Posted on 03/18/2007 11:10:07 AM PDT by wagglebee
The vaunted Smithsonian Institution, highly regarded for promoting knowledge and science, is embroiled in a scandal for censoring scientific inquiry. It would be amusing when the mouthpieces of political correctness abandoned their mantra of freedom and tolerance to squash a threat to their power, if so much were not at stake. Consider the case of the squashing of Dr. Richard Sternberg, a former research associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) and a distinguished evolutionary biologist with two doctorates in biology.
Dr. Sternberg’s sin was to allow a scientific article critical of neo-Darwinism to be published in a biology journal, an offense that stoked the ire of his colleagues and supervisors. In an act reminiscent of despots purging their territory of ideological opposition, Smithsonian officials conducted a smear campaign to defame and demote the renegade scientist. Investigations since have uncovered the Smithsonian’s history of allowing scientists critical of Darwinian theory to be harassed and demoted by museum officials.
In August of 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources began an investigation into the alleged mistreatment of Dr. Sternberg, picking up where the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) had left off. The OSC had uncovered evidence substantiating Dr. Sternberg’s complaints of discrimination, but the investigation was cut short due to a question of jurisdiction.
In December 2006, the subcommittee published a report with disturbing evidence of bigotry among Smithsonian officials, along with a recommendation to Congress that it adopt statutory language protecting the free speech and civil rights of scientists who hold unpopular views relating to biological evolution. Subcommittee staff found that top Smithsonian officials refused to address the wrongs uncovered by the investigation and had little concern for the basic rights of scientists who were open to aspects of intelligent design theory.
The report highlights emails sent by officials at the NMNH revealing a clear intent to drive Dr. Sternberg from his job. “This is discrimination, plain and simple,” reads the report. “The abject failure of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to protect the basic rights of Dr. Sternberg to a civil work environment is indefensible.”
“Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials.”
The hypocrisy demonstrated by the Smithsonian’s self-professed representatives of intellectual freedom and tolerance of dissent is not limited to the sphere of biological evolutionary research. It can also be seen in the stem cell research arena, where politicians and scientists furiously push policies involving the destruction of human embryos, garnering support by tagging those who oppose the procedure as “anti-science.” (This, of course, is their most effective method since the use of embryonic stem cells in research has yielded no effective treatments).
The new Congress threatens to force taxpayers to fund destructive embryonic stem cell research over fruitful, ethically sound alternatives. Non-embryonic stem cell research has delivered countless clinical trials and effective treatments. Embryonic stem cell research never has. Why must taxpayers be forced to fund morally objectionable and fruitless research when an alternative exists? Such decidedly biased behavior is hard to bear when the bias comes from the so-called scientific objectivist crowd.
“Americans usually trust the servants of science because of their image of commitment to objectivity. But scientists and their servants are losing credibility as it is being revealed that too many of them put ideology and politics above their reputed goals,” said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America. “This abuse of trust not only harms individual scientists but the cause of science itself.”
Scientists at the Smithsonian have created an environment of fear, where well-published biologists who disagree with the establishment may face demotion and harassment if they voice their views. Politically-driven scientists who claim to work on behalf of intellectual freedom would do well to grant their opposition a right to be heard, and to attack arguments instead of persons. In the meantime, Congress would do well to heed the warnings of the subcommittee’s report by establishing legal protections for scientists who espouse views and arguments contrary to those advanced by the majority. At stake are freedom of thought and the integrity of the scientific profession.
"Positive exceptions occur - and that's where the Ivy league comes in, to vacuum them up into Ivy graduate programs and post-docs. This, of course, only exacerbates the quality differential."
Careful your head doesn't explode.
Have you read about the grade inflation at Harvard?
You are talking undergrads. Graduate students [doctorals] are "graded" mostly on research work, as the course requirements for them are much less rigid. And there are ways to get rid of academically underperforming grads as well - why, I myself have seen it in action, in Princeton. As a charity gesture, they were usually given terminal Master's and pushed out.
"As a charity gesture, they were usually given terminal Master's and pushed out."
The mentality I've seen from the North East in the political and educational system is that if you aren't in the NE then you are a second rater.
Elitism has deep roots in the NE.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with elitism per se, as long as it is meritocratic. Indeed, meritocratic elitism is probably among the most conservative ideas around. As far as academic "pedigree" is concerned, one needs not to be in NE, or even in the Ivies- the word "Ivy" I used loosely, as in "major, highly selective school". For example, U of Chicago is not on the formal "Ivy" list [neither is MIT or Caltech]. But with the late Milton Friedman his students in economics department would easily rank as "Ivy".
The same mantra invoked around here for those who dare to disagree with the self-proclaimed elite. They fail to see that people are opposed to the abuse of science.
Knee jerk reaction by an evo.
If someone doesn't toe the party line, his degree is worth toilet paper no matter what it's in (as in this case).
If someone doesn't have a degree in evo or even science of any kind, and supports it, then they're right because they have the preponderance of evidence behind them (an actual response from an evo to me on FR to a question of why, if he didn't have a degree even in science, he had the authority to speak on evo when other PhD's allegedly don't).
In evoland, it clearly does not matter what ones qualifications are.
Which brings me back to my original question, if this scientist's credentials were worthless, then why did the Smithsonian hire him in the first place?
"The left's main desire is to destroy America's Judeo-Christian heritage."
Not surprising, considering that all leftism is of and from Satan.
You're absolutely right!
I guess some things are just meant to remain a mystery.....
The Washington Post article is remarkably fair for the ComPost, which is hardly a friend of I.D. or an enemy of liberal orthodoxy. Sternberg sounds like a guy who simply likes controversy, which can be good for science. When I was in grad school, it was obvious that many students who got PhDs had no original ideas and never would contribute anything new, but would be successful at "the game" anyway.
Anyway, the article documents how the establishment went after Sternberg, digging into his background, looking for evidence of religious leanings, etc. Classic political character assassination.
"This nothing to do with liberals."
That is factually incorrect.
Atheism, and, indeed, every notion that undermines, dilutes, or weakens faith in God, stems from the same source as leftism. Destruction of belief in God is one of the indispensible planks of leftism. This idea belongs to the left.
Skepticism and even outright atheism by themselves might not make one a liberal, but they do at least make one a substantially conservative person who nonetheless espouses one central principle of the left.
Further, an atheist conservative has in the final analysis no support for his beliefs beyond his personal preference.
"It about a non-scientific nut-job of an idea trying to pose as science."
For you, then, the idea that there is a Supreme Being who created the universe, all that is seen and unseen, by processes unknown and which may have taken billions of years, is a nut-job of an idea?
And of course, you're an expert on nuts.
Einstein did his greatest work, producing a string of the most important papers in the history of physics, while working at the Swiss patent office, which certainly wasn't a "scientific powerhouse" either. One reason he was stuck there is that his professors considered him a rebel, which is what Sternberg seems to be (not that he is another Einstein).
"There's absolutely nothing wrong with elitism per se, as long as it is meritocratic."
meritocratic meaning "i attended one of the ivy league schools"
Wonderful observations!
Those scientists who argued the earth went around the sun were persecuted by religious authorities, not other scientists.
I'm curious, how many of the primary inventors/discoverers of MAJOR technological or scientific breakthroughs of the past two centuries had doctoral degrees from Ivy League schools (or schools of similar stature)?
"Those scientists who argued the earth went around the sun were persecuted by religious authorities, not other scientists."
At the time the religious authorities and scientific authorities were one and the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.