Due Process

Spencer Lucas, the Interim Director of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science has recently been embroiled in a potential scandal. As documented in Mike Taylor’s web pages, there is reason to be suspicious that Dr. Lucas and his colleagues have performed some acts of questionable scientific ethics.

We at dinosaur list management have no vested interest in the charges or their specific resolution, but we abhor the practices that the timeline suggests may have occurred. And more importantly we feel it essential for all parties concerned that the issues be resolved in the fairest manner possible. Toward that end we encourage informed discussion and pleas to responsible public officials who can see the incident through to resolution.

Stuart A. Ashman, Cabinet Secretary
Department of Cultural Affairs, State of New Mexico
407 Galisteo Street, Suite 260, Bataan Memorial Building
Santa Fe, NM 87501
(505) 827-6364
www.newmexicoculture.org

James Jimenez, Chief of Staff
Office of the Governor, State of New Mexico
State Capitol, Room 400
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
505-476-2200
www.governor.state.nm.us

Gary K. King, Attorney General of New Mexico
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
(505) 827-6000

I would like to say that my letter was instrumental in getting authorities in the state of New Mexico to take the matter more seriously, but it looks like I was late... As of this writing (February 8, 2008), my letter has not arrived, but I have just found from a new article in Albuquerque Journal that state officials are already in the process of re-opening the investigation with the plan to produce a formal report of the investigation’s findings. I hope the matter is resolved quickly and fairly.

I hoped in vain. As several bloggers, and the editorial staff of the Albuquerque Journal have noted, the panel that met in February was just as much of a show trial as the events that preceded it. There has been no justice yet.

So let me re-cap the chain of events as they’ve appeared to me so far... Note that the following chain is a dramatization meant to hit the main points not to be entirely comprehensive. Quotes are not actual quotes. They can’t be. The guilty¹ parties left no paper trail that would allow anyone to obtain actual quotes.

Martz and Parker are surprised by publications by Lucas and colleagues who seem to have committed intellectual theft. Martz and Parker approach Lucas and get no satisfaction. Others see what Martz and Parker see. Martz, Taylor, and Wedel decide to go to Stuart Ashman, Lucas’s superior (in job position only; with all due respect, it is not clear to me that Ashman is superior to anything). Ashman asks Lucas and Hunt, “Hey, did you guys do anything wrong?”. Lucas and Hunt tell Ashman, “Of course we didn’t”. Ashman says, “Thanks. Just checking.”. Then he assures Martz, Taylor, and Wedel that Lucas and colleagues did nothing wrong, and he knows this because he talked to them. And just in case that isn’t enough he tells them that he’s told Lucas and Hunt to consider pressing charges against the people who have commented on Darren Naish’s blog, so they’d better shut up and tell their friends to do the same.

Martz, Wedel, Parker, and Taylor aren’t frightened off (it appears Ashman was bluffing... one of the many things for which he should be ashamed). They press Ashman and go above his head to the office of the governor. Coaxed by the office of the governor, Ashman takes a second swing. When talking to Lucas and Hunt wasn’t enough to settle the matter, Ashman decided to talk to the Executive Committee of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. Good call, Stu! Reassurance from the accused didn’t kill this thing? Let’s discuss the situation with a group of people who have a vested interest in declaring Lucas and colleagues not guilty. After all, what do they have to gain by bringing shame upon the institution they oversee? “Hey guys, there are some powerless naifs who think your world-renowned employees might have done something wrong. Your employees assure me that they haven’t done anything wrong; what do you guys think?” “Nope, I don’t see any problems here.” “Me neither.” “I agree, it doesn’t look like there’s anything we should do.” And so off Ashman goes to tell Martz, Wedel, Parker, and Taylor that not only did Lucas and Hunt assure him they did nothing wrong, but the overseers of the museum agree with them. “Move along, guys!”

Reporters at Nature and the Albuquerque Journal think that gee, maybe Ashman’s inquiries to date haven’t been thorough enough. Do ya’ think? Ashman apparently thinks, “Geez, this thing won’t go away!”, as the rest of us are thinking, “of course not, you bonehead”, but I digress. As outside pressure mounts, Ashman decides that in addition to the people he’s already asked, perhaps he should try to find other advisors. He picks² two of Lucas’s friends. And finally decides that he can’t keep having meetings with no paper trail (since several people have complained about that aspect of his ‘investigations’ he apparently believes having a written report will shut people up irrespective of the contents of the report or how it was crafted). He still doesn’t come close to performing an actual investigation, mind you, but the panel he convened this time did at least provide some rationale for declaring yet again that Lucas and colleagues have done nothing wrong. A wonderful rationale provided by the likes of Dr. Norman Silberling who pronounced his verdict (hi, Dr. Silberling, I’m underemployed too!) three days before the panel met. Lucas and Hunt were available to the panel during its “deliberations”. If the panel members had any questions they were free to direct them to Hunt and/or Lucas. Apparently nobody else (e.g., Martz, Wedel, Parker, or Taylor) could possibly have had anything of substance to say that might have helped the panel reach any decisions.

Let’s call that the night the lights went out in New Mexico. Ashman slapped Lucas on the back with a smile and said, “Supper’s waitin’ at home and I gotta get to it”. It might seem at this point that I’ve little respect for Mr. Ashman. I don’t want there to be any doubt about my feelings pertinent to this issue. So I include here a copy of the letter I have just sent to the Governor of New Mexico.

There is so much here that just boggles the mind. I’ll mention just two things that really stood out for me. In the original letter that Martz, Taylor, and Wedel sent to Ashman they stated (this is an actual quote):

For the authors of the papers to regularly also have editorial control over the bulletins in which they are published represents a serious conflict of interest with maintaining objective standards of peer review. [...] Even if this fails, few authors publish so frequently in volumes in which they are editors, or in such a high volume.

They clearly feel that the inferred practices of the Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science are questionable as is Lucas et al.’s prolific publication rate. Ashman’s response included (again an actual quote):

[...] 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.

[...] judging from the number of articles and publications that you cite, it is clear that both Dr. Lucas and Dr. Hunt spend a great deal of time on scholarly research.

The second thing is the story about Bill Parker that Lucas sold the most recent panel investigating these charges... In Lucas’s version, Parker tried to steal naming rights for a specimen that ‘belonged’ to the museum. When his attempt to steal these rights failed, does Parker say, “drat, my nefarious plan didn’t work”? No, he says, “I’m just a peon, and I’ve left a trail to follow showing how I tried to steal the naming rights, but I bet if I shake some trees everyone will believe me and not the most prolific paleontologist on the planet”. The character of Parker portrayed by Lucas is just not believable. But what’s even more unbelievable is that the panel investigating the charges contained no individuals who would look at Lucas’s stories critically.

Perhaps I’m just another naif emptying my bladder into a gale, but this should not stand.

1. I am still trying to give Lucas and his coauthors the benefit of the doubt, but if nothing else, Ashman and the others who have attended to the investigation of those charges are guilty of idiocy, obstruction of justice, or both. The public record on this is clear. Return to text

2. To be a bit more fair, Ashman did not pick these individuals himself. He sought guidance from the University of New Mexico. John Geissman recommended Silberling, but he also states (this is a real quote): “For the record, I suggested that the DCA include numerous geoscientists in this inquiry.” Ashman couldn’t be troubled to heed that recommendation, and that’s on him. Return to text

If you have considered writing to the governor as I’ve asked above but haven’t been able to find time, I’ve tried to help by creating a sample letter. If you choose to use it, please edit the document to reflect your own views.

If you choose to use this sample or write one of your own, I wouldn’t mind hearing about it. I will also put other samples (attributed or not) if anyone wants to provide them.

When I wrote to Governor Richardson’s office I expected either a form letter thanking me for my interest and a bland statement that the matter would be looked into, or some sort of threat because people find that bad things happen to them when others point out the evidence of their incompetence. Instead what I’ve gotten is... nothing. Perhaps I was expecting too much since I am not a resident of New Mexico, but how much effort does it take to send out a form letter? Does the governor’s office actually not have any relevant form letters to send in response to inquiries about the DCA’s “investigation” into Aetogate? Or are they being selective about decisions of whether to bother to send such form letters? Either way, it appears that the governor’s office is not taking the matter any more seriously than did the DCA. At least for the moment.

I still hold out hope. So if you were thinking of writing, please still do. And feel free to ask them why they thought my letter was unworthy of response.

As you probably knew before you came here, the SVP Ethics Committee has released its report about the allegations. I really liked Kevin Padian’s reaction to it. In particular, I agree with his opening comment that there is “something for everyone to like -- and dislike -- about” it. Since I have full editorial control of this space, I’m going to spell out the things that I personally like and dislike about it...

First let me reiterate what I’ve said before: I am quite pleased that the committee put in the time and effort to look into the allegations and render a ruling. I appreciate that they had a difficult task and that there was probably nothing they could possibly have said that would leave everyone happy. Kind of like the task that will be faced by the next president of the United States... It won’t be that person’s fault that U.S. armed forces invaded Iraq without adequate planning for the aftermath, and a lot of people will be unhappy no matter what actions the next president takes to clean it up. The events that lead to the Ethics Committee’s participation were not of their making, and there is so much ugliness here that nothing they could do would end with everyone cheering unreservedly. That said I will try to measure my cheers and jeers appropriately.

I like the organization of the report. They explain very briefly their procedure and the reasoning they used to conclude it was appropriate both in plan and execution. In particular, they were careful to note that none of the committee members had any conflicts of interest and spelled out exactly what they meant by that. Then they turn to the hearts of the two cases with very concise summaries and their conclusions. Finally they turn to the future with statements about how they think scientists ought to behave to make the world a better place.

With respect to Martz’s allegations, the committee did three things that I found particularly interesting. They stated that the failure to cite Martz’s conclusion that Lucas et al. had previously misinterpreted the orientation of the scute “did not rise to the level of plagiarism, in which there is clear intent to take someone else’s work and pass it off as one’s own” (emphasis added). In their explicit definition of the charge they were investigating, they set a very high bar to clear. It is not surprising (and to Lucas et al.’s cheerleaders should not be comforting) that they concluded the bar had not been cleared. It is almost impossible to demonstrate the intent of a person and harder still to infer intent from a group when not all parties may share the same motivations. The second thing I found interesting was that they did not mention in any way the argument made by Lucas that Lucas et al. had correctly interpreted the scute in the first place and only written earlier papers sloppily. And last but certainly not least, I found it interesting that in their last use of the word “oversight”, the committee chose to put the word in quotation marks. It seems to me an extremely logical inference here that not all of the committee members accepted that the “oversight” really was an “oversight”. A shallow reading of the conclusions related to Martz’s allegations would be that Lucas et al. were exonerated. My reading is that the committee’s intentions are rather more nuanced. They have not, in any reasonable sense, exonerated Lucas et al. of wrong-doing. They have merely stated that they could not conclude Lucas et al. consciously chose to act like a bunch of [insert your favorite epithet here].

My last word on the Martz case here is that I was disappointed that the committee broadcast the Lucas et al. claim that the places they did cite Martz lended credence to the idea that the “oversight” was unintentional. In point of fact, Martz et al. right from the very start of their complaints pointed out that these citations indicated quite clearly that Lucas et al. were aware of the document in which Martz had (as everyone now appears to agree) correctly interpreted the osteoderm’s orientation. Thus these citations do more than anything else to speak to the intent of Lucas et al. That the Ethics Committee referred to these citations as evidence of good faith by Lucas et al. without acknowledging other interpretations of this fact suggests that the committee did not understand the fact’s true probative value. Admittedly I am reading goat entrails here in trying to infer what the committee members did or did not understand. I note again the nuances of the committee’s published conclusions, though. They report that Spielmann et al. “stated that they had no intention of plagiarizing his ideas”. They do not in any way attempt to critique the credibility of this statement. The most they assert is that they cannot prove it false. It would be interesting to poll the members as to exactly how credible each individual found the statement to be.

While one can conclude a lack of unanimity in the poll I just imagined, such lack of clear consensus seems more likely in the Parker case. I have to hit the committee hard on this one because they’ve left themselves so open to it. In the movie “He Said, She Said” there is a place where the editors of a newspaper are supposed to decide which of two people is going to be given the job of writing a column. When the managing editor announces the decision -- that they will let both people write the column -- he explicitly states that their decision was cowardly. It’s hard to see the Parker decision in any other light. In Martz’s case the committee made no claims to the effect that they attempted to evaluate the testimonies of the two parties. They merely stated the testimonies and concluded on the basis of those testimonies alone they could not prove bad intentions. In the case of Parker the committee stated that resolution of the dispute required an evaluation of “conflicting testimonies” (something they could have stated about Martz’s case as well, but since they didn’t it is harder to fault their procedure). I call this blatant cowardice because it is clear that the committee does not want to be blamed for an actual decision. There is also something rather hinky here... The report states that Parker claims to have a witness to a conversation in which Lucas gave him permission to re-name D. chamaensis. It also states that said witness does not “have any recollection of this conversation”. To what witness are they referring? It takes little investigative work to find Randall Irmis’s statement corroborating Parker’s claim. The committee’s text would lead a naive reader to believe it likely that Parker is mistaken or lying (two against one as it were), whereas publicly accessible facts suggest otherwise. Is Irmis the witness to whom the committee refers? If so, why did he recant? If not, why was his testimony not considered?

Barring solid conclusions by the committee there are only two recourses for both plaintiffs and defendants. The cases could be taken to real courtrooms where jurists might show more spine in evaluating the credibility of the various actors. Or the cases can remain out here in the court of public opinion. The Ethics Committee would appear to prefer the latter as they eschew a competitive spirit within the discipline. I actually agree with them on that. However, I strongly disagree with their desire to keep deliberations under lock and key. If the court of public opinion is to be the final arbiter of this case, then both prosecution and defense should be allowed complete discovery so that whatever conclusions are reached by individuals they will be reached with at least the opportunity for the most complete set of facts possible.

The committee’s complete lack of desire to assign guilt to any of the principal members of the initial charges stands in marked contrast with the rest of their report. Here they feel content to cast blame at everyone else. This strikes me again as somewhat cowardly because the blame they are casting is toward groups rather than individuals. This makes it impossible to hold the committee responsible for their judgments as they amount to little more than sweeping generalizations. I do fully appreciate that they are walking a tight-rope in trying to make the future better without making past events a pox on the present. But they would be more effective (and subject to even greater abuse than I can heap) if they were more willing to be pinned down on exactly who did what that they shouldn’t have done. They assert that “overly competitive behavior does not necessarily further our discipline”. Really? Not “necessarily”? So perhaps sometimes it does “further our discipline”? When? And exactly how does this relate to the current issues if a) there was no intent in Martz’s case, and b) we don’t really know what happened in Parker’s case?

In the apparent condemnation of the actions by the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, is the appointment of “scientists who had prior association with the accused” really the only thing worth commenting on? Having commented on many other aspects of this myself above, I’ll let that stop here, though soon I will be writing again to the governor of New Mexico to express my displeasure not only with the “review” by the DCA, but also by the governor’s completely ignoring my previous statements on that issue.

Now, talk about things to dislike in the report... What is the point of the committee’s third point? Under the heading of “Lessons Learned” we’ve “learned” that it is difficult to prove allegations of intellectual theft? Was the point here merely to let the committee off the hook for its failure to reach conclusions? How did the current cases teach us anything about this? I suspect something was edited out of the report... something that would have made this “third” thing contextually meaningful.

In stark contrast, the fourth point is written masterfully. By couching the conclusion in terms of protection for the authors rather than those whose works the authors may have pilfered, the committee has given NMMNHS a perfectly face-saving rationale to change its practices. I cannot quibble with this because even if it does smack of blaming the victim (or would to anyone who felt the initial allegations had at least some merit), it handles the most important task of making the future better. Small comfort to those who may have been damaged by the “oversights” of the past, but heartening to those who could potentially be damaged by similar “oversights” in the future. It is wise to recognize that we can’t change the past even if we’re not willing to go on record as having reached any conclusions about what the past really was.

In whip-lashingly stark contrast again, the fifth point exposes the committee to the untenability of its own position with respect to confidentiality. If “lack of communication” exacerbates these problems then who are they to determine what should and shouldn’t be communicated? On the other hand, I have to give them credit for here actually being willing to cite specific examples of fault by specific individuals. And I actually applaud them for attempting to be even-handed in pointing out examples by two of the opposing parties. Might have been nice if they’d pointed this finger back at themselves as well, but that would have made the report fall apart a little.

Their sixth point is sad. Whoever last read the report should have juxtaposed their first and sixth points before releasing it. The sixth point raises again some of the same issues I raised above about the first point... Of what relevance are the comments here if the committee is unwilling to conclude that the bad acts of their last sentence (i.e., that someone didn’t allow adequate time for a thesis to be published) actually occurred? If such acts did not occur here, then how did we learn lessons from the situation? But more importantly the first point -- that research should be handled collegially -- is undermined by the committee effectively saying that students should be wary that they are swimming with sharks. If the committee is unwilling to identify sharks as such and cut them out of the herd, then why should students act collegially? The present report most assuredly doesn’t provide any comfort to anyone who thinks the society will back them up if they come to feel they’ve been bitten.

On the seventh point it is hard to accept the committee’s claim that public airing “has not been helpful”. It is not at all clear that anything ever would have been done in this case without public pressure. The committee cannot merely assert that public airing was worse than everyone keeping silent and expect the public to swallow that statement with no real justification. The committee asserts without evidence that the community was potentially biased by the public comments. I actually think this stance is ridiculous. If all information is public, then there can be no bias produced by that information. Exactly which items should have been kept private and why? It is not even clear to me -- indeed by definition it cannot be -- that the committee’s own secrecy was helpful. How can I know whether their deliberations were biased if they refuse to allow me to look inside the box and see what deliberations they actually had? They also lament that public documentation “potentially polarized” the community. In the same way they qualified that competition does not “necessarily” advance the discipline, I will state the polarization isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it is better to have an opinion. The committee’s report suggests they disagree with that belief in matters of guilt and innocence. C’est la vie.

As for the committee’s efforts to make it less likely that such situations will arise in the future, this is an aspect of their report that I like. As I stated above, we cannot change the past. But I note with irony the committee’s statement that they may be able to act “more forcefully” on complaints if the complaints are “found to have merit”. It is hard to read their analysis of the current complaints and really conclude that the committee made the serious effort they claimed to have made to determine whether the complaints had merit. I have stated repeatedly that the only way to evaluate the complaints would be to compare testimonies and determine which seemed more credible. In Martz’s case the committee felt they did not need to make this evaluation because they felt (and I disagree) that the claims could all be treated as factually accurate. In Parker’s case the committee explicitly punted. Why are we to believe they would have done otherwise if the stakes were higher? As things stand, they are right to suggest that SVP’s current bylaws do not really permit them to take any hard actions here. If the bylaws are changed such that they could take such actions, are we to believe that the committee would suddenly be more willing to assign fault? By the current report I am unconvinced.

Now that the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has issued a mild slap to the the state of New Mexico’s Department of Cultural Affairs, and either through additional bone-headedness or a desire to pull more wool over people’s eyes, the Secretary of the DCA has claimed that SVP’s report validates the findings of the DCA’s own “investigation”, it seems reasonable to solicit a reaction from the governor. I have thus followed up my initial letter with another.

The Executive Committee of the SVP has released an addendum to the report. Given their desire not to describe or explain incidents that lead to their decisions, it’s not clear why they felt it necessary to do this. I hope I’m not being arrogant in thinking that in part it might be due to things I’ve written here and elsewhere. Irrespective of where their motivation came from, I am disappointed by their addendum.

Let me make it clear... it is not the contents of the addendum I find disappointing. I am perfectly willing to accept that their decision to look into the allegations was not motivated by anything other than the correspondence sent to them directly, and I am perfectly willing to accept that some committee members felt hindered by public comments. I also hope that there will be formal face to face discussions such as they recommend.

I am disappointed by the fact that the committee felt that an addendum was necessary and that this was the only point they thought they should address. Silence speaks a thousand words. (So far as I know, that phrase was invented by Debbie Gibson; I make no claim for having thought it first).

Somethings rotten in the state of New Mexico