Fri Jun 6 23:01:33 BST 2008
The original complaints in what is now becoming known as Aetogate were made by three graduate students (Parker, Martz and Taylor) and a newly minted Ph.D (Wedel). We have collected some of the comments made by established, senior scientists in the field. All of these comments are "on the record", having been either posted in public forums or explicitly cleared with their authors.
In the list below, we have summarised for brevity, highlighting what we think are the most important points made. Note that each comment is listed under the date that I added it, not the date that it was made. In each case, we link to the whole message that was sent, so that comments are not taken out of context.
The publicly provided data (by all sides) shows clearly that Dr. Lucas et al. at the very least never even attempted to make sure that they were not stealing someone else's work. Instead the chronology of publications, emails and direct communications indicates clearly that they - giving them the maximum possible benefit of the doubt - 'couldn't care less'. [...] The other possible interpretation does not need to be mentioned here - it should be mentioned in a court of law.
Dr. Mallison is employed by the Humboldt Museum fur Naturkunde in Berlin, as a researcher on a third party grant, and emphasises that "I write the following as a private individual, and that it in no way represents any official position of my institution."
It is essential that a full, formal and independent enquiry is conducted to cover these serious allegations. It is critical that science not only investigates these issues, but is seen to investigate them. [...] A failure to do so constitutes, in my opinion, a genuine problem for scientists who must have the confidence of the general public in their work.Hone is a visiting scholar at the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, Beijing, China.
[Publishing] policies at other institutions are much different [...] Manuscripts submitted by AMNH staff researchers (curators, curators emeriti, postdocs, and graduate students) are subjected to anonymous peer review by outside (non-AMNH) referees following standard procedures in the scholarly publishing community. No in-house reviews of staff-authored MSS are ever solicited or accepted by the editors.Norell is Curator of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, arguably the world's leading museum for palaeontology.
It is certainly imperative that members of our discipline recognize that it is highly improper to use scientific information, including introduction of new scientific names or hypotheses regarding the used of anatomical structures that have been proposed by others, until after they have been published by those who have done the original research. [...] Awkward as it may appear to the individuals involved, it is necessary for them to be thoroughly investigated and responsibility established, lest such behaviour, if demonstrated, appear to be tolerated in our discipline.Carroll is professor of biology at McGill University, and curator emeritus of the Redpath Museum. He has served as president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.
I am 100% appalled at the supposed "review" that the state of NM let Orin Anderson and Norm Sibiling "perform" on the matter...that was absolutely transparent and pathetic on the state's part. The matter certainly does deserve a completely independent, objective review from outsiders with no relations or stakes in the museum, and I can't believe that the state thought that they could get away with this.Harris is Director of Paleontology at Dixie State College. He was senior editor of NMMNHS Bulletin 37, in which were published the papers on Redondasuchus and Rioarribasuchus that are the subject of the DCA inquiry.
This borders on pathetic; the letter from Siberling (defending Lucas prior to the closed-door inquiry) resorts to nothing more than ad hominem attacks on the accusers. What on earth does their age or their employment status (especially right out of grad school) have to do with the events they have brought to light? I thought it was only in politics where we told people "this person is far too important to be criticized by the likes of you".
I have tried very hard to delay any presumption of guilt in this situation, but the actions taken by the NMMNH and their "independent" reviewers have done far greater damage to my opinion of Dr. Lucas and the NMMNH than the accusations themselves ever could have.
Hartman is Science Director of the Wyoming Dinosaur Center.
The Museum's response reinforces the impression of clubbiness and collusion. The outside investigators were neither independent nor impartial and should have recused themselves. [...] Further, this one-sided hearing held behind closed doors with what appears to be a foregone conclusion raises new and disturbing questions about the peer review process of the Museum's publications.
Martin is Professor of Biology at Pepperdine University.
Today sees the publication of two letters to the editor of the Albuquerque Journal rebutting the letters of 19 February described below.
Sullivan's views about fossil specimens [...] are at odds with the practices of curators in most museums, based on my 30 years' experience in collections around the world. [...] New Mexico officials need to understand some basics about museum ethics. All specimens that have been described, figured or mentioned in the published literature are ethically available for examination by all qualified scientists at any reasonable time.As noted by the Albuquerque Journal's editor, Padian is professor and curator of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley, which has provided unrestricted access to its collections to Drs. Sullivan, Lucas, and their colleagues.
(The other letter is by Mike Taylor, the maintainer of this web-site, who is not a professional -- merely a Ph.D student.)
Also today:
It shouldn't be a test of their dedication--it should have been an impartial panel which had no close personal or professional ties to the person in question. They might as well have asked his mother to sit on the committee.
Kirkaldy is co-owner, with Mickey Rowe, of the Dinosaur Mailing List. (See Appendix: on the neutrality of Anderson and Silberling for information about the outside experts.)
My sense of disquiet over this issue has only increased with recent news. I agree with Kevin Padian's comments in his letter to the editor completely. I have never heard of an institution whose policy was as characterized by Bob Sullivan. [...] As for the outside professional arbiters selected to sit on the review panel, I am shocked at what appears to be blatant cronyism. It rather smells of a cover up--and that is NOT what this process demands.Anderson is Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary.
As promised (see the bottom of this page), we'll publish the opinions of scientists who disagree with us as well as those who agree. Today sees the publication of two letters to the editor of the Albuquerque Journal by dissenting voices:
[Lucas] is a scrupulously honest and dedicated scientist whose work is uniformly highly regarded and whose ethics are unquestioned. [...] there is absolutely no merit to the accusations against Lucas.As noted by the Albuquerque Journal's editor, Lattman is a member of the Museum Board's executive committee, which investigated the accusations against Lucas and found them to be "without merit."
The holotype specimens in question (Redondasuchus and Rioarribasuchus) were collected by the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, and both are the property of that institution. [...] these holotypes are proprietary to the Lucas teams. What right, or claims, do these students have to name these fossils? [...] The students' complaints are whiny and without merit.
As noted by the Albuquerque Journal's editor, Sullivan is senior curator of the Section of Paleontology, State Museum of Pennsylvania, and was a peer reviewer on the paper in question.
[As a point of information, the holotype of Redondasuchus was collected by UCMP (University of California Museum of Paleontology), and is reposited at that institution. The NMMNHS holds a cast of this specimen.]
I, too, regard this as a very serious matter, one well deserving of the broad visibility it has gotten. This is particularly so because it involves alleged wrongdoing on the part of senior investigators who should know better. [...] From the internal documents I have seen, I find it difficult to believe that all of this involves simple misunderstandingsCifelli is Presidential Professor and Curator of the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, OK, and one of the world's leading experts on Mesozoic mammals.
I think that cases like this warrant an ethical inquiry [...] Science can only work if it is a self-policing institution, and adherence to rules of ethical conduct is crucial to the existence of open and productive discourse between scientists, which in turn advances our field. [...] If we as scientists can't keep our own house in order, we run the risk of losing our credibility as a community and with that, our funding sources and public impact.Makovicky is Assistant Curator of Dinosaurs at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.
If indeed acts of academic piracy have been committed (as the evidence documented by Mike Taylor strongly suggests), this is a very serious matter - especially as some of the victims are graduate students. A graduate student is by definition the most vulnerable of scientists, with limited experience, no power base or long-term job security, and an awful lot to prove; they are also collectively the future of our discipline. By any reasonable standard of human decency, as well as enlightened self-interest, we have a duty to treat them with fairness and respect. It would also not come amiss for us to set a good example for them.Ahlberg is Professor of Evolutionary Organismal Biology at Uppsala University, Sweden, and specialises in early tetrapods.
Allegations of claim jumping and plagiarism are very serious and, if well founded, should be acted upon promptly, as should false or mistaken accusations. Plagiarism cannot be tolerated, no matter what the circumstances or who is involved: it brings the subject into disrepute and seriously damages the professional reputations of all of those involved.Paul Barrett is a researcher in palaeontology, specialising in herbivorous dinosaurs, at the Natural History Museum, London.
We take such matters seriously and we have a process for evaluating such allegations through the SVP Ethics Education Committee. This committee is following its stated process, which is intended to be fair to both the accusers and the accused.
It's clear this case of reported multiple plagiarism must be investigated thoroughly. I would strongly oppose any attempt to downplay the accusations or suggest they are immaterial.Mike Benton, head of the Department of Earth Sciences at Bristol University, is one of the U.K.'s most respected vertebrate palaeontologists, and the author of the standard textbook on that subject. He was awarded the Lyell Medal by the Geological Society of London in 2005, and the T. Neville George Medal by the Geological Society of Glasgow in 2006.
This issue is important, at least if you're a working scientist. The focus should be on due process for a publicly made (and publicly aired) series of complaints of professional malfeasance. If you're an academic scientist and you don't think this issue is important, then please don't take graduate students. Graduate students all over North America and elsewhere are following these developments intently, because they feel vulnerable.
If the SVP does not address this question decisively, then its Ethics Committee is just window-dressing. Whatever it decides, it cannot simply report that "this is not our jurisdiction." It is, if it purports to represent the profession.Kevin Padian has been at the forefront of paleontology research for a quarter of a century. His major areas of research include pterosaurs, the origin of flight, the beginning of the age of dinosaurs, and dinosaur growth rates. He is also president of the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education, and he testified on the evidence for evolution in the 2005 Intelligent Design trial in Dover, Pennsylvania. In 2003 he won the Carl Sagan award for the popularization of science.
From what has been reported in the _Nature_ article, and documented in various blogs, I would support petitioning the SVP ethics committee asking that they look into the matter. If the complaints against Spencer Lucas and his associates by the graduate students are upheld by that committee, then a clear statement by SVP that such behavior is unacceptable to the profession is warranted.Jim Farlow is a respected researcher, author and editor, and was co-editor (with Michael Brett-Surman) of The Complete Dinosaur.
As uncomfortable, distasteful, or repugnant one might find the issues raised, all involved have the right to a fair hearing. Malfeasance is a serious charge and courage is needed by the ethics committee to render an honest judgment. Finding some wishy-washy way out of this will do a disservice to the society, the profession, and all parties involved. Avoiding this will not result in it going away. It will only allow it to fester and become both corrosive and damaging.Dan Chure is a curator at Dinosaur National Monument, Utah.
I must admit there are some things I don't understand about this affair, and it makes the present stonewalling inexplicable to me, as it is worrisome to many graduate students and younger workers.(See above for information about Padian.)
[...]
I don't understand how a curator and productive researcher of 30 years, who has worked on fossils from several continents and from the Permian to the Pleistocene, does not know that before you publish on specimens in another museum that are clearly undescribed and under study by others, you have to ask and receive explicit (written) permission. That's unquestionably the responsibility of the scientist who has been trusted to see the materials, not the fault of the museum for allegedly not clarifying it.
Although I have written once regarding this matter I would like to say that I agree with Kevin. This, and worse, does happen and it is up to the institution for which the perpetrator works, the State, if it is a state institution, and the professional societies.Judith Harris is Emerita Professor at the University of Colorado Museum.
If you you are a professional palaeontologist (or scientist working in a related area such as geology or evolutionary biology) we want your thoughts -- whether they agree without ours or not.
If you are prepared to go on the record with an opinion on Aetogate, please email it to nm@miketaylor.org.uk. In the interests of fairness, we undertake to publish all comments submitted by scientists holding a Ph.D in palaeontology or a related field, irrespective of whether they agree with us or not.