Message-id: <688juj$1qkapvn@ironmaiden.mail.utexas.edu> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:47:10 -0600 From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" To: VRTPALEO@usc.edu Cc: StephanPickering@cs.com Sender: owner-VRTPALEO@usc.edu Envelope-to: mike@indexdata.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:47:57 +0100 Subject: The Paleontological "No-Spin Zone" [was: RE: "aetogate: Lucas pronounced innocent"] Stephan Pickerings' response on the "Aetogate" affair fills me with dread. That someone so obviously learned can be satisfied with the current resolution suggests rhetoric may triumph over reason in this case. Let me be blunt: either the content of this report is an exercise in spin, disingenuity, obfuscation, deliberate misdirection, and bald reciprocal accusation, or I have completely misunderstood the ethics and practices of our profession. By my understanding of those standards, no vertebrate paleontologist could possibly agree with the bulk of the statements made in the report, and these statements could only have been accepted because no impartial vertebrate paleontologist was present at the hearing to rebut them. Stephan Pickering wrote: >I have twice read carefully the 39 pages of evidentiary translations >of Spencer Lucas this morning...and it is incumbent on those who >have accused Spencer of being a liar and plagiarist to carefully >present their proof with specificities. I find it puzzling that you charge the accusers to present their evidence: - They have already done so in their original letters of complaint. Just some examples: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/nm/Martz-letter-to-Spielmann.pdf http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/nm/Group-letter-to-DCA.pdf http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/nm/Parker-letter-to-DCA.pdf http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/nm/Group-letter-to-UNM.pdf - They have already done so online. Please see: http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/nm/index.html - They were not invited to participate in the inquiry and present their evidence or rebut in person. - They were not privy to the response of the accused until this report was made available. I expect they will rebut soon. >Now that Spencer has broken his silence with a careful explication >of all of the facts, I am convinced he has done nothing wrong. Why >would he destroy his career as a scholar? By accepting the presented defense, you implicitly agree to the following assertions: 1) That referencing a document 14 times means that an unreferenced reproduction of that document's conclusions is not plagiarism. 2) That incidental plagiarism of the type suggested above does not warrant an immediate explanation and apology. 3) That declaring in print that a specimen "represents a new genus" is not a widely accepted means of indicating the intent to name a new genus in our profession. 4) That intent to name a new genus can only be established by presenting the name itself. 5) That by continuing to actively collect at, and prepare material from a site, a museum has exclusive rights to study published material from that site. 6) That, in general, a museum can and should have absolute, arbitrary control over examination of, and publication on, all published materials collected and/ or prepared by its staff. 7) That not only must a worker consult the original author of a new species (Zeigler) before erecting a new genus for it (as is accepted practice), one must also consult the curator responsible for the material (Lucas) and obtain permission. 8) That a scientist is expected to detail all of his current research activities to staff upon entering a collection, regardless of whether or not he is asked to do so, and regardless of whether or not he and his research is well known to the staff. 9) That it is not considered acceptable to solicit photographs of fossil material from colleagues, even from the original describer (Zeigler). 10) That peer review entirely executed by the author of the paper is equivalent to blind peer review refereed by an impartial editor. 11) That the above is considered an acceptable form of peer review by other major museum publications (see http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/nm/comments/norell.txt for another opinion). 12) That museum visitor registers are never incomplete. It is important to realize that the statements and actions of the accused are themselves inconsistent with some of the points listed above: A) Dr. Lucas is accused of publishing on UNPUBLISHED materials out from under graduate students in Poland without the permission of the museum or its staff (http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/nm/Krasiejow-correspondance-1.pdf). Violates 5, 6, 8, and every ethical principle I hold dear. B) Drs. Lucas, Sullivan, and Hunt published a new genus name, Agujaceratops, for Chasmosaurus mariscalensis in 2006 (citation below), without consulting the original author of the type (and only) species, without submitting it to that author for review (as they accused Parker), and without examining the type material. In Fall 2004, Dr. Sullivan publicly declared from the platform at SVP that he had never even seen the animal! At that time, he was claiming he felt it was likely a junior synonym of Pentaceratops sternbergii! The relevant material was collected, prepared, and housed by another institution (the Texas Memorial Museum). Where is the documentation that Dr. Sullivan and colleagues sought permission to study the fossils? Where is their documentation that they notified the collections/ curation staff of their intent to publish a new name for the species? It certainly isn't in the paper! They do not acknowledge any TMM staff for access to collections or permission to study, as is common practice in our field. They acknowledge several colleagues, including two reviewers, none of whom are TMM affiliates or the original author. If what they espouse is common practice, why did they not follow it? Violates 5, 6, 7, possibly 8, and standard practice in the field (i.e., not naming "someone else's taxon"). C) Dr. Lucas asks us to read between the lines and accept that he and his coauthors recognized that the osteoderm of Redondasuchus was a right, even though it was repeatedly identified and illustrated as a left, based on a handful of typographical inconsistencies. And yet he cannot interpret the statement that D. chamaensis "represents a new genus" as indicating intent to name it? Contradiction of 3 in principle. D) Dr. Lucas points out that the name Heliacanthus was used (improperly) in displays at the Petrified Forest National Monument, thus creating a nomen nudum. And yet, Dr. Hunt complains that none of Parker's abstracts actually indicated the new name, which would have created a nomen nudum. Which is standard practice? Contradicts 4. E) Note this claim regarding the merits of the peer review system defended by Dr. Lucas et al.: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080130/full/451510a.html (comment by Vin Morgan, 2/1/2008). Violates 10. Let's have less word sala and more real discussion, please. REFERENCES: LUCAS, S. G., R. M. SULLIVAN, AND A. P. HUNT. 2006. Re-evaluation of Pentaceratops and Chasmosaurus (Ornithischia: Ceratopsidae) in the Upper Cretaceous of the western interior, p. 367-370. In S. G. Lucas and R. M. Sullivan (eds.), Late Cretaceous vertebrates from the Western Interior, New Mexico Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 35.