Aetogate: the DCA's inquiries

Sat Feb 23 11:10:23 GMT 2008

[Back]

1. Introduction
2. First inquiry
3. Second inquiry
4. Third inquiry
5. Appendix: on the neutrality of Anderson and Silberling
        5.1. Co-authorships
        5.2. Dedications

1. Introduction

On June 8, 2007, we sent our first letter to Stuart Ashman of the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, documenting the plagiarism and taxonomic claim-jumping that seems to have occurred in NMMNHS Bulletins. Since then, the DCA has held three inquiries into our allegations, none of which we consider to answer our questions.

Recent events (February 2008) consitute the third inquiry: skip down to that heading if you don't need the background.

2. First inquiry

Ashman's response of June 19, 2007 stated only that "after discussing this matter with Dr. Lucas and Dr. Hunt, I find that they adhered to the publishing practices and policies of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science".

We hardly considered it satisfactory that Ashman's investigation consisted of asking Lucas and Hunt whether, in their own opinion, they had done anything wrong. We also noted that adhering to NMMNHS practices and polices does not in itself tell us anything, given that no-one is able to state what those policies are.

We made these points in our letter of July 10, 2007, which Ashman did not reply to. We complained to the State Governor's office on July 24, 2007, and James Jimenez, of the Governor's office, responded by asking Ashman to investigate more fully (see Jimenez's letter to us of August 10, 2007.

3. Second inquiry

As a result of the Governor's Office's intervention, Ashman wrote to us on October 4, 2007, to inform us of the more in-depth inquiry that he had undertaken:

I, once again, reread your previous correspondence had further discussions with Dr. Hunt and Dr. Lucas. In order to ensure that I was not missing anything and to perform further due diligence I determined that it would be helpful to have the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees review the matter [...] the Executive Committee determined that no further action was required.

That was all: "no further action was required". We replied on November 15, 2007, explaining that this response was wholly inadequate, and expounding in detail what kind of response could be satisfactory. In summary, we asked to know in detail how our reasoning was incorrect, why our concerns were unwarranted, what the "publishing practices and policies" of NMMNHS are, and what the content was of the responses that Lucas and Hunt were said to have made to our allegations. [Please read the letter for the full version.]

Ashman replied on November 16, 2007 in a very short letter that did not address any of our points, and merely stated that our concerns were "without merit".

Finally, our letter of December 10, 2007, reiterated our dissatisfaction with Ashman's total failure to address any one of our specific points; there was no reply to this letter, and that with our correspondence with the DCA was at an end.

[Ashman has subsequently stated, on the record, that "saying 'no merit' is not enough of an answer"; and that there should be (but isn't) a written record of the investigation. See below.]

4. Third inquiry

In February 2008, a sequence of articles appeared in the Albuquerque Journal:

In the first of these articles, Ashman was quoted as saying "It didn't warrant that kind of formal inquiry", in explaining why no written report exists of the second inquiry described above. By the second article, this had become "There isn't [a written record documenting the investigation and conclusion]. There should be", and "I agree that saying 'no merit' is not enough of an answer". The third article, an editorial, called for a "full, third-party review".

In response to this, we assume, the third inquiry was set up. We read in the Albuquerque Journal for February 21, 2008, that the Department of Cultural Affairs was to hold a new inquiry into our allegations that very day. None of the scientists who sent the original complaints was contacted to offer material to the inquiry panel, or indeed informed that it was taking place -- we only heard about it from the Journal.

The inquiry was held behind closed doors -- no outside observers, for example journalists from the Albuquerque Journal -- were allowed to be present. The two scientists who were brought in to review the allegations (Orin Anderson and Norman Silberling) are both former Lucas collaborators. Neither of them is a vertebrate palaeontologist. In short, this inquiry was deficient in every respect: in using Lucas colleagues as the "outside" reviewers, in failing to include a vertebrate palaeontologist among the reviewers, in being conducted without any reference to those bringing the allegations, and worst of all, in being held in secret.

The result appears predictable: the results of the inquiry will apparently be published by March 3, but as reported by the Albuquerque Journal, Norman Silberling, one of the two independent experts, had already reached his conclusions three days before the inquiry, when he sent a letter to Stuart Ashman [local mirror] pronouncing Lucas innnocent.

5. Appendix: on the neutrality of Anderson and Silberling

It has become apparent that both of the outside reviewers brought in to conduct the DCA's independent inquiry have long histories with Lucas that call their independence into question.

5.1. Co-authorships

According to the online GeoRef database, Lucas and Orin Anderson have co-authored a total of 65 publications, of which 26 are abstracts and 39 appear to be full papers.

Lucas and James Silberling have co-authored five publications, made up of two abstracts and three full papers.

5.2. Dedications

Both outside reviewers have been the subject of fulsome dedications of volumes edited by Lucas and his colleagues:

It is difficult to see how two men to whom Lucas has dedicated entire volumes, both with extensive record of co-authorship with Lucas and one of whom ranks among "the most valuable field collaborators of [Lucas's] career", can be expected to make a fair and unbiased evaluation. However, as reported in the Albuquerque Journal, Silberling pointed out in a phone interview that "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".


[Back]