The K-T Letters/Rigging a Scientific Conference?

From

Date

Dear PaleoNet Colleagues:

Scientists not involved in K-T research, members of the public, and members of the U. S. Congress often do not realize the extent to which a small inner-core of impactors, and their friends, have distorted K-T science toward their own ends. The BBC broadcast on K-T politics was a good public service.

Following the BBC broadcast on K-T politics, I wanted to flesh out aspects of the program by providing samples of K-T politics in several categories. They include: (1) intimidation to silence opponents, (2) attempts to block publication of scientific papers, (3) Science magazine's biased coverage of the K-T debate, and (4) possible rigging of scientific conferences to favor the asteroid. This posting addresses the last category.

The 1988 Snowbird II extinctions conference was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and the Lunar and Planetary Institute. After that meeting, strong sentiment was voiced that the meeting was stacked by its organizing committee to favor the Alvarez asteroid theory.

Following Snowbird II, some impactors proposed a Snowbird III to be held in 1994. Fearing that it would likely go the route of Snowbird II, I contacted an official at the NAS, alerting him to a situation that could--if publicly exposed--embarrass the NAS. Another scientist also contacted the NAS about the Snowbird III conference.

My PaleoNet posting today includes my 12/11/94 letter to an official at the NAS. My 12/16/94 letter (which I will not now post) contains more details on some of the individuals involved in setting up Snowbird II.

To its credit, the NAS did not sponsor the 1994 Snowbird III conference.

I was at Snowbird III. It was an impactor's meeting. On the final day of the meeting, the results of some K-T blind sampling were announced. (Whether the results, as announced, were accurate, or not, remains to be seen.)

Whatever the outcome, actions by a small band of impactors were unprofessional in the extreme.

I watched with disgust as a small band of impactors--who sometimes cheered like puerile fools during scientific talks when their side scored some points--proclaimed loudly in public about one of their opponents to the effect that:

"+++ no longer has any credibility in the K-T."

"We no longer have to pay any attention to +++."

"We can now throw out +++'s entire K-T data base."

Some comments were of a more personal nature.

Vicious politics by a small band of arrogant individuals--who take what they want with disregard for the processes of science, or the rights of others--need to be exposed. In the process of exposure, I hope that Congress will recognize the need for a Code of Ethics for science, and implement one. One benefit would be to eliminate long and costly episodes of pathogenic science.

Cordially,
Dewey McLean

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 11, 1992

Dr. **
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20418

Dear **:

My warmest memory of the 1981 Snowbird I conference was breakfast with you the morning of my talk. Being the only volcanic opposition to the Alvarez asteroid, I was, of course, apprehensive. You were so kind, and the conversation so animated, that it set the tone for the rest of the day. Because I respect you, I am distressed to have to write this letter concerning the organizing committee of the Snowbird II conference--which seemed "stacked" to favor the impactors--and that of the proposed Snowbird III conference, which is much the same.

**, the Snowbird II organizing committee, as I understand it, was made up of twelve people--ten impactors, and two volcanists. That seems an egregious imbalance for a topic so important as the K-T extinctions debate. Certainly, committees operating under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences can exercise whatever prerogatives, and establish whatever committee structures they choose, and I respect that right. What distresses me were the real world outcomes of that impactor-dominated Snowbird II committee--persistent comments that the Snowbird II conference was, itself, rigged to allow the impactors to politically overwhelm their volcanist opponents.

I did not attend Snowbird II but, out of curiosity, examined the Snowbird II speaker/poster schedule that I have. In fact, one might argue that a case can be made to support the charges that Snowbird II was rigged to favor the impactors. The foremost K-T volcano-extinction researchers were relegated to minor roles at Snowbird II. The way Snowbird II was set up, the volcanists never had an even chance.

For example, one can argue that the committee ran in a "ringer" to set a negative tone for K-T volcanism at the beginning of the Snowbird II conference. This was Peter Lipman, who was invited to present a major hour-long, lead-off address on "Catastrophic Volcanism."

Lipman was no expert on the subject of volcanic influence in mass extinctions. In fact, examination of the Bibliography and Index of Geology from March, 1989, back to 1977, for Lipman's experience in volcanism-biological extinction linkage shows nothing on the subject--except for his Snowbird II abstract where he states, "I examine such processes from the viewpoint of a field volcanologist, rather than as a previous participant in controversies concerning the interrelations between extinctions, impacts, and volcanism."

If the Snowbird II organizing committee had been fair-minded, it would have invited a volcanist with experience on linking volcanic-induced physicochemical perturbation of earth's outer spheres to the physicochemistry of the biosphere.

Even worse for the volcanic side of the K-T debate, the leading volcanists such as Courtillot, Cisowski, Crocket, Loper, McCartney, Hansen and Rice--who had been part of the debate for years--were not even allowed to address the assembled group, but were relegated to the insignificance of poster sessions. Chuck Officer, one of the foremost K-T volcanists, was buried in a 25 minute talk slot on the second day.

For the real world--the message from the conference to the public--the impactors had more than adequate time to get their message across to the audience--and then to the public via Richard Kerr of Science magazine.

A rigged scientific conference can be insidiously damaging to a scientific debate, and especially so in light of the fact that Richard Kerr, who has covered many K-T meetings for Science magazine, has openly promoted the asteroid--and literally censored out K-T volcanism--for the past decade (please see attached Tables I and II).

Since 1980, Kerr has written 21 "Research News" pro-asteroid reports, and one hinting that volcanism may have been involved in the K-T extinctions. Following Snowbird II, Kerr wrote in Science (1988, v. 242, pp. 865-867) that "No one asked for a show of hands, but a vote among those attending the conference . . . would have given a clear-cut victory to an asteroid or comet." And in the Washington Post (5/7/89) that, "Scientists have at last concluded a 10-year debate . . . "and the evidence is solidly on the side of an impact."

Through Kerr, the impactors have had a direct pipeline to the people, and they have used the prestige and vast readership of Science magazine to great advantage for themselves. For the past decade, college freshmen have come to my Historical Geology class already conditioned in their high schools "to believe" in the Alvarez asteroid.

The K-T debate has become one of the great episodes of pathogenic science in history. One might argue that the Snowbird II organizing committee, operating under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, has contributed to this tragedy for science.

Now, again--unfortunately for the volcano side of the K-T debate--history seems to be repeating itself. The Snowbird III organizing committee also has only two non-impactors. The K-T debate is really about impact versus volcanism in the K-T extinctions. The committee has one volcanist--Chuck Drake.

**, some murky politics that have molded public perception of the K-T debate are in the process of being exposed. They involve threats to silence opponents of the Alvarez asteroid, attempts to damage opponents, and other details on creating the illusion that the asteroid has a stronger base than it really has.

It would be a shame if stacked committees operating under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences could be shown to have rigged scientific debates to overwhelm their opponents, and deluded the public. This would run contrary to the American spirit and, I would hope, the principles of the National Academy of Sciences.

With my warmest regards, I am

Cordially yours,

D. M. McLean
Professor, and Director of Earth Systems and Biosphere Evolution Studies

***********************************************************************
Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Creationism_vs_Evolution/index.html
***********************************************************************