U.S. population lags in accepting evolution

[ponderingturtle]

I'm a lay person but even I know that a petition, no matter how many names appear, is not acceptable as any sort of scientific evidence for against anything. It is only acceptable as evidence that n number of people signed a petition.

This is part of the idea behind project steve, and why it was only limted to steves.

 

[Dave1001]

I took your "brights" comment for a show of support for this view - which i thought was rather elitist....

What's elitist about that view? And why do you consider such a characterization to be pejorative?

 

[andyandy]

What's elitist about that view? And why do you consider such a characterization to be pejorative?

You mean what's elitist about this -

I think that a large portion of the brains on this planet simply aren't a suitable medium for this level of critical thinking memes. As such, rather than waste resources convincing them to adopt a rote belief in the less-intuitive-for-them theory of evolution, I think we should spend our society dollars in such a way that we get maximum (humane) utilitarian behavior out of this large subset of the population.

quote?

well, it seems to fit my understanding of the term, and checking the dictionary it seems to hold up.....

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist

why do i consider it to be pejorative? Because elitism tends to autocracy. If you want to have a discussion on the merits (or otherwise) of elitism as a political system then how about starting a thread in politics? I'd be more than happy to join in.... i think this topic's been derailed enough....
oh and i'm still waiting for that link for "nontransparent elite...."

 

[Rodney]

Um, you are aware that those are second-string jobs, aren't you? Possibly even third-string, depending upon your specific desires. I had a better job than those three years post-Ph.D., and I'm hardly a superstar.

Who am I to question that?

A first-string job in the sciences is a professorship at a top-flight university or possibly a high-ranking (much higher than "research associate" or GS-13) administrative position at one of the various national laboratories.

Sternberg worked half his time at the Smithsonian and the other half at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a Title 42 scientist. According to a 2004 Washington Post article: "About one-third of all NIH employees employed under the Title 42 provision make less than a GS-14 Step 1 salary, which is about $83,000 a year . . . The mean salary for the group is about $118,500." See -- http://tmjoints.org/news/NIHSals.htm A top level biologist in the Washington, DC area earns a median salary, including bonuses, of $91,419. See http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/...rchpage=&searchtype=&geo=Washington,+DC+20005

A second-string job in the sciences is a tenure-track position at almost any college or university. Postdocs are usually reserved for brand-new, ink-not-yet-dry Ph.D.'s. Being a soft-money postdoc for longer than five years or so is usually a sign of a scholar who isn't very good. Being a soft-money postdoc for fifteen (as Dr Sternberg is)... well, let me just point out that it's extremely far from being a good sign.

Similarly, "Managing Editor" of a third-rate journal is hardly an impressive accomplishment. (If you want to see just how bad it is, its impact factor is about 0.23, meaning only about a quarter of the papers presented in it ever get cited again. Alternatively, you could note that it costs only about $40/year for the back issues; back issues of major journals are incredibly expensive precisely because the demand is so high and they're cash cows for the publishers.) He's not even the "Editor," but just a glorified gopher -- you do know the difference between "Managing Editor" and "Editor," right?

According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

Another sign of weakness is his lack of funding; according to the c.v. you cited, he's received two "postdoctoral fellowships," but no actual competitive project-based grants. THis alone would make him more or less noncompetitive if he tried to apply for a job at my university; after fifteen years of research in the biological sciences, he should have been able to find project funding.

So my bet is that this mediocre biologist got his slot at the Smithsonian because no "real" university would hire him, and similarly, he's was working at the third-rate journal because a) the GS-13 postdoc didn't pay very well and b) he's not good enough to work at a higher-profile journal (and he was in the Washington area). I'd be much more impressed by his credentials if he were an honest assistant professor at the University of Southeastern Mississippi.

And, yes, Dr Garey's c.v. (which I cited above) is a more typical academic career arc for a competent (if not necessarily stellar) researcher.

So why all the hysteria from other Smithsonian biologists about an article in a third-rate journal? Why not just quietly inform the news media that there is less here than meets the eye?

 

[drkitten]

Sternberg worked half his time at the Smithsonian and the other half at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). According to a 2004 Washington Post article: "About one-third of all NIH employees employed under the Title 42 provision make less than a GS-14 Step 1 salary, which is about $83,000 a year . . . The mean salary for the group is about $118,500."

This isn't relevant to anything. Or at least, I fail to see the relevance. Title 42 was specifically set up to allow hiring of junior-level consultants -- the article is complaining about the amount of money being spent on senior-level (e.g. Directors) hires under that program.

According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper,

Yes. This is a lie.

and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself,

This is also a lie -- he demonstrably was NOT best-qualified.

something I had done before in other appropriate cases.

This may in fact be true, but it's highly unethical.

In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

I have no reason to regard this statement as anything other than a lie.

So why all the hysteria from other Smithsonian biologists about an article in a third-rate journal?
Why not just quietly inform the news media that there is less here than meets the eye?

Have you ever tried to "quietly inform the news media that there is less here than meets the eye" about anything?

The media don't listen to statements like that. In fact, it's specifically because the media didn't listen to statements like that and were instead giving Sternberg the platform he craved to spread his lies, that they found it necessary to discipline him for his unethical behavior w.r.t. the paper in question.

 

[Rodney]

This isn't relevant to anything. Or at least, I fail to see the relevance. Title 42 was specifically set up to allow hiring of junior-level consultants -- the article is complaining about the amount of money being spent on senior-level (e.g. Directors) hires under that program.

Do you know what Sternberg's salary was? My point was that the average salary earned by Title 42 scientists is well above the median earned by the top level (Level 5) biologists in the Washington, DC area.

My Previous Post: According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper"

Yes. This is a lie.

What proof do you have that it was not his prerogative?

My Previous Post (continued): "and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself"

This is also a lie -- he demonstrably was NOT best-qualified.

So whom should he have chosen?

My Previous Post (continued): "something I had done before in other appropriate cases."

This may in fact be true, but it's highly unethical.

Why is it necessarily unethical?

My Previous Post (continued): "In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

I have no reason to regard this statement as anything other than a lie.

Based on what evidence?

Have you ever tried to "quietly inform the news media that there is less here than meets the eye" about anything?

The media don't listen to statements like that. In fact, it's specifically because the media didn't listen to statements like that and were instead giving Sternberg the platform he craved to spread his lies, that they found it necessary to discipline him for his unethical behavior w.r.t. the paper in question.

So the media is anti-evolution? What about influential newspapers such as the Boston Globe, Washington Post and New York Times? And the burden is still on you to document that Sternberg is lying.

 

[Oldpossum]

Based on what evidence?

Base on the fact that he has supposedly two PHD's, that are in subjects that have a great deal of overlap.
From this fact alone, I can deduce that he is a lying scumbag, and as such anything he writes can be dismissed as irrelivent.

 

[trvlr2]

"Research associate" = basic research job. Anyone involved in any research will have a title like this.

"Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society" = secretary who writes the minutes.

Any CV tries to make itself look as good as possible, this doesn't mean most of it actually means anything.

Cuddles-Thanks, ya beat me to it.

Also, thanks, DR Kitten.

Rodney just doesn't get it ,that his man was heaved because creationism does not equal science. I doubt he ever will.(Get it)

 

[American]

As long as the people who matter believe in it, there is little problem.

Evolution is the business of biologists, anthropologists, and other scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in it.

 

[X-COM]

As long as the people who matter believe in it, there is little problem.

Evolution is the business of biologists, anthropologists, and other scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in it.

Personally I belives that everones opinion do matter, scientists need finace and that has to come from somewhere. Donations or taxes, the well of cash are going to dry up if the financers don't belive that the money are spent on something useful. Besides, even dumb people get to vote...

 

[Dave1001]

Personally I belives that everones opinion do matter, scientists need finace and that has to come from somewhere. Donations or taxes, the well of cash are going to dry up if the financers don't belive that the money are spent on something useful.

How much of science is funded by donations from the working and middle class? But that's a good argument for straussian manipulation of the masses into tithing to support scientific endeavors.

Besides, even dumb people get to vote...

Hmmm ... you're convincing me to become a supporter of diebold technology.

 

[Euromutt]

As long as the people who matter believe in it, there is little problem.

Evolution is the business of biologists, anthropologists, and other scientists. One shouldn't care whether a hairdresser believes in it.

To extrapolate on X-Com's last sentence, it matters when you have elected school boards, and that hairdresser decides to consciously vote for Creationist candidates.

I'll be frank, I think that giving a school board of elected laymen, with no requisite qualifications except sufficient votes, the power to set school curricula is a terrible idea. I understand why they exist in the American system, in which you don't get to choose which (public) school you want your child to go to, because otherwise parents would have no way of influencing their child's education. But I grew up in the Dutch system, in which schools--at least secondary schools--got to set their own curricula, and parents were free to choose the school they wanted their kid(s) to attend, thus forcing even fully state-funded schools to compete for students. Personally, I believe that American public secondary education could be greatly improved simply by abolishing the "catchment area" system which assigns students to a particular public school, and allowing parents to choose which public school they want to send their kids to. Sure, the teachers' unions probably still wouldn't like it, but it's less radical (and less of a threat to the public education budget) than voucher schemes. Simultaneously, the authority to set curricula should be devolved from district school boards to the schools themselves, in order to give them the means to become competitive.

 

[ponderingturtle]

To extrapolate on X-Com's last sentence, it matters when you have elected school boards, and that hairdresser decides to consciously vote for Creationist candidates.

I'll be frank, I think that giving a school board of elected laymen, with no requisite qualifications except sufficient votes, the power to set school curricula is a terrible idea. I understand why they exist in the American system, in which you don't get to choose which (public) school you want your child to go to, because otherwise parents would have no way of influencing their child's education. But I grew up in the Dutch system, in which schools--at least secondary schools--got to set their own curricula, and parents were free to choose the school they wanted their kid(s) to attend, thus forcing even fully state-funded schools to compete for students. Personally, I believe that American public secondary education could be greatly improved simply by abolishing the "catchment area" system which assigns students to a particular public school, and allowing parents to choose which public school they want to send their kids to. Sure, the teachers' unions probably still wouldn't like it, but it's less radical (and less of a threat to the public education budget) than voucher schemes. Simultaneously, the authority to set curricula should be devolved from district school boards to the schools themselves, in order to give them the means to become competitive.

There would be difficulties with this involving transportation and such. America can be a very big place and there might not be a different school with in an hours transit. And I can say from personal experiance that having a hour and a half bus trip each way, to school is a poor way to spend your childhood.

This is done in cities to my knowledge, but it is the other areas that it becomes more complex.

 

[Rodney]

Base on the fact that he has supposedly two PHD's, that are in subjects that have a great deal of overlap.
From this fact alone, I can deduce that he is a lying scumbag, and as such anything he writes can be dismissed as irrelivent.

Apparently your powers of deduction are greater than any of Sternberg's opponents at the Smithsonian because -- to my knowledge -- none of them has accused Sternberg of falsifying his academic record. By the way, Sternberg says that one PhD is in Theoretical Biology and the second is in Molecular Evolution -- not exactly the same subjects.

 

[Cuddles]

Base on the fact that he has supposedly two PHD's, that are in subjects that have a great deal of overlap.
From this fact alone, I can deduce that he is a lying scumbag, and as such anything he writes can be dismissed as irrelivent.

No. PhDs are extremely specific. A person could do two PhDs in exactly the same subject and still have no overlap between them. There seems no reason to doubt his qualifications, only the way he presents other parts of his CV.

Do you know what Sternberg's salary was? My point was that the average salary earned by Title 42 scientists is well above the median earned by the top level (Level 5) biologists in the Washington, DC area.

What does salary have to do with it?

My Previous Post: According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper"


What proof do you have that it was not his prerogative?

I'm not sure how this works, but I would think it quite possible that he could do this.

My Previous Post (continued): "and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself"

So whom should he have chosen?

Since he clearly is biased towards the creationist viewpoint he should choose an objective editor who would consider it scientifically. I don't know who the other choices were, but any good scientist would consider a paper on it's own merits, which is presumably why he didn't want them to.

My Previous Post (continued): "something I had done before in other appropriate cases."

Why is it necessarily unethical?

Choosing an editor based on their opinions and not the scientific merit of the paper is extremely unethical. This is no better than publishing it because your best friend wrote it.

My Previous Post (continued): "In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy."

Based on what evidence?

I would not necessarily say this is a lie. It is entirely possible that other biologist support creationism. Or alternatively that he was encouraged to publish so that he could be shown wrong conclusively via peer review. On the other hand, what evidence is there that he did ask anyone else?

So the media is anti-evolution? What about influential newspapers such as the Boston Globe, Washington Post and New York Times? And the burden is still on you to document that Sternberg is lying.

The media is not anti-evolution. They just publish anything that anyone sends them that will sell. Sternberg's views were more sensational than the people saying "He's wrong", and so the media happily spread them because "one man fighting the oppressive establishment" sells better. When have you ever seen the headline "Evolution Still True"? This is true fall all papers, influential or not.

I would say drkitten's statements that he is lying are unfounded, as far as I know, and I would be interested to see any evidence of this. Some of his statements are definately unethical though, and I have seen nothing to suggest he was wrongly punished.

 

[drkitten]

My Previous Post: According to Sternberg: "As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper"


What proof do you have that it was not his prerogative?

Because that's not what a "managing editor" does.

That's like someone saying "as department secretary, it was my job to make sure that everyone got paid accurately and on time." No, it isn't. That's the job of the payroll office -- the secretary is at best responsible for distributing paychecks to the members of the department.

In 2004, the "editor" of Proc. BIo. Soc. Wash was Richard Banks; it would have been his job to select a specific editor for a controversial paper. A "managing editor" is a glorified secretary whose job is is to make sure that the manuscripts get filed properly and delivered to the right people. Sternberg overstepped his authority.

Similarly, we know from Sternberg's CV that he was paid at a GS-13 scale, which means that he gets paid substantially less than the median listed in your article. (The lower third, if your source is correct.) Again, that's hardly a mark of an "outstanding," or even "average," scientist. He holds a bad job and he's badly paid relative to his peers at that job?

Furthermore, holding multiple Ph.D.'s in related areas is also a bad sign. A Ph.D. is research training; holding two Ph.D.'s is like holding two high school diplomas. There is nothing you can do with the second Ph.D. that you couldn't do with just the first. The "usual" meaning of multiple Ph.D.'s (esp. in closely related fields -- obviously it's a little different with a J.D. and an M.D. or something like that) is that the holder was unable to find a job after getting the first one, and so decided to stay in school until the job market picks up. If he was such a brilliant biologist, why didn't he get a postdoc after the first job -- or a tenure track professorship?

In fact, you notice that he tried -- in 1995, he worked as an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Miami-Dade Community College, before returning to graduate school for a second degree. So he evidently wasn't willing/able to hold a long-term job teaching at a community college.

Basically, you have presented nothing that indicates that he can manage to reach the lofty heights of mediocrity.

 

[Rodney]

No. PhDs are extremely specific. A person could do two PhDs in exactly the same subject and still have no overlap between them. There seems no reason to doubt his qualifications, only the way he presents other parts of his CV.

I'm happy to see that we're in agreement on the PhDs, but what is wrong with the rest of his CV?

What does salary have to do with it?

Hopefully there is some correlation between salary and expertise. However, I agree that this can be misleading in some cases.

I'm not sure how this works, but I would think it quite possible that he could do this.

Agreed.

Since he clearly is biased towards the creationist viewpoint he should choose an objective editor who would consider it scientifically.

By an objective editor, do you mean an atheist?

I don't know who the other choices were, but any good scientist would consider a paper on it's own merits, which is presumably why he didn't want them to.

Have you read the Meyer paper?

Choosing an editor based on their opinions and not the scientific merit of the paper is extremely unethical. This is no better than publishing it because your best friend wrote it.

What is your evidence that Sternberg did not evaluate the Meyer paper based on its scientific merit?

I would not necessarily say this is a lie. It is entirely possible that other biologist support creationism. Or alternatively that he was encouraged to publish so that he could be shown wrong conclusively via peer review. On the other hand, what evidence is there that he did ask anyone else?

According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that investigated Sternberg's complaint, in a letter to him: "In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known.

"During the impromptu background investigation allegations were also made that you mishandled specimens and collections during your scientific research. You have clearly explained how damaging this is for a scientist in your position. This information was also shared outside of the SI. And once again managers later had to admit that the allegations were false. And as with the editorial issue there was no effort, as far as we can tell, to correct this misconception." See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm

The media is not anti-evolution. They just publish anything that anyone sends them that will sell. Sternberg's views were more sensational than the people saying "He's wrong", and so the media happily spread them because "one man fighting the oppressive establishment" sells better. When have you ever seen the headline "Evolution Still True"? This is true fall all papers, influential or not.

Perhaps, but in this case, the Office of Special Counsel investigation revealed that Sternberg's complaint that false allegations were made against him by other Smithsonian scientists was well-founded. The OSC here is the objective third party -- it's not the Darwinists that dominate the ranks of the Smithsonian.

I would say drkitten's statements that he is lying are unfounded, as far as I know, and I would be interested to see any evidence of this.

Me too, but don't hold your breath.

Some of his statements are definately unethical though, and I have seen nothing to suggest he was wrongly punished.

What statements of Sternberg's are unethical? Again, the OSC investigation came down overwhelmingly on his side, except in the respect that he was not entitled to normal civil service protection because of his status as a Title 42 scientist. So, in that sense, he was not wrongly punished, but the behavior of other Smithsonian scientists is very telling. Their attitude toward him was about the same as the attitude of the medieval Catholic Church toward anyone raising questions about Church dogma.

 

[drkitten]

Me too, but don't hold your breath.

Yawn. Already posted. What evidence do you have that he did not misrepresent and overstep his authority (as the position title suggests)?

 

[Cuddles]

I'm happy to see that we're in agreement on the PhDs, but what is wrong with the rest of his CV?

Sorry, I put this wrong. I meant the way you interpret his CV. You presented it as an outstanding biologist, while anyone with experience in research (or with CVs) wold see it as mediocre at best.

Hopefully there is some correlation between salary and expertise. However, I agree that this can be misleading in some cases.

Salary is largely based on where you are working, rather than what your job is. For example, in London you would get paid much more, for doing exactly the same job, than a small town in north England. I assume it works the same in the US. And as drkitten pointed out, he was actually quite badly paid compared to his peers.

Agreed.

Unfortunately for your position, drkitten apparently knows more than me about this and clearly states that this was not his job. I will defer to him on this point.

By an objective editor, do you mean an atheist?

No. I mean an objective editor. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Have you read the Meyer paper?

Yes. It is pure garbage from start to finish. The only argument he uses is the "I can't understand how it happened so it didn't" argument. He repeatedly uses the long discredited arguments about information not being generated by mutations. If you think this is valid I recomend reading The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.

What is your evidence that Sternberg did not evaluate the Meyer paper based on its scientific merit?

Because there is no science in it. As I say above, he merely repeats unfounded ideas from information theory. Any reasonable scientist would realise this, especially in their specialist area, and so he must have had a personal agenda to publish it.

According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that investigated Sternberg's complaint, in a letter to him: "In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known.

"During the impromptu background investigation allegations were also made that you mishandled specimens and collections during your scientific research. You have clearly explained how damaging this is for a scientist in your position. This information was also shared outside of the SI. And once again managers later had to admit that the allegations were false. And as with the editorial issue there was no effort, as far as we can tell, to correct this misconception." See -- http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm

This does not show that he asked anyone else about publishing. That it was peer reviewed does not support the statement you quoted.

Perhaps, but in this case, the Office of Special Counsel investigation revealed that Sternberg's complaint that false allegations were made against him by other Smithsonian scientists was well-founded. The OSC here is the objective third party -- it's not the Darwinists that dominate the ranks of the Smithsonian.

I never said they were. I just pointed out that sensationalism sells, whether it is Sternberg calling the Smithsonian liars or them calling him a liar, both of which happend in this case.

Me too, but don't hold your breath.

What statements of Sternberg's are unethical? Again, the OSC investigation came down overwhelmingly on his side, except in the respect that he was not entitled to normal civil service protection because of his status as a Title 42 scientist. So, in that sense, he was not wrongly punished, but the behavior of other Smithsonian scientists is very telling. Their attitude toward him was about the same as the attitude of the medieval Catholic Church toward anyone raising questions about Church dogma.

In my contract there is a clause saying I may not take part in any out-of-work activity that would conflict with my work. His editing of the Proceedings was out of work, as stated in the OSC report. Since he chose to publish a paper unfounded in science and edited it himself despite the conflict of interest apparent (since it supports his own personal beliefs) this can be seen as conflicting with his work at the Smithsonian, which is based on proper scientific conduct. His contract may not have had such a clause, and so the OSC found in his favour, but I entirely understand the Smithsonian's position, effectively he was undermining their credibility by associating himself, and therefore them, with meaningless pseudoscience.

 

[Rodney]

Sorry, I put this wrong. I meant the way you interpret his CV. You presented it as an outstanding biologist, while anyone with experience in research (or with CVs) wold see it as mediocre at best.

Okay, perhaps there is room to argue whether Sternberg is an "outstanding" biologist. Nonetheless, he was the managing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington at the time the Meyer paper was submitted. The OSC found that, contrary to charges leveled against him by other Smithsonian scientists, he did nothing unethical or illegal in his handling of that paper.

Salary is largely based on where you are working, rather than what your job is. For example, in London you would get paid much more, for doing exactly the same job, than a small town in north England. I assume it works the same in the US. And as drkitten pointed out, he was actually quite badly paid compared to his peers.

We still don't know his salary, but he says that his position was equivalent to a grade GS-13. Currently, that grade has a salary range in the Washington, DC area of $77,353-$100,554. See General Schedule and Locality Pay Tables
-- http://www.opm.gov/oca/06tables
That compares to a median salary for a top level (Level 5) Biologist in the Washington area of $91,419, including bonuses, and so it appears his salary was in the same range as a median top level biologist.

Unfortunately for your position, drkitten apparently knows more than me about this and clearly states that this was not his job. I will defer to him on this point.

drkitten is hardly a neutral third party, and he has yet to document his charge that Sternberg lied. The OSC appears to be a neutral third party and its letter to Sternberg paints him as honest and his opponents as dishonest.

No. I mean an objective editor. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.

But what's an "objective" editor? You seem to believe that any ID proponent is hopelessly biased, but that is not true of Darwinists.

Yes. It is pure garbage from start to finish. The only argument he uses is the "I can't understand how it happened so it didn't" argument. He repeatedly uses the long discredited arguments about information not being generated by mutations. If you think this is valid I recomend reading The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.
Because there is no science in it. As I say above, he merely repeats unfounded ideas from information theory. Any reasonable scientist would realise this, especially in their specialist area, and so he must have had a personal agenda to publish it.
This does not show that he asked anyone else about publishing. That it was peer reviewed does not support the statement you quoted.

Don't sugarcoat it. Bear in mind, though, that the OSC letter to Sternberg concluded:

"At this same time, many e-mails from within the management of the SI and from outside sources stated that the only way the Meyer article was published was through 'serious editorial oversight.' Other managers called it an 'egregious instance of editorial incompetence...' They could not fathom that they Meyer article had been peer-reviewed and, if it was, it could only have been reviewed by 'like minded individuals.' In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists."

I never said they were. I just pointed out that sensationalism sells, whether it is Sternberg calling the Smithsonian liars or them calling him a liar, both of which happend in this case.

Fine, but when a U.S. Government agency concludes that it is mainstream Smithsonian scientists who behaved unethically, that is news, and it should be.

In my contract there is a clause saying I may not take part in any out-of-work activity that would conflict with my work. His editing of the Proceedings was out of work, as stated in the OSC report. Since he chose to publish a paper unfounded in science and edited it himself despite the conflict of interest apparent (since it supports his own personal beliefs) this can be seen as conflicting with his work at the Smithsonian, which is based on proper scientific conduct. His contract may not have had such a clause, and so the OSC found in his favour, but I entirely understand the Smithsonian's position, effectively he was undermining their credibility by associating himself, and therefore them, with meaningless pseudoscience.

Do you think that there's a slim chance that the OSC got it right and that have it wrong?