Scientific intolerance on full display in US

Perhaps Prof William Reville should be thankful that he lives and works in Ireland.

When he took a swipe at various forms of political correctness, including the zealotry of neo-Darwinists who despise all forms of religious belief, all he generated was a page of irate letters to the editor.

Prof Richard Sternberg would probably consider William Reville to be a very fortunate man indeed. Richard Sternberg has two Ph.Ds, one in molecular biology and the other in theoretical biology. Until a year or so ago he divided his working time between the prestigious Smithsonian Institution in Washington, and the National Institutes of Health. He took on an unpaid post as editor of a small and somewhat obscure scientific journal. He decided to publish, after normal peer review processes, a paper by Stephen C. Meyer that made the case for "intelligent design".

Intelligent design advocates hold that Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot adequately explain the sheer complexity of living things. They believe that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a pre-existing intelligence. They are not anti-evolution, but merely sceptical that Darwin or his followers have adequately proven the case that evolution occurs in a completely random fashion.

After the article appeared in August 2004, all hell broke loose. All Richard Sternberg did was publish the paper. He himself is not convinced by intelligent design, but publication in itself was enough to cause mayhem.

Within days of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian were calling him everything from a "crypto-priest" to a "sleeper cell operative for creationists". Creationists believe that the earth came into being more or less as described in the poetic first lines of the Book of Genesis. They completely discount any evidence for evolution, and many of them believe that the earth is relatively young, perhaps less than 10,000 years old.

It might appear that intelligent design is somewhat of a middle position between the extreme positions of atheistic Darwinists and the creationists. Not according to the scientists who immediately sought to get Prof Sternberg fired for his temerity in letting "creationism" into a respectable journal.

Given that for years neo-Darwinists had sneered at intelligent-design advocates for their failure to publish in peer-reviewed journals, it is somewhat odd that one of the first editors to accept a paper was immediately targeted for academic annihilation.

And targeted he was, as attested to by the Office for Public Counsel, which is an independent federal investigative agency. It aims to protect federal employees from discrimination on the usual grounds such as race, religion and gender and has a particular role in the protection of whistleblowers from reprisals.

It issued a report that found Prof Sternberg had been systematically smeared and his academic credentials questioned, and that the only thing that appeared to have saved him from being fired outright was the desire not to make him a martyr.

The Office was able to access e-mail sent by many Smithsonian scientists. One senior scientist wrote: " We are evolutionary biologists, and I am sorry to see us made into the laughing stock of the world, even if this kind of rubbish sells well in backwoods USA".

Everything about Prof Sternberg, who is a research assistant at the Smithsonian, was investigated by his colleagues to see if it could provide grounds for dismissal. Some even suggested using the fact that his sympathetic sponsor (supervisor) had died as an excuse to remove him.

Among the black marks against him were that he withdrew an unusual amount of specimens for investigation and held on to them too long. Particularly suspicious, apparently, was the fact that he had withdrawn 50 books from the library.

What might be construed as diligence in another context was now framed as deviance. Gradually, his position was made more and more difficult in the Smithsonian. While the Office for Public Counsel found that on preliminary investigation Prof Sternberg had a very strong case, due to a legal loophole they could not prosecute.

Technically, as a research assistant, the professor is not an employee of the Smithsonian. It refused to co-operate voluntarily and said it would challenge legally any attempt by the Office for Public Counsel to continue an investigation.

Among the charges levelled at Prof Sternberg was that he had "training as an Orthodox priest". This is untrue, but it is revealing that this would be considered some sort of crime. The National Center for Science Education, a California think-tank that defends the teaching of evolution, was accused by the special counsel for the Office of orchestrating attacks on the professor, which it denies.

However, the think-tank's executive director was quoted in the Washington Post in defence of the Smithsonian's investigation of Prof Sternberg's religious beliefs. Eugenie Scott said: "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist. Sternberg denies it, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it argues for zealotry."

Unfortunately for Ms Scott, the evidence for zealotry seems to add up rather more strongly for those who opposed Prof Sternberg's decision to publish than it does for the man himself. On his website, the professor explains that his "failure" related to an unstated requirement in his role as an editor of a scientific journal.

He was supposed to act as a gatekeeper, turning away unpopular or controversial explanations of puzzling natural phenomena. He goes on: "Instead, I allowed a paper to be published that is critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy."

How odd it is that scientists, who are supposed to examine the evidence and see which model best fits the available facts should be reduced to vengeful fury because of one paper. It shows that scientists, for all their claimed belief in objectivity, can have beloved dogmas which must not be questioned.

Given that the unfortunate Prof Sternberg's career is now in tatters, it appears that William Reville's contention that fundamentalism can arise in science as easily as elsewhere is absolutely accurate. Of course, a page full of agitated letters in The Irish Times might have given us a clue that William Reville was right, anyway.

bobrien@irish-times.ie