I was shaking with rage by the time I'd finished reading it. The ethical husband was almost shedding tears of anger at just how little regard for justice and due process there was. And we're not even involved!
I'm talking about the
letter sent by Norman Silberling, one of the outside participants in the "Aetogate" inquiry set up by the
Department of Cultural Affairs, to Stuart Ashman, cabinet secretary of the same. But let's rewind a little bit. Evidently in the light of the huge public outcry, the DCA decided that maybe they should have an inquiry into the allegations made by Bill Parker, Jeff Martz and others (see
Mike Taylor's page for the full details). It was reported in the
Albuquerque Journal last Thursday. Which was how Bill, Jeff, Mike, Darren, Matt etc all found out about it. And the DCA for some reason deigned not to ask any of the "plaintiffs" (it's just easier to refer to them in judicial terms) for statements, or to actually interview them.
But that's okay, because they selected two independent professionals who knew the sector well and could fairly come to a conclusion based on the facts, right? Right?
Well, both outside experts have co-authored 39 scientific papers with Spencer Lucas (one of the "defendants"), according to
Mike, who looked it up on GeoRef. And in the letter Norman Silberling wrote (above), one of the first things he says is:
I regard myself as a professional friend and admirer of Spencer Lucas [...] I am indeed indebted to Spencer [...] for dedicating NMMNH&S Bull. 41 (the "Global Triassic" symposium volume) to Tim Tozer and me.
I don't know whether Anderson speaks of Lucas in such glowing terms, but Mary Kirkaldy kindly provided the dedications for the
Dinosaur Mailing List, saying:
With all due respect, it would be hard to be impartial when the accused has dedicated a book to you.
Absolutely. This is immediately a conflict of interests, and regardless of whether or not Anderson and Silberling are capable of setting aside their personal friendships with Lucas and reaching a fair conclusion, if this was a legal procedure, there would be grounds for a mistrial before the hearing reached its conclusion, and definitely grounds for an appeal afterwards. Judges and juries recuse themselves if they are known to either plaintiff or defendant. It has serious consequences if they don't. I'm sure I remember a rape/assault trial a few years ago, where it turned out the judge was a family friend: while the evidence for the attacker's guilt was overwhelming, it was either thrown out or successfully appealed. This is one of the means by which people "get off on a technicality".
Now, I know the vertebrate palaeontology community is small, but even though Lucas has published over 500 articles (it says so on
his website), I'm reasonably sure there are plenty of vertebrate palaeontologists who have not met him and who have not co-authored papers with him. I'm also reasonably sure that there are plenty of vertebrate palaeontologists who don't know the "plaintiffs" either. Could one of them not have been called in? And surely it was just plain daft to just go to the state next door. Palaeontology
is incestuous, and with good reason - there is a lot of collaboration over field areas, so it makes sense, especially if you're in a dinosaur-rich area of the country. Get someone who works on fish from the north-east, and then we'll consider neutrality. Even better, get a Canadian biologist, an Australian geophysicist, a British botanist. Anyone but a long-time co-author and friend of the "defendant", for pity's sake!
But it gets better. I read the whole letter twice - once to myself, and then once out loud to my husband. And I must say, regardless of the content of the letter, how very unprofessional to essentially publish one's findings three days
before the hearing took place! A judge saying three days before a trial "Well the defendant's blatantly not guilty" would get booted off the bench! But then I had a problem with the content too. There are arguments that are simply rubbish:
Enlarging on Lucas's responses, if any unethical behavior took place, it was by Parker who based his 2007 paper on specimens collected and prepared by the Museum and who did this without approval by Lucas, the Museum's collections curator.
Well, as many people already have pointed out, does this not
immediately mean that Lucas behaved unethically when he scooped the Polish specimens? You can't have it both ways - Lucas cannot be exonerated from Parker's allegations
and the Polish allegations (I note that the Polish case is not mentioned, but I gather that they haven't made an official complaint - I'm sure someone will update via the comments on this).
Martz' assertion that an interpretation in his masters thesis was "plagiarized" by Spielmann et al. (2006) is adequately explained as an oversight in Lucas' response. Spielmann et al. did indeed come to the same conclusion as that earlier stated by Martz, but as Lucas explains in his response in so doing they did not use Martz' wording or illustrations, and thus this does not constitute plagiarism. Instead, Martz should be pleased that other authorities changed their position to agree with his.
Oh wow. So lowly grad students should think of this as
flattery? Grad students should think it a great honour if an academic powerhouse thinks their ideas are good enough to pass off as their own, without the merest acknowledgement? Now, I know my primary school teacher used to try to avoid having to punish children by telling us that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery. Yeah, right.
It's difficult to believe that Parker and/or Martz or their associates didn't prime Naish to initiate his accusatory blog site knowing that all sorts of slanderous, unsubstantiated bile would result. From this, it's apparent that an interconnected group of mainly young, un- or under-employed workers (including both Parker and Martz) has for whatever reasons a strong grudge against Lucas and the NMMNH&S. But that's just the way it is. They are not apt to stop, and arguing with them, especially on-line, probably would be a wasted effort and just strengthen their sense of righteousness.
Because no blogger
ever hears of something outrageous and decides of their own free will to write about it (note to Norman Silberling - I have not been coerced to write this). I assume Silberling is including all of us who have taken this case to heart on our blogs, but primarily Jeff, Bill, Mike, Darren and Matt. So we're young (so don't bother listening to us because what do we know?). We're unemployed (and who gives a shit about students?). Or we're under-employed (so even if we've managed to heave our lazy fat arses into gainful employment we clearly don't have enough to do with ourselves so we're just making trouble?). Please, members of the vertebrate palaeontology community, please say you don't agree with that. Please reassure us (as I know some of you have) that tenured professors do care whether there are any students left to carry on the science.
You know something? Before this kicked off, I had a wholly neutral opinion of Spencer Lucas. And while I have been reminded that the majority of the NMMNH&S staff are in no way involved in this (and that it's unfair to tar them with the same brush), this is doing nothing for my opinion of the museum's executive committee, or the state government of the fine state of New Mexico.
This strikes me as the real target of the complaints by Parker, Martz, and the other young bucks (and at least one doe) associated with them.
*rolls eyes* I think that is incredibly insulting. Call them young men and women. "Buck" and "doe" are patronising. Singling out one "doe" (or one "woman", as I like to call them) could be deemed sexist too.
Moreover, using in-house reviewers for articles by qualified in-house staff members, is not necessarily a bad thing, because by and large a reviewer who is an associate and friend of the author(s) will not want to see the author(s) do something dumb.
What, like (allegedly) plagiarise students?
This does invite barbs from disgruntled people seeking a target.
So much inflammatory language, so little time.
As a final suggestion to the Museum Board, I think it would be useful for you or the Board to send whatever final public report is prompted by this Executive Committee discussion to Parker's supervisor at the Petrified Forest National Park. That person should be interested in how his or her employee is serving the scientific community and the public.
What. The. Fuck. Now, maybe I'm mis-interpreting this, but it sure looks to me as though Silberling is suggesting that the management at
PEFO fire Bill. This is precisely why so many other "early stage academics" have been afraid to come forward. This is why students and postdocs don't speak out when offences are committed against them. Because they have so much to lose.
Now, this was quite obviously a letter, not a press release. And perhaps if it had been leaked to the press, I could give Silberling some leeway for having private comments inadvertently made public. However, downloading the PDF and looking at the properties, I see that Norman Silberling was the author, and it was made a PDF through OpenOffice on 22 February. If I'm putting two and two together and making 80, please tell me so, but I conclude that Silberling made the PDF of his letter, and gave it to the Albuquerque Journal. So he was perfectly happy for all those
ad hominem attacks to be made public (I could be so bold as to say there is a case for some of those things to be libellous, but I leave that to the lawyers).
The Albuquerque Journal carried out a telephone interview with Silberling
on Friday, during which he said:
This was in no way a jury trial, so there's no way friends of Spencer and people who have been with him shouldn't comment.
No, this wasn't a jury trial. Which is why I've referred to "defendants" and "plaintiffs" in inverted commas. Lucas' friends and colleagues have every right to comment. But Lucas' friends and colleagues should not be on the committee deciding whether or not he has committed an offence! Inquiries, tribunals and informal investigations have to maintain similar standards to higher courts, otherwise they have no authority. I used to administer informal tribunal hearings for a professional organisation. Notice of hearings were issued to complainant and respondant well in advance. The tribunal itself would often be held behind closed doors, and sometimes without either party present - just relying on statements, skeleton arguments and the facts laid before the panel. A decision was made, and promulgated. The respondent had a set period of time in which to appeal if necessary, after which the decision was published and any fine or suspension enforced. If the tribunals I administered had carried on the way this is being run, we would have been the laughing stock of the profession.
If a wholly fair investigation of the allegations of plagiarism, with neutral adjudicators, had been carried out, with all the evidence presented and an opportunity for both sides to ask and answer questions of the other, then if the conclusion reached was that there was no plagiarism, it would truly suck. It would be horrible for Bill and Jeff, and they would have every right to feel very miserable for a very long time. But it would have been
fair. This is not fair. This is cronyism.
An excellent anonymous leader in the
Albuquerque Journal on Sunday says:
That seems about as far south of scientific rigor as the choice of these particular outside scientists falls short of due diligence. Both have collaborated with Lucas on research; both are named in dedications of Lucas books. The objective perspective of one of the quasi-judges was called into doubt by his declaring a not-guilty verdict several days before reviewers convened their closed-door hearing.
The irony is, I am sure this inquiry is being held in a desperate attempt to shut the community up. We've been complaining like buggery, so I rather imagine some eye-rolling has gone on at DCA headquarters and an official has said "Oh give them what they want then". But so many corners have been cut, and so much has been carried out poorly (nothing that's happened in the organisation of this inquiry could be deemed to be "best practice", or even "good practice"), that regardless of the outcome, there will be a shitstorm over the New Mexico authorities for a very long time.
I know the US government ditched
the right to a fair trial, and I know
habeas corpus has been suspended, but really, you'd think both could apply to a state investigation of an alleged act of plagiarism, wouldn't you?
