Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
John West makes a weak attempt to almost respond to the Expelled Exposed site. His comments about Sternberg are simply laughable. To wit:
But tackiness doesn't stop the NCSE from trying to depict its director Eugenie Scott as a veritable Mother Teresa, selectively quoting from her emails to make it appear that she was trying to protect evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg from persecution at the Smithsonian! Yeah, right. This is the same person who circulated "talking points" to Smithsonian officials to guide them in their campaign against Sternberg.
First of all, there was no "persecution" of Sternberg at the Smithsonian. He acted unethically and violated accepted protocol and his colleagues were angry at him. Some of them expressed that anger in private emails. That's it. That's the full extent of the "persecution" that he faced. He was not fired, he was not punished in any way for his actions, he only had some colleagues criticize him in private emails. This is persecution only on the other side of Alice's mirror.
Second of all, the accusations that have been aimed at Genie Scott are patently absurd and not supported by the emails in the Souder report appendix. The Souder report claims that she "conspired" to "publicly smear" Sternberg with "false and defamatory information." You know what "smear" they are referring to? They speculated on whether he was a creationist or not. And they found some evidence that he was. And they talked about it - in private emails. That's it. That's the full extent of the "public smear." And by the way, he IS a creationist.
And for the record, here is exactly what Genie Scott said to the Smithsonian leadership. She told them that they absolutely could not fire him for being a creationist and that the only thing that should matter is his scientific work. In one email she wrote:
On the other hand, his creationist views should not be the main focus of the criticism. First, if he can do good standard science, that's all we care about. Newton did pretty good science, and had some pretty nutty additional ideas about reality, too. So if he keeps the nut stuff out of his basically descriptive work, that's fine. His science should stand or fall on its own.
And in a follow up email she wrote:
I guess the big question is whether he is a good enough scientist to remain there. If his non-creationist work is good, then I think he deserves the job. If not, and if others are let go under the same circumstances, then let the chips fall where they may. But none of us are after this guy's job. That isn't the point of this exercise, in my opinion.
Yes, folks, this is their evidence for the NCSE "conspiring" to "persecute" Sternberg.
Then West absurdly claims:
This also is the same person who was asked to spy on Sternberg's outside activities by a Smithsonian official in order to find a way to get rid of Sternberg.
You could almost hear the scary music in the background, couldn't you? I love the picture they're trying to paint, as though the CIA was arranging meets with Genie Scott so she could make secret drops of covertly obtained photographs and transcripts of illegally obtained wiretaps on his phone. It works better in black and white, perhaps with a cello in the background playing something foreboding. All of this, of course, is nonsense.
It's all based on a single line in an email where one scientist at the Smithsonian, shocked to find out that one of his colleagues had surreptitiously published an article of substandard quality and inappropriate subject matter into a journal in order to further the PR campaign of a religious group intent on destroying science in its current form and replacing it with a "theistic science", asks Genie Scott, who has recently informed him that said colleague had close ties to this very group, to keep him posted if they find out anything new.
Run that through the bizarre reality prism cum Nickelodean silly straw that filters all facts on their way to the Discovery Institute and you've got a dark conspiracy between "the government" and the NCSE to "spy" on Sternberg. You'd think this was Nixon and the Watergate burglars, for crying out loud.
The only other thing West says is to suggest that people read the Souder report. The same one that I have painstakingly debunked. My response to that report has been out for nearly a year and a half, with no response whatsoever from Sternberg, the DI or anyone else still claiming that Sternberg was a martyr to Darwinian orthodoxy.
Comments
Wait, he doesn't complain about the Crocker information at Expelled Exposed? I guess this means he agrees that it's right! ;-)
Posted by: Andrea Bottaro | April 18, 2008 9:58 AM
To be fair, for some people a recommendation that they not get fired can feel like persecution. Depends on your job, I guess. Poor Sternberg seems to be stuck at the Smithsonian still. Free Sternberg!
Posted by: pough | April 18, 2008 10:19 AM
There's only one way to find out The Truth(tm): Sternberg, report for waterboarding first thing Monday morning!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 18, 2008 11:34 AM
You know where the real persecution lies, don't you? Eugenie Scott called Intelligent Design Creationism "nut stuff." Nut stuff.
"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
Posted by: Sastra | April 18, 2008 11:41 AM
Actually, we have no idea where Sternberg is these days. He's apparently no longer listed on the NIH website. He's still listed as a Research Collaborator at the NMNH, but word is that no one has seen him there in years. There are rumors that he's teaching at a Christian college somewhere, but no one can find out where. He seems to have become a hermit. Maybe he's floating down the Mississippi with Huck.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 18, 2008 11:53 AM
Yeah! There's no reason to associate ID with Watergate, right?
... Bueller? Bueller? ...
Posted by: John Pieret | April 18, 2008 12:25 PM
Ed, to be precise, Sternberg could not be fired because he was never an employee of the Smithsonian. He was a research associate, an unpaid position with privileged access to non-public parts of the Smithsonian collection. It's more accurate to say that his privileges were never taken away.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | April 18, 2008 12:37 PM
You know what "smear" they are referring to? They speculated on whether he was a creationist or not.
I love it when creationists/IDiots implicitly admit that their ideas are full of shit.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 18, 2008 2:59 PM
pough said:
You know, this may be where the persecution claims come in. The big, mean scientists wouldn't fire Sternberg and let him be a pseudo- martyr for the cause. Therefore, they discriminated against him for his beliefs.
Posted by: Jeremy | April 18, 2008 9:42 PM
If I were Genie Scott, I would be horribly insulted if people tried to make me into a "Mother Teresa". One goal of good science, at least of medical science, is to alleviate human suffering. That certainly wasn't something Mother Teresa had on her To-do list. Now THAT'S a smear!
Posted by: RebekahD | April 19, 2008 4:20 AM
"Nutty stuff" is at very least a very, very poor choice of words. This could(I am giving the benefit of the doubt) create a climate where views that dissent from the norm are frowned upon.
Let me explain. I know PHD that is researching a disease that his brother has. He could go and make big bucks doing other diseases. He is in it for his brother. He complains all the time about the politics of it all and the power that the drug companies have. I personally believe that we would have a cure for cancer if so much of the money was not spent on treatment drugs in research. It is about the money at least part of the time.
This man is an agnostic and has no real religious beliefs at all. He pushes the envelope because he really wants to find a cure for his brothers disease. His "radical" views challenge the status quo and I am sure some would even label him nutty at times.
Most people who came up with something original are persecuted in their time. Darwin was persecuted for sure. So let's not pretend like this stuff does not go on. This lady should be real careful with her words in a discipline where some of the most successful in history were labelled loons in their time.
Now this is in no way making any opinion on the Sternberg case. I think the other side on this is disingenuious in that they pick out this one topic that just so happens to tie in with ID among all the topics they could have used to prove their hypothesis of: There is persecution of people that have ideas that go against the establishment.
This happens in all areas of life.
So using the word nutty is unwise at least. Has anyone admitted that? Or is this so much about politics and winning court cases against the Religious Right that Science will actually start to suffer because arrogant and elitist types get in positions of authority and persecute all kinds of people with all kinds of religious and cultural backgrounds that dare do what every Scientist should do: Be innovative and blaze new trails.
Does anyone deny that the status quo and monied interests dominate much of society?
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 19, 2008 9:47 AM
KoI, the fact that some brilliant people throughout history have been called nuts does not mean that we should refrain from labeling nutty ideas as nutty. If the world turns upside down, black turns white, slavery turns into freedom, and creationism proves to be true, then I am sure Eugenie Scott will happily apologize to Sternberg. Until then, a spade remains a spade.
Posted by: Gretchen | April 19, 2008 11:17 AM
Most people who came up with something original are persecuted in their time. Darwin was persecuted for sure. So let's not pretend like this stuff does not go on. This lady should be real careful with her words in a discipline where some of the most successful in history were labelled loons in their time.
This is not true, frankly. First, Darwin was not persecuted at all - while he was already well-respected before the Origin of Species, he became instantly famous after its publication. The majority of scientists were swayed by his arguments within a few years. Criticisms were also common, of course, but there never was any "persecution".
The same may not hold true for every ground-breaker in science, but for many it does. In some cases, acceptance of an idea is slow: plate tectonics for instance, or the Big Bang. But the reason for those was that the original ideas when formulated had little evidence to support them, and it took many years for the evidence to be gathered. Even for very unorthodox ideas, for instance Prusiner's prion hypothesis, or Margulis's endosymbotic theory for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, no obstracism, censorship or career repercussions occurred, and people were ready to change mind when the evidence warranted it.
This does not mean that there is no resistance to new ideas in science, of course there is. But among human activities, it is probably one of the most open and fair in this respect. Ultimately, no scientist likes to be wrong - if a better idea comes out, and it looks correct from an evidence standpoint, scientists are going to adopt it rather quickly.
Posted by: Andrea Bottaro | April 19, 2008 11:21 AM
When I first skimmed your comment Ed, I misread the last sentence just a bit. I read it as
"Maybe he's floating down the Mississippi"
The image of Sternbergs bloated corpse adrift amongst the refuse and industrial waste in the river, had me wondering if he really was persecuted ;)
Posted by: Soren | April 21, 2008 2:55 AM
It would be nice if West's reply made it onto the Expelled Exposed website along with a reply akin to yours Ed. It would be a further illustration of just how empty the charges are.
Posted by: Jason S. | April 21, 2008 7:30 AM
Huh. I got the impression from what I've read that he was still there. I guess I need to re-read a little more carefully. Maybe it's only been said that he still has the right and ability to be there. Or maybe the articles I've read were written about the situation a few years ago.
Free^H^H^Hind Sternberg!
Posted by: pough | April 21, 2008 1:39 PM
The(probable)fact remains that no one at the NMNH, NCSE, nor the Smithsonian would have made so much as a peep if the article Dr. Sternberg published contained only widely accepted evolutionist views. Ay, there's the rub.
Posted by: Don | April 22, 2008 11:41 PM
If Sternberg had published real science unrelated to the topic of the journal he was editing without following the journal's established peer review process he would still have deserved rebuke. Even if it were on topic for the journal, he should still be reprimanded for not following procedure. I think there would have been plenty of peeps, though it would not have attracted the wider attention he got for promoting non-science ina scientific journal.
As he was already stepping down from his position as editor, as scheduled before the publication of the article in question, he effectively sidestepped all but the damage to his reputation from his actions.
Posted by: Ray S. | April 23, 2008 10:55 PM