghoffer’s complaints). In fact, if we care about the veracity of our own results, it would be unwise to collaborate with or rely on Sternberg. It is thus entirely to be expected if Sternberg finds himself isolated at the Smithsonian (
 as
 Klinghoffer alleges)."
 
Two problems here in my opinion. 1) I don't think it is proven that the editor short-circuited the normal review process, as I mentioned above. That accusation makes it sound as though the editor pushed something through without peer review, which doesn't appear to be the case. 2) the accuser goes from a) professional misconduct (poorly proven yet) to b) integrity of the scientific process to c) doubt the integrity of all of Sternberg's own work to d) ostracize Sternberg by refusing to cllaborate to e) leave Sternberg completely isolated. That's one very quick trip to destroying someone professionally, especially without a strong case of wrongdoing. I don't really care for much of anything the ID movement has produced, but there are tones in this article that are way over the top. Clearly Sternberg should have had the paper looked at by another associate editor(s) prior to going ahead with the publication, especially an article that carries so much emotional heat. But
 it
 that's all he's guilty of, it isn't enough to destroy his carreer the way this article seems to call for. This should not be allowed to turn into a witch hunt.
 
Best,
Charles
 
 
 
<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><<><
Charles W. Carrigan
Olivet Nazarene University
Dept. of Geology
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
 
 
 
>>> <kbmill@ksu.edu> 2/1/2005 1:56:27 PM >>>
The second article posted on this, states that one of the complaints is
that the article did not go through the standard review process. It
states:

‘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."

I am not taking any position on this, I am simply encouraging people to
withhold judgement until the facts are known (if they ever will be). My
perception, is that people holding widely differing positions
immediately jump on such reports and turn them into causes (making them
sound conspiratorial). Paricularly in situations where jobs are lost
or reputations damaged, it usually is the case that the situation is
very complicated and intertwinned with all manner of personality and
other issues. I am very cautious in taking any public stand on these
things.

All I know is my own situation and professional associations. I have
personally experienced no professional rejection because of my public
stands on science/faith issues. Questioning sure -- rejection no.

Keith

Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Received on Tue Feb 1 17:26:13 2005