RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2006,17:45   

There's some am-a-a-a-a-zing stuff in the appendix to the Rep. Souder staff report that the Discovery Institute is talking up.

The DI spin and the Congressional report spin are each severely divorced from reality. When one looks at the content of the appendix of documents and emails, one learns a lot about the character of Richard von Sternberg that Sternberg probably would have preferred stay out of public sight. Here are some of the things that reading the emails and other documents provided tell us:



  • Sternberg "requested" a grant or "any funding vehicle" from the Smithsonian in the amount of $300,000 to compensate for his claimed year of lost work. (The Smithsonian refused. It's nice to know that not every part of the government was insane in November, 2005.) [p.11]

  • Sternberg ignored requests to return hundreds of specimens in his office space to the collections. [pp.16,27]

  • Sternberg had failed to properly curate 10 to 12% of specimens in his possession by not replenishing alcohol as the preservative agent. [p.27]

  • Sternberg's space contained specimens that had not been checked out according to established procedures. [p.16]

  • Sternberg's office space contained specimens apparently from other institutions without records in the transaction management system. [pp.48-49]

  • Sternberg handled specimens in another person's office without permission. [p.16]

  • Sternberg ignored requests to return most of the over 50 books and periodicals he had checked out from the Smithsonian library. [pp.27,48]

  • Sternberg falsely told someone that he had notified library staff about his overdue materials. [p.28]

  • Sternberg had removed Smithsonian books from the premises, contrary to Smithsonian policy. [p.48]

  • Sternberg was simply confused when he thought that he had no Smithsonian sponsor. [p.11]

  • The issue about keys that Sternberg raised was a red herring; the Smithsonian had gone to a badge system to control physical access, and Sternberg received a badge. [pp.11-12]

  • Sternberg ignored requests that he return his keys even after the switchover to the badge system. [p.12]

  • Far from losing his research affiliation with the Smithsonian, Sternberg received another invitation for a three-year period to go from 2006 to 2009. [p.13]

  • The issues over moving offices that Sternberg raised are shown to be completely explained by the general and widespread movement of staff to accommodate physical renovation and departmental re-organization. [pp.36,38-39]

  • Sternberg was listed by his Smithsonian affiliation in promotional materials for a talk on ID scheduled in Helsinki in 2004, contrary to Smithsonian policy concerning research associates. [pp.16-17,41,44,48]

  • Sternberg had a prior history as an editor guiding research papers that were substandard into print in PBSW. [p.20]

  • Sternberg's prior editorial lapses included leaving a submitted manuscript overlong without action. [p.37]

  • Sternberg permitted the Meyer paper to be published even though it did not conform to the PBSW formatting standards. [p.37]

  • Sternberg made "calamitous and inaccurate" statements on his web site. [p.47]

  • Sternberg agreed in a meeting with his supervisor that his possession of a master key to Smithsonian facilities was "unnecessary and inappropriate". [p.48]

  • While Sternberg was the primary editor for PBSW, there was a year in which authors submitted complaints about the handling of 17 different manuscripts. [p.52]

  • Two Mexican authors believed the managing editor, Sternberg, was predisposed against Latin-American authors. [p.52]

  • Sternberg has a history of saying one thing and doing another. [p.57]

  • Sternberg's access to freshwater crabs in the collections was restricted due to his destruction of many specimens. [p.57]

  • Sternberg failed to utilize on-site Smithsonian expert on Cambrian period paleontology and PBSW Associate Editor Brian Erwin in selecting reviewers for Meyer 2004b. [p.73]

  • Sternberg made "bad judgment calls" in his editorship at PBSW. [p.74]



Does that sound like professional behavior to you?

I have a word for those who will be sure to point out that this stuff isn't proven, but nevertheless think Sternberg, Souder, and the DI should be given full credence in their claims: Hypocrites.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]