Racism, or Simply Trying to Muzzle the Opposition?

I am not sure that this is best explained by racism: Scientist: Racism hurt him at MIT



Blacks are under-represented at MIT. Perhaps that and the fact that the elite university mindset can be more easily manipulated by that charge explains the strategy of attempting to use that tack to attain tenure. Inside Higher Ed does make the racism case.



But the case that looks like it hangs together better is challenging scientific orthodoxy.



Or should I say ideology.



Specifically, on adult versus embryonic stem cells.



Seems like he has not only challenged ideological dogma by challenging cloning, and embryonic stem cell orthodoxy. Furthermore, he seems to have demonstrated most achievements that embryonic stem cell activists claim embryonic cells will eventually be able to accomplish, but in adult stem cells, not embryonic.



He got a PEW Grant and other awards for his work.



Admittedly, he hasn't been shy about sharing his opinions concerning embryonic stem cells, which is not conducive to gathering evidence and evaluating it even-handedly. But there are enough irregularities and apparent inconsistencies in this case to more than warrant a thorough, public, examination of Professor Sherley's work.



Challenging scientific orthodoxy is never easy. It becomes much harder with anonymous faculty votes which can effectively exercise a veto over which scientific questions are asked by vetoing the possibility of even asking the question through the convenient dismissal of inconvenient persons who are willing to ask.



I'll be the first to admit that I'm not qualified to judge the research on its own merits. But this looks to be coming from the same impulses as those at the beginning of the previous century, who could not master relativity and quantum mechanics, and took refuge in anger at those who had the critical insights. Check out Rutherford's final experiment (sorry about the weird format - pdf does weird things to my computer in conjunction with Firefox). He was so certain tritium wasn't radioactive he never aimed a Geiger Counter at his samples!



For Professor Sherley, a thorough, open evaluation of his work is the least he is due, especially given that many of his accomplishments seem to stand out among his peers. Nobody ever made a critical scientific breakthrough by hewing strictly to the established orthodoxy, let alone ideology. And if Professor Sherley's distaste for the ethics of cloning and embryonic stem cell use motivated him to find a process that renders them unnecessary, that is cause for celebration by any rational standard, not censure. Faced with an ethical dilemma, wouldn't anyone rational rather have another alternative that enables them to avoid the dilemma?



Unless, of course, you want to insist that there is no dilemma.



And if those who examined his case for tenure are uncomfortable with a public examination of the evidence, that's a definite sign that something is wrong, and that there is something in the process in which he was denied tenure that will not stand the light of day.



(There is an on-line petition for granting Professor Sherley tenure. Sign the petition here)