Message-id: <47A7E2FA.1080709@easilink.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:15:54 -0700
From: Dan Chure <danchure@easilink.com>
To: Vert Paleo <VRTPALEO@usc.edu>
Sender: owner-VRTPALEO@usc.edu
Envelope-to: mike@indexdata.com
Subject: Re: Aetosaurs:  back on track, please
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

I want to strongly second Kevin's points below. 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. I am not taking any position on the merits 
of either side in the dispute here. Due process and transparency is the 
issue.

Dan

Kevin Padian wrote:
> Can we get back on track, please, and away from the marginal distractions?
>  This is not about `whether scientists are always ethical' or `can we post
> copyrighted material' or `who named the aetosaur first' or `who wants to
> publish more than anyone else.'  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.  But for obvious
> reasons, most of them are not saying anything right now.  So the
> established people in this profession, in my view, should speak up to make
> sure that there is closure on this issue in fairness to all.  I'm not
> advocating a particular outcome or judgment; I'm advocating due process.
>
> So what should be done about the current situation?
>
> Most important is the need for response from agencies that should provide
> recourse for perceived offenses.  The proper channels are two:  first, the
> SVP and professional museum organizations; and second, the administrative
> reporting line in the state of New Mexico.  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.  If nothing else, it needs to advise non-specialists on
> standards of conduct and ethics in our field.  The apparently dismissive
> actions of the reporting line in New Mexico are far more worrisome.  But
> there is nothing to prevent any concerned citizen from writing these
> people and expressing your opinion.  If you are not residents of New
> Mexico, you could explain constructively how their handling of the
> situation (which above all should respect fairness to everyone in the
> dispute) will affect the reputation of the Museum that they have an
> interest in protecting.  Other people at that museum, including
> scientists, are being affected by this problem, after all. Let's hope that
> the SVP performs a similar role.
>
> Here are the public officials in NM who have been solicited on this
> complaint:
>
> 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
>
> The complaints have been made; it's not a question of whether you support
> or reject them.  The question is whether you think that it is important to
> resolve the issue through a transparent process, and urge those in
> authority to do so, or whether you don't think this is an issue, and they
> should not pursue it further.  Tell them either way.
>
> Silence is acquiescence.  It is not a matter of assigning guilt, but of
> demanding due process.  For everyone.
>
>
>