The full report is here. I didn't have a lot of space in tomorrow's paper for a story, so I'd like to excerpt in full a couple of things here. First is a thoughtful note from Kevin Padian, a Berkeley paleontologist who has been a sort of senior statesment in the paleontological community in this affair. After that, scroll down for the full statement that Department of Cultural Affairs chief Stuart Ashman sent to the SVP.

Padian: 

There’s something for everyone to like – and dislike – about the statement by the Ethics Education Committee. Emphasis on the word “education:” they don’t want to be a court, and so their tone of “mistakes were made” will not satisfy those who want exoneration of one party or another.

Really, what nearly everyone has been asking for all along is due process, and there it is. And there are a lot of constructive points in the statements.

The statements about the need not to be overly competitive but to support junior workers, about the clear bias in the Museum’s handling of the complaints, and about the editorial practices of the Museum’s Bulletin series seem to be direct criticisms of Spencer and his colleagues, and they’re difficult to wave away. But the EC’s statements give him the opportunity and the mandate to address these points without feeling under censure, which is good for the Museum.

There are very strong statements about editorial practices and museum practices, which will inevitably be known as the “Lucas rules” as a result of this case. Most professionals would have thought that most of them hardly needed to be articulated, that they are part of the common ethical compass of the field. But the stories of many young workers – who are not always blameless themselves – suggest that, as in any walk of life, continuous education is needed, if only to avoid potential misunderstandings.

I disagree that Parker needed to get permission or to inform Lucas et al. in advance of his taxonomic conclusions. They had already published theirs on several occasions. Every qualified worker has a right to access to published specimens to check published conclusions, and to come to different ones as the case may be. That’s how our science tests its hypotheses; you can’t do it any other way.

It is expected that students will publish the results of their theses, and so when Martz sent a copy of his to Lucas et al. as a courtesy, he was effectively notifying them of the completion of his work and the implicit intent to publish. In hindsight, they should at least have checked with him before publishing virtually all the conclusions of his thesis and arguing with them. The EC’s view that students should be “wary about circulating their work” until it’s almost published seems to acknowledge that there are sharks out there, and it comes close to blaming the victim. I’m concerned about the effect that statements like that may have on younger workers.

I don’t agree that internet postings made it more difficult to assess the case. The documents received by the EC were all that they could and did act upon. Without the internet postings the incidents would have gone quietly away. Now, at least, there is a chance for broad education, which will for the first time be part of the SVP meeting in the Fall. So let’s get over the accusations and move on. This is really a very small part of what goes on in our field (or any field), and it’s time to get back to normal science and build on this.

Ashman:

Catherine E. Badgley, President

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

[email removed]

Dear Ms. Badgley:

I have reviewed the SVP Executive Committee statement regarding the allegations of unethical conduct by certain staff members at our New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, and I wanted to waste no time in commending the Society’s Ethics Education Committee for its thorough evaluation of a most complex case and its very thoughtful response.

I hope that the scientists involved in this case – from Dr. Lucas and his colleagues at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science to Jeffrey Martz and William Parker – will join me in expressing appreciation and satisfaction with the Society’s conclusions regarding these allegations. I feel strongly that now is the appropriate time to embrace the lessons learned together with those “best practices” recommendations put forth by the Ethics Education Committee.

As for the Museum Board of Trustees/Department of Cultural Affairs review of the allegations, there is no doubt in my mind that the professionals that we appointed to this committee brought an impartial orientation to their work. However, I can see that because certain of the reviewers had some shared past experience with Dr. Lucas, that there was a perception of conflict of interest. Lesson learned.

On the matter of publishing practices at the Museum, I have requested that the Board of Trustees appoint a committee of staff and board members to examine current practices and make recommendations to the Board for any needed changes that would ensure adherence to the best practices you have recommended.

In closing, I have personally taken an especially powerful observation from the SVP conclusions, and that is that there is a common thread that runs through these individuals and their work – they are all scientists working toward the enhancement of their discipline, vertebrate paleontology. As the SVP conclusions imply, better communication would seem to go a long way in furthering both individual careers and the important, inherently social process of discovery and announcement.

Sincerely,

Stuart A. Ashman

Cabinet Secretary