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?)

Battle of the letters to the editor

Aetogate is back in the news. Letters to the editor are flying in both directions. Laurence H. Lattman (on the New Mexico Museum Board's executive committee) and Robert Sullivan (friend of Lucas, curator in PA State Museum, and reviewer on the paper in question) say Lucas is wrongly accused, Kevin Padian points out the odd point of view that Sullivan takes in his letter, and Taylor points out "If Lattman wants to persuade anyone, he will have to show that he is correct in the face of all the evidence, not just assert it." Check them out here on Mike Taylors page.

Name-calling sparks dispute over aetosaurs

This is something that has been going on for quite some time and is finally getting a bit more press (national vs. just the vert paleo list!). You can read the the whole article here, as it was presented in Nature today. There are also excerpts below. As I mentioned, this has been going on for quite some time, and it was even talk about in great detail over at Tetrapod Zoology (be sure to read all the comments!) last April. There are quite a few comments from those who have been directly involved in the is case and by some who have been impacted indirectly or who have made observations that are worth noting. You can also read more on the situation here, detailing the time line of events. These are just "one side of the story" but the other side is doing the "no comment" routine, which leaves one to wonder. I leave it to you to decide, but please, do feel free to make as many comments as you like!! :)

Published online 30 January 2008 | Nature 451, 510 (2008) | doi:10.1038/451510a

Fossil reptiles mired in controversy

Name-calling sparks dispute over aetosaurs.

Rex Dalton

......."Doctoral students in the United States and Poland are accusing scientists at the Albuquerque-based New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science (NMMNHS) of publishing articles that allegedly pilfered their research. The allegations concern three articles published in the NMMNHS Bulletin by the museum's interim director Spencer Lucas, former director Adrian Hunt and their co-authors.

The disputed articles name and describe different aetosaurs, and detail how the 220-million-year-old reptiles are related to crocodiles and dinosaurs. In one instance, Lucas, Hunt and Justin Spielmann, the museum's geoscience collections manager, are accused of rushing to publish a new name for an aetosaur (Rioarribasuchus)¹ when they allegedly knew that palaeontologist William Parker of the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona was soon to publish an article naming the species (as Heliocanthus)².........

And last July, Jerzy Dzik of the Palaeobiology Institute at the University of Warsaw sent Lucas an e-mail in complaint after Lucas published an article in the Bulletin describing Polish aetosaur fossils³. The article appeared shortly after Lucas had visited the Warsaw Institute, when the fossils were close to being described by scientists there. Such a thing had not occurred in the past 50 years at his institute, Dzik wrote, adding: “Your action was harmful to many young researchers.”

In an e-mail response to Dzik, Lucas blamed the Polish researchers for not being more explicit about their fossil-examination rules, but he did apologize for what he called “a misunderstanding”.

Another article published in the Bulletin by Spielmann and his bosses involves a reinterpretation of an aetosaur called Redondasuchus⁴. Jeff Martz, a palaeontology doctoral student at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, says this reinterpretation — involving bony spikes along the animal's back — failed to properly credit his own similar description in a master's thesis, an act akin to plagiarism.

In a letter of complaint sent in 2007 to New Mexico government officials, Martz, Mathew Wedel of the University of California at Merced and Michael Taylor of the University of Portsmouth, UK, wrote: “It is our strong suspicion the [New Mexico Museum team members] deliberately abused their editorial powers to take credit for observations and insights of Parker and Martz.” Such actions, the letter argues, corrupt the scientific process and harm young researchers. Because Lucas largely edits the Bulletin, he and his team have been able “to mass produce essentially self-published and non-peer-reviewed papers”, the letter claims.

Lucas is known in the palaeontology community for his desire to publish a high volume of papers. He acknowledges that his “tough” approach has brought him into conflict with researchers before. “They are obviously angry,” he says, but the complaint “doesn't have any substance”......."