Changes

The '''Smithsonian controversy''' began with backlash over the publication of an article written by an [[intelligent design]] (ID) proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution ([[Smithsonian Institution|SI]]),<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Sounder Staff Report 2006]]</ref> contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.<ref name="statement">[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>  An article titled ''The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories'' by [[Intelligent Design|ID]] advocate [[Stephen C. Meyer]] was published in the in the August 4, 2004 volume of ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,'' (PBSW)<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Meyer 2004, p 213-239]]</ref>  [[Richard Sternberg]] was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the [[Smithsonian Institute|Smithsonian Institute's]] National Museum of Natural History ([[National Museum of Natural History|NMNH]]), and the issue was the last he was to work on (he had previously announced his resignation from PBSW).

The '''Smithsonian controversy''' began with backlash over the publication of an article written by an [[intelligent design]] (ID) proponent in a peer-reviewed scientific journal loosely affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution ([[Smithsonian Institution|SI]]),<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Sounder Staff Report 2006]]</ref> contrary, according the the publisher, to the journal's "typical" process of also having an associate editor involved in the peer-review process.<ref name="statement">[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington]</ref>  An article titled ''The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories'' by [[Intelligent Design|ID]] advocate [[Stephen C. Meyer]] was published in the in the August 4, 2004 volume of ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,'' (PBSW)<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Meyer 2004, p 213-239]]</ref>  [[Richard Sternberg]] was the managing editor at the journal, and also a Research Associate at the [[Smithsonian Institute|Smithsonian Institute's]] National Museum of Natural History ([[National Museum of Natural History|NMNH]]), and the issue was the last he was to work on (he had previously announced his resignation from PBSW).

Controversy ensued within hours of publication,<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]]</ref> with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]]</ref>  Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education ([[National Center for Science Education|NCSE]]), a think-tank that promotes evolution, defended the Smithsonian:  "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist,"<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]], Statement to Washington Post reporter Michael Powell</ref> and "Some <nowiki>[</nowiki>scientists<nowiki>]</nowiki> probably did speak intemperately,"<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]] Recorded statement to [[National Public Radio]]</ref> out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's role.

Controversy ensued within hours of publication,<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]]</ref> with senior Smithsonian scientists referring to Sternberg as a "shoddy scientist" and a "closet Bible thumper."<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]]</ref>  Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education ([[National Center for Science Education|NCSE]]), a think-tank that promotes evolution, defended the Smithsonian:  "They don't care if you are religious, but they do care a lot if you are a creationist,"<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]], Statement to Washington Post reporter Michael Powell</ref> and "Some <nowiki>[</nowiki>scientists<nowiki>]</nowiki> probably did speak intemperately,"<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]] Recorded statement to [[National Public Radio]]</ref> out of frustration and annoyance over Sternberg's editorial role.

Although Sternberg had announced his resignation from PBSW before the controversy irrupted, he continued to work at the Smithsonian as a [[National Museum of Natural History]] (NMNH) Research Associate (RA).<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Sounder 2006]]</ref>  Sternberg states that he was subjected to a hostile work environment as an RA, and requested that the United States Office of Special Counsel ([[United States Office of Special Counsel|USOSC]]) investigate his allegations.<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Sounder 2006]]</ref>  The USOSC ultimately concluded in a letter obtained by three media outlets that Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the NMNH.<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]] letter is referred to as a report in Washington Post article, but quotes in this article make it clear that the report was addressed to Sternberg.  See also  

Although Sternberg had announced his resignation from PBSW before the controversy irrupted, he continued to work at the Smithsonian as a [[National Museum of Natural History]] (NMNH) Research Associate (RA).<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Sounder 2006]]</ref>  Sternberg states that he was subjected to a hostile work environment as an RA, and requested that the United States Office of Special Counsel ([[United States Office of Special Counsel|USOSC]]) investigate his allegations.<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Sounder 2006]]</ref>  The USOSC ultimately concluded in a letter obtained by three media outlets that Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the NMNH.<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Hagerty 2005]], [[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Powell 2005 p A19]] letter is referred to as a report in Washington Post article, but quotes in this article make it clear that the report was addressed to Sternberg.  See also