Sternberg peer review controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sternberg peer review controversy arose out of a conflict over whether an article published in a scientific journal that supported the controversial concept of intelligent design was properly peer reviewed. One of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that they have failed to produce research papers that appear in peer reviewed scientific journals that support their position.^[1] On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington ^[2]. The journal's publisher claims the editor, Richard Sternberg, went outside the usual review procedures to allow Meyer's article to be published in his last issue as editor. Sternberg disputes the claims.^[3] Meyer's article was an example of literature review, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design.

On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article:

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. ^[4]

The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which claims that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.^[5]

1 Sternberg's response
2 Criticism
3 Smithsonian controversy
4 Notes and references
5 External links

[edit] Sternberg's response

Sternberg insists the paper was properly peer reviewed, and rejects the journal's allegations for disavowing the article saying:

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."^[3]

Observers have pointed to affiliations that in most circumstances would have disqualified Sternberg from favorably reviewing an article on intelligent design.^[6] They note that Sternberg is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a Discovery Institute affiliated group dedicated to promoting intelligent design. Sternberg is also a signatory of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement ^[7] which says "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Sternberg claims to have also checked with a Council member and to have followed the standard practice for peer review:

". . .Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. 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. . . . four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication. . . ."^[3]

Sternberg's statement directly contradicts those of his former employer, the publisher of the journal, that proper review procedures were not followed resulting in the article's retraction.^[4] Sternberg has repeatedly refused to identify the "four well-qualified biologists", citing personal concerns over professional repercussions for them. Identifying the reviewers would have allowed the journal's board to validate Sternberg's claim to objectivity in having the article considered meritorious for publication.

However, in January 2005 Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President, Biological Society of Washington privately corroborated Sternberg's statement to Dr. Hans Sues (Smithsonian's #2 scientist)

"I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process^[8]

^[9], House Government Reform Committee Dec. 2006, p24,^[10], ^[11]

The reviewers of Sternberg's own published paper^[12] were fellow Baraminology Study Group peer Todd Wodd, and prominent intelligent design proponents and Discovery Institute Fellows Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells.^[13]

[edit] Criticism

In a review of Meyer's article The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry claimed it contained poor scholarship, that it failed to cite and specifically rebut the actual data supporting evolution, and "constructed a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down straw men, and tendentious interpretations."^[6] Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles.^[14]

Critics of Sternberg believe that he was biased in the matter. Sternberg's close personal and ideological connections to the paper’s author suggest at least the appearance of conflict of interest they say.^[15] In 2002, Sternberg presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.^[16] The RAPID conference was attended by Stephen C. Meyer, the author of the paper. ^[17] The RAPID conference was organized and hosted by the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design, where Sternberg sits as an ISCID fellow.^[18] ISCID is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement, where Meyer serves as the Program Director of the Center for Science and Culture. ^[13] The RAPID conference was closed to all but intelligent design advocates.^[16] Sternberg also sat on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, which studies "creation biology" and whose website is hosted by Bryan College, a conservative Christian school named after anti-Darwin lawyer William Jennings Bryan made famous by the Scopes Trial.

Critics describe Sternberg's explanation of events, that a pro-intelligent design paper just happened to find its way to a publication with a sympathetic editor ultimately responsible for ensuring proper peer review and editing his last issue, and that he decided it was appropriate to deal with the review process in person on a subject in which he has a personal interest, as improbable. Critics of Sternberg have also described manner in which Sternberg responded to the publisher as secretive and borderline unprofessional, saying he apparently denied the journal’s editorial board access to the names of the paper's alleged reviewers to which the editorial board is entitled in order to carry out its supervisory role.

Journalist Chris Mooney has compared the Sternberg controversy to that of a paper published by climate change skeptics Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in Climate Change, where a sympathetic editor Chris de Freitas allowed it to be published, despite its poor scientific merit. ^[19]

[edit] Smithsonian controversy

After the peer review controversy became public, Sternberg filed a religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, where he served as an unpaid research associate.^[20] Sternberg claims that he was "targeted for retaliation and harassment" and subject to efforts to remove him from the museum in retaliation for his views. He continues to cite a letter by the United States Office of Special Counsel as supporting his version of events,^[21] despite the Office of Special Counsel ultimately dismissing his claim. Pim Van Meurs and other critics observed that the Office of Special Counsel lacked jurisdiction over the matter and so his claim was unlikely to proceed,^[22] and that even though it made no official findings or conclusions, the response from the Office of Special Counsel provided Sternberg, the Discovery Institute, and sympathetic op-ed journalists evidence and talking points supporting their claim that the scientific community discriminates against intelligent design proponents while at the same time denying the Smithsonian an opportunity and venue in which to respond to Sternberg's allegations.^[23]

In response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed article from article by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer^[24] a vocal intelligent design proponent portraying Sternberg as a martyr and victim of discrimination, ^[25] Sternberg's supervisor at the Smithsonian, Jonathan Coddington, responded publicly disputing Sternberg's and Klinghoffer's depiction of events. Coddington states that Sternberg was never dismissed, nor was he a paid employee, and that he was never the target of discrimination, and remained in serving at the museum up to that time.^[26]

In August, 2005 the Office of Special Counsel dropped Sternberg's religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution. It was determined that as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian, Sternberg was not actually an employee, and thus the Office of Special Counsel had no jurisdiction.

Critics have commented that the Office of Special Counsel itself was biased in its initial handling of the matter, given the links between the religious right and the Republican Party, with George W. Bush appointee James McVey authoring its opinion.^[23]^[27]