Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 15
Because the Smithsonian holds a responsibility to protect the free speech and civil rights of their scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.

Free speech means being able to criticise bad research and improper behavior. The Smithsonian has no responsibility to sponsor researchers that are not doing research of interest to the institution.

Is the Discovery Institute obligated to hire an evolutionary biologist?

Roy McDiarmid [the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian] knew for some time that Sternberg did follow the proper procedures.

All McDiarmid said was that he did not find Sternberg's behavior inappropriate with respect to the letters of review. That was never the issue.

The allegations of impropriety was alleged because, in the words of the editorial board: "the paper was published without review by any associate editor;" and ..."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."

The evidence shows that the BSW knew that the paper received proper review, but the BSW was pressured to smear Dr. Sternberg with false allegations.

This is slander, which seems to be something you do on a regular basis. The BSW publically declared that the paper was of poor scientific quality, that Sternberg did not allow any other editor with better qualifications to examine the paper, and that the paper topic was not appropriate for the subject matter of the journal. These points are not being denied.

Interestingly, you provide no rebuttal to the clear evidence that Sternberg resigned the editorship prior to the controversy. If you accept this, then the Expelled movie was dishonest on this important point.

Furthermore, you apparently agree that Sternberg was allowed to finish out his research associate term and was allowed to apply for a renewal. Since the scientists at the Smithsonian are under no obligation to sponsor a research associate they do not feel they can work with, I see no indication that Sternberg was penalized for his questionable behavior as editor or for his religious beliefs.

Unless one can provide evidence that Sternberg was in some way more deserving than the other candidates who were given research associate positions, there aren't any grounds to claim bias. Therefore the Expelled movie was dishonest on this point as well.

Just my opinion, but I think the credibility of both the movie and you are questionable.

By the way, the congressional report you cite is a preliminary finding. The investigation was dropped before everyone could be interviewed and all the evidence examined. I think it highly irresponsible and intellectually dishonest for you to assume a preliminary report to be the gospel truth simply because of your bias against scientists and religious agenda.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.