Yesterday the Department of Cultural Affairs announced its conclusions in the ongoing academic integrity case involving paleontologist Spencer Lucas. According to the panel, which included two "objective" scientists (both of which have collaborated with Lucas in the past, one of which had issued a letter three days prior to the hearing expressing that he had already deemed Lucas innocent) Lucas is not guilty of claim-jumping research being carried out by Bill Parker and Jeff Martz on ancient archosaurs called aetosaurus (see Darren's original posts for more information on these animals).
The finding was a disappointment to many even though the findings of the DCA were not surprising. Although the review was convened to quell criticism of how the ethics charges against Lucas and his colleagues have been handled so far, I do not believe that the actions of the DCA were appropriate. Responding to criticisms that Norman Silberling and Orin Anderson were too closely tied to Lucas to be objective, DCA spokesman Doug Svetnica was quoted in the Albuquerque Journal as saying;
"Any prior professional experience with Dr. Lucas was irrelevant. ... As professionals, we expected and we feel that we received impartial reviews and conclusions."
Does the DCA really believe this? It seems awfully naive to pick two friends of Lucas as "impartial" reviewers (again, one of whom expressed his decisions three days prior to the review), and many people concerned with this case feel that the DCA has again failed to appropriately address the issues at hand. Indeed, the recent panel did not contact those who have accused Lucas of misconduct, Parker and Martz being entirely left out of the process. The findings of the panel have been made available as a pdf, but overall they reflect Silberling's earlier asinine assertions about a collective of young paleontologists that have targeted Lucas for persecution for no discernible reason. Perhaps if they actually talked to Parker and Martz such misunderstandings would be avoided.
Indeed, somewhat echoing the statements made by Silberling, Adrian Hunt (another one of the paleontologists accused of misconduct in this case) took time out to pat Spencer Lucas on the back. Noting that Lucas has exceeded E.D. Cope in number of publications and quality of scholarship, Hunt suggested that Lucas' rock-star like status in the paleontological world garnered disproportionate responses from those involved in this issue (I presume Hunt means those who have leveled charges at Lucas). The rest of the document further reinforces this view by questioning why Matt Wedel and Michael Taylor would be so involved in a case that does not directly involve their research, as if they had no interest in professional ethics as working paleontologists. Again, perhaps the DCA could have shed some light on this issue if they brought Martz, Parker, Wedel, and Taylor into the discussion, but they continually have refused to do so.
Another thing struck me as I read the report; the DCA is taking a somewhat legalistic view of the case, by which I mean that their assertion is that Lucas played by the rules, therefore could not have done anything wrong. The response to allegations that Lucas rushed papers into print via an in-house journal, the panel said that Lucas' paper came out so quickly because it was a short taxonomic reassignment and sped through the publication process due to brevity (going hand in hand with not knowing that another researcher had a more detailed paper on the same specimens in press). In this sense Lucas would not have done anything "wrong" in that he didn't influence the publication process, but the question remains whether Lucas wrote such a short reassignment in order to claim-jump another paleontologist. It is possible to adhere to regulations and still act in an unethical manner, and the DCA has failed to address this crucial point.
As I've stated previously on this blog, we're going to have to wait for the decision of the SVP ethics panel for resolution on this issue. It appears that the DCA has continually tried to stack the deck in the favor of Lucas throughout the present proceedings and that their actions do not constitute and honest and ethical inquiry into the alleged actions of Lucas and his colleagues. Furthermore, there's still the international issue of Lucas' publications on fossils at the Institute of Paleobiology of the Polish Academy of Science, the charge that Lucas did not receive permission to do so receiving no attention in the DCA review. (I would assume this is because this part of the issue is international and therefore outside the scope of what the DCA would consider, but it still an area of this case that requires resolution.) The DCA inquiries has done little more than confuse and aggravate the issue, and given the manner in which the review was handled it seems to have been little more than a waste of time.
See the "Aetogate" website for up-to-date information as this story unfolds.
- Log in to post comments
I don't suppose anyone's yet dedicated a playing of Tom Lehrer's song "Lobachevsky" to these fellows?
Seems like an appropriate thing to do....
Since I have no idea what the paleontology community is like this may be a silly question to ask, but I'm going to anyway. Is there any way the paleontologists can impose an unofficial ruling against Lucas by simply refusing to cite the his paper and instead use the Parker and Martz paper when making any reference to that particular species? Yes, I realize it would take a wide unofficial acceptance by the community for it to make any difference, but I'm still curious if it could happen.
Chad; Some people have suggested doing just that, but whether that's a proper thing to do depends on the outcome of the case and whether Lucas actually did claim-jump Parker and Martz. At this point who has the naming rights is something of a secondary issue, the ethical can of worms being more important, but other people have proposed what you said here. Whether they have means to act on it or not, though, we'll have to wait and see.
There's been some confusion about a point you raise here: the fact that they DCA did not consider the Polish case. I missed the opportunity to clarify this in my story in this morning's paper, but for the record here: the Polish case was not among those about which complaints were filed with the DCA, which is why the DCA review did not consider it.
John; I probably should have worded what I said better. I wouldn't expect the DCA to investigate the claims of the Polish scientists being that they are outside of New Mexico, but it is still an issue that has yet to be addressed and which I hope the SVP panel duly considers.
The cynic would argue that considering the Polish case - where Lucas stands accused of exploiting his access to another museum's collection in an inappropriate and underhanded manner - would undermine the strand of Lucas' written submission where Parker is accused of doing exactly the same thing...
Thank you for clearing that up.