Some thoughts on ‘Aetogate’

Brian reminds us not to mistake the lull in the action in “Aetogate” (the charges of unethical conduct by Spencer Lucas and colleagues) for a resolution to the matter. We’re still waiting for the ruling from the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology ethics committee. In the meantime, here are a few thoughts on the “verdict” from the inquiry conducted by the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science and by the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs. (There is a 40+ page PDF of Spencer Lucas’s written responses to the allegations and of the inquiry’s findings here.)

1. As I’ve noted before, I don’t think there’s any question that the process is marred by what is at the very least the strong appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of the panels two “outside” reviewers. To the extent that NMMNHS had an interest in making a visible effort to deal with the allegations as objectively as possible, they dropped the ball by selecting Orin Anderson and Norman J. Silberling, two scientists with longstanding personal ties to Spencer Lucas.
2. If you plow through the linked PDF with Lucas’s written responses to the allegations, you’ll notice that part of the response to William Parker’s allegations centers on a claim that Parker did not have permission to access the specimens in question, which belonged to NMMNHS. For example, on page 8, Lucas writes:

… the publications of Parker available to Lucas, Hunt, and Spielmann when they wrote their paper did not indicate that he was naming a new genus for Desmatosuchus chamaensis, but simply that he questioned its assignment to Desmatosuchus. Moreover, since NMMNH was working on the Snyder Quarry aetosaurs, and Parker knew it, we never thought he would publish on them first without contacting us.
Nonetheless, we made a mistake in that we never explicitly told Parker not to publish on our specimens. We have always had a very liberal policy about collection access, and we assumed that Parker would respect our priority in publishing on our own specimens.

The appendix on page 12 offers further details that suggest that Parker was intentionally seeking access to data from specimens which he knew were not his to describe since they were “under study” by the New Mexico group.
Whether or not Lucas’s response here makes an accurate representation of recognized norms within the community of paleontologists (Jonathan R. Wagner argues that it does not), it is striking because he seems to be accusing Parker of the same sort of conduct he himself has been accused of by Jerzy Dzik of the Palaeobiology Institute at the University of Warsaw (discussed here). How lucky for Lucas that the New Mexico inquiry was not considering formal allegations from Dzik alongside those of Parker and Marz. Recall that Dzik claims Lucas published on their specimens without proper permission — essentially, the same complaint Lucas raises here about Parker. But in the Nature article on the kerfuffle, how did Lucas respond?

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”.

It seems like Lucas ought to show the same respect to researchers at other collections, rather than exploiting “liberal policies” and the lack of “explicit” instructions from the Polish researchers. But this just raises the question hofwhat sorts of behaviors paleontologists assume from others in their field. Are there rules everyone is expected to play by, or do some people get to opt out of these rules?
3. I’m puzzled by the finding of “innocence” rather than “the facts in evidence do not support the charges”, simply because I don’t see how the panel can know with certainty what Lucas and collaborators read and when they read it. Also, while there’s quite a lot of scientific literature to keep up with, Lucas comes off in his written response as if professing to read very little of it — somewhat surprising to me in light of how much of it he generates.
4. Quite apart from whether intentional plagiarism could be proved, there’s something distressing about the view that it’s sufficient to establish an oversight (“I somehow missed that piece of literature or communication”). The resistance to acknowledging another scientist’s work or contribution to the field once you’re aware of it is not tantamount to scientific misconduct, but it shows a lack of grace and a short-sightedness about what might contribute to a healthy scientific community. (Silberling’s swipe, in his letter, at un- and under-employed young paleontologists, and his closing suggestion that Parker’s employers at Petrified Forest National Park take a look at Parker’s activities while in their employ — presumably, so they could reprimand or fire him for pressing his allegations — drifts beyond graceless to retaliatory.)
5. One of the issues floating around in this scandal has been the status of the NMMNHS Bulletin — as either a perfectly respectable part of the peer reviewed literature or a lesser journal functioning primarily to get articles out in a hurry. It is clear that AMNH bulletins use more stringent standards for peer review than does the NMMNHS Bulletin. A simple reform of the NMMNHS Bulletin that I think might make a meaningful difference in cases like this would be a notation on papers of the date of submission, as well as the date of final acceptance.