Hypocrites

The decision on Aetogate has been handed down from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. I am sure you probably could have guessed this, but the review panel has exonerated Lucas et al. I still think this review was severely marred by the fact that their two outside reviewers of the case are not impartial, and claim adamantly that they are huge supporters and buddies of Lucas. Norman Silberling has already voiced his opinion on this case, three days before he was to serve on the review panel. The letter he wrote was adopted into the review panels record even. (I still am requesting an apology for his nasty words directed at younger scientist). Orin Anderson, the other reviewer, is on record stating that he "was proud to be associated with Spencer Lucas. He noted that he has published several articles with Lucas related to stratigraphy and biostratigraphy. Anderson's stated opinion was that Lucas is honest, enthusiastic, thorough; a scientist with a degree of assertiveness which may rankle some scientists."

From today's Albuquerque Journal (you may have to watch a short video for free access): "Doug Svetnica, spokesman for the state Department of Cultural Affairs, which runs the museum, defended the choice of scientists, who were selected "because of their academic and publishing backgrounds."
"Any prior professional experience with Dr. Lucas was irrelevant," Svetnica said Tuesday. "As professionals, we expected and we feel that we received impartial reviews and conclusions."

I totally disagree with Mr. Svetnica.

"In addition, according to Lucas, Parker should have asked for permission before publishing a paper on the museum's fossils. "We never thought he would publish ... without first contacting us," Lucas said." [link]

Now, this particular Lucas statement I find very curious "....this is material we were studying and we did not think anybody else wold publish it without first asking us, as is customary. Of course, we allowed him and others to freely study our specimens and did not make it clear that we did not want them to publish on the Snyder Quarry aetosaurs. Again, that was out mistake." [link, page 12]
How is this any different that what he did to the Polish scientists when he visited their collections and subsequently published on specimens they collected without telling them? Isn't that awfully hypocritical?

[Link]"Last year, Lucas published a research paper describing fossils he had been allowed to study during a visit to the Institute of Paleobiology of the Polish Academy of Science.
The paper came as a surprise to Jerzy Dzik, a paleontologist at the institute overseeing the work of a group of young scientists who had been studying the fossils, from a site called Krasiejow in southern Poland. Lucas never asked permission to write about them, Dzik said in an e-mail complaining to Lucas.
"Your action was thus harmful to many young researchers who had invested a lot of time and energy to excavate at Krasiejow, prepare fossils, identify them taxonomically, and interpret their anatomy and evolution," Dzik wrote in his July 9, 2007, e-mail to Lucas.
Lucas, in an e-mailed response, called the affair a "misunderstanding," and blamed the Polish scientists for not telling him he could not publish papers about their fossils.
"Nobody at your Institute told me I could not publish on the specimens I studied," Lucas wrote.
Dzik wrote that the Polish Institute has had an open access policy toward its fossil collection for 50 years. "We have never had such an experience before," he wrote.
The Dzik case was first publicly reported last month in the British science magazine Nature. No formal complaint has been filed with the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, so the case is not part of its ethics investigation, according to department spokesman Doug Svetnica."

How is this not the same thing he is blaming Parker for doing? Is the message he is sending is that it is ok for him to do this but not ok for anyone else??? Sorry, I do not understand his reasoning. (you can read more about Parker's case here)

Interestingly, the review panel found that only an innocent mistake was made in Jeff Martz's case on plagiarisms and that it was not intentional. "...Spielmann et al. neglected to cite Martz's thesis on page 584 with regard to the conclusion that the type armor plate was from the right side of the body, not the left side. It was an oversight on our part...Unquestionably, it was not our intent to plagiarize or take undue credit for any part of Martz's (2002) thesis." Read about Martz's case here.

Other blogs/sites of interest:

The Reptipage: Aetogate: DCA results. The response
Lounge of the Lab Lemming: Pick your preferred paleontologist
Mike Taylor: What Professional Paleontologist are Saying
Julia Anderson: Whitewash

Shame on you Mr. Silberling, shame on you!

The other day I wrote that I probably did not need to comment on Norman Silberling's letter. I was wrong. His words are poison, derogatory to younger scientist, and entirely uncalled for. So, Mr. Silberling, in response to your words:

You, Mr. Silberling, have done more to hurt the process of getting down to the bottom of what has really happened than you have helped. You should be ashamed of yourself for degrading younger members of our profession because they may not yet be as gainfully employed as you are! I am offended by your remarks and I think you own a public apology to all the young professionals in both geology and paleontology for your cruel words! I am sure you probably think I am just another young "doe" with a grudge against Dr. Lucas and company. You would be wrong and quick to notice that I have no personal interest invested in this case, Dr. Lucas, his associates on the New Mexico side, or Mr. Martz, Mr. Parker, or their associates. I am just another young paleontologist who is quickly becoming jaded from attitudes like yours towards the younger crowd.

I only want what is right. To quote Dr. Jason Anderson, who has said it best, I want "an open, transparent, and impartial process to review the allegations." I have never pointed the finger in either direction and declared anyone's innocence or guilt. I just want to see the truth come out and to make sure that this sort of issue would 1) never be an issue again and 2) that a young professional would never have to watch their back in fear of retaliation for speaking up or for fear of loosing their research! I do not believe that is too much to ask.

If there is not another review done that is impartial, I for one an not going to be surprised when, come March 3, we find out that the review panel has exonerated Dr. Lucas of all wrong doing. Whether it is true or not. Mr. Silberling already exonerated him in his letter. It would not be a huge surprise when this is the official result.

If you like the shirts, you can find them here. All shirts are sold at cost, and I am not making a single dime off of them. Only trying to make a point.

_____________________________________________________
Don't forget to watch "The Four-Winged Dinosaur" tonight on NOVA and Bucky Gates on the O'Reilly Factor tonight at 6pm on Fox News (Did dinosaurs die because of Global Warming?)

the latest in the world of Paleo Controversey

Rather than making two separate post, I'll just include both here. Aetogate and DINO are in the news again today. Its sad when there are two controversies taking place at the same time. Sometimes the results and responses (or lack there of!) are even more depressing.

Aetogate
The Albuquerque Journal reports "Ethics Panelist Calls Museum Flap Baseless" (you have to watch a short commercial to read the article) after the State Cultural Affairs chief Stuart Ashman called for a review of the charges brought against Lucas and company. However, the invited two "outside guest experts" to help with the new inquiry were not impartial. Norman Silberling and New Mexico geologist Orin Anderson were asked to aid in the inquiry. However, "A scholarly library index lists Anderson and Lucas as coauthors of 65 research papers. Silberling and Lucas coauthored five papers. Lucas has dedicated books to both Silberling and Anderson, and, in his Feb. 18 letter (open access .PDF), Silberling described himself as "a professional friend and admirer of Lucas." I have to ask, why did Siberling write a letter three days before the review panel's meeting to state officials declaring Lucas' innocence when he was asked to help with the review? Does that not show his partiality?? Not to mention that the entire tone of his letter is rude, accusatory, and derogatory to young paleontologist and very unprofessional*. I only hope that Stuart Ashman and other state officials will realize the blunder that including these two partial parties has caused and will conduct a open, and impartial review on the matter.

*"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."

My thoughts on the comment in bold above probably does not need words.

**Update** Check out the other latest responses to this story:
Laeleps- Aetogate, continued: Norman Silberling shoots his mouth off
Political cartoon by John Trever for from the Albuquerque Journal (not sure how I missed this):
Adventures in Ethics and Science -How committed are paleontologists to objectivity (in questions of ethical conduct)?
Tetrapod Zoology - an interesting post on traumatic anal intercourse with a pig (just a curious post, it has nothing to do with Aetogate, he assures me).

___________________________________________________________________

DINO
David Nimkin, The Southwest Director for the National Parks Connservation Association seems to have joined the "pro-job-cuts" bandwagon for DINO. Kurt Repanshek for National Parks Traveler recently contacted the NPCA for a comment regarding these changes in the park and was startled at what he was hearing from Nimkin: “I really am of the opinion that they’re doing a fine job in the face of real significant financial constraints," he said. "I’ve gotten messages saying she (Superintendent Risser) ought to be fired, change the leadership there. On the contrary, I really want to complement their staff for really finding ways to serve all the needs they have, and that’s not always a popular thing.” I know that I am not personally calling for Ms. Risser to be fired or done away with. Quite the contrary. I know these problem go higher than her, reaching into the regional directors office, as the CORE operations changes are is his mission. I only ask her to stand up and do what is right and say 'no' to these changes. I also ask for the park service director to investigate these changes and, if needed, find the additional funds to keep these jobs in place. They are jobs that are very needed.

Mr. Repanshek then contacted park paleontologist Dan Chure for his opinion, which, if you have been keeping up with this story, is not surprising. Dan supports the changes. Odd, since he did not support them in 2002/3. In the end it appears the Mr. Repanshek has been swayed to their side: "Is this a perfect solution? Probably not in the eyes of those who believe the Park Service has a responsibility to conduct a robust, in-house science mission. But when it comes to today's fiscal realities, this just might be the best the agency can do."

Read the entire article here.

.