Iowa State University denies tenure to gifted pro-ID astronomer

Does Leading Your Department & Co-Authoring a Peer-Reviewed Cambridge University Press Textbook Mean You’ve "Slowed Down"?

by Casey Luskin


The Chronicle of Higher Education began its recent article on Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure case by admitting that Dr. Gonzalez "has amassed a better publication record than almost any other member of the astronomy faculty," and that, "at first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination." But the article was desperately looking for a way to attack Gonzalez. They managed to find one astronomer (who admitted he "has not studied Mr. Gonzalez's work in detail and is not an expert on Gonzalez’s tenure case") who was willing to make the argument that Dr. Gonzalez’s production has "slowed down considerably" at Iowa State University (ISU), alleging that "it's not clear that he started new things" since joining ISU. What an incredibly false pair of accusations against Dr. Gonzalez.

One of Dr. Gonzalez’s recent accomplishments at ISU that has received less attention is his co-authorship of a prestigiously published astronomy textbook, Observational Astronomy. Published by Cambridge University Press and also peer-reviewed, the textbook is used in Dr. Gonzalez’s own department to teach astronomy. Aside from his own department, universities internationally use Observational Astronomy, including University of Toronto, New Jersey’s Science & Technology University, University of Manitoba, Valparaiso University, and Franklin and Marshall College. Prestigious textbook authorship is a new avenue of scholarship for Dr. Gonzalez since he joined ISU. How can his critics sustain the claim that he has not "started new things" at ISU?

This is not Dr. Gonzalez’s only recent foray into textbooks. The concept of "galactic habitable zone," a term that Science reported was "coined in 2001 by astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez" (Robert Irion, "Are Most Life-Friendly Stars Older Than the Sun?," Science Vol. 303:27, 01/02/2004), is discussed in the latest edition of the college introductory astronomy textbook The Cosmic Perspective (Addison Wesley Publishing, 2007, 4th ed., pg. 723).

Another measure of a scientist’s productivity is the number of citations to his or her work by other scientists. As we recently reported, Guillermo Gonzalez has the highest normalized citation count among all astronomers in his department since 2001, the year he joined ISU. What makes this significant is that he leads his department in normalized citations even in recent years, such as 2006, the same year he published Observational Astronomy. To maintain that level of output shows he is working—and producing—very hard and very effectively. His work has not "slowed down considerably" since joining ISU. In fact, Dr. Gonzalez is making a larger individual impact upon his field, measured by normalized citation counts, than any other astronomer in his department since the year he joined ISU.

Perhaps next time the Chronicle of Higher Education will be able to find a foil who actually has "studied Mr. Gonzalez's work in detail" so they aren’t embarrassed by such baseless comments.
 
Teleo, when you cut&paste other people's lies, at least check the previous posts to see if the lies had already been refuted. That will save you some embarrassment.

Gonzalez published zero (!) scientific papers in 2004, 3 in 2005, 3 in 2006, and 1 so far in 2007. That is a considerable slowdown compared to the years when he was a postdoc. This would be the pace of a good graduate student, not a professor.

Citations are like moving averages. They are a late indicator of scientific productivity. The author of your article is either a complete idiot or is trying deliberately to mislead here. The papers that got the high citation numbers were published when he was a postdoc. They in no way reflect his productivity at Iowa State.

The concept of "galactic habitable zone," presumably coined by Gonzalez in 2001, before he came to Iowa State, also in no way reflects his work at Iowa State.

The textbook is probably the only thing that he had to show for his 7 years at Iowa State. Is that enough? It would be enough for a third tier university but Iowa State would definitely consider itself to be first tier.
 
2cents wrote:

besides even if u were a noted astronomer but started making a case and publishing a pseudo-scientific book as to why the earth is so remarkably flat and has stars revolving around it instead of seriously researching all alternatives, I sure wldn't want u anywhere near kids...
More...

2cents doesn't know what he's talking about. Read the article below and you will see an impressive list of scientists that praise the book in question.

Praise from Scientists for The Privileged Planet

By Robert Crowther


The book has garnered praise from an impressive list of scientists, including some prominent supporters of biological evolution. Consider just a few of The Privileged Planet's endorsements and ask yourself whether the ideas raised in this book presented any kind of valid reason for removing Gonzalez from his university:

Is our universe a blind concatenation of atoms, evolution a random walk across a meaningless landscape, and our sense of purpose a pathetic shield against a supremely indifferent world? Or does the universe and our place within it click into place, repeatedly? These starkly different views open up immense metaphysical and theological questions, and at least part of the answer must come from science and the unfolding triumphs of cosmology, astronomy, and evolution.

In a book of magnificent sweep and daring Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards drive home the arguments that the old cliché of no place like home is eerily true of Earth. Not only that, but if the scientific method was to emerge anywhere, the Earth is about as suitable as you can get. Gonzalez and Richards have flung down the gauntlet. Let the debate begin; it is a question that involves us all.

Simon Conway Morris
Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology, University of Cambridge
Author of Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe


This thoughtful, delightfully contrarian book will rile up those who believe the ‘Copernican principle’ is an essential philosophical component of modern science. Is our universe designedly congenial to intelligent, observing life? Passionate advocates of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) will find much to ponder in this carefully documented analysis.

Owen Gingerich
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Author of The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus


Not only have Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards written a book with a remarkable thesis, they have constructed their argument on an abundance of evidence and with a cautiousness of statement that make their volume even more remarkable. In my opinion, their Privileged Planet deserves very careful attention.

Michael J. Crowe
Cavanaugh Professor Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame
Author of The Extraterrestrial Life Debate 1750-1900


Impressively researched and lucidly written, The Privileged Planet will surely rattle if not finally dislodge a pet assumption held by many interpreters of modern science: the so-called Copernican Principle (which isn’t actually very Copernican!). But Gonzalez and Richards’ argument, though controversial, is so carefully and moderately presented that any reasonable critique of it must itself address the astonishing evidence which has for so long somehow escaped our notice. I therefore expect this book to renew—and to raise to a new level—the whole scientific and philosophic debate about earth’s cosmic significance. It is a high class piece of work that deserves the widest possible audience.

Dennis Danielson
Professor of English, University of British Columbia
Editor, The Book of the Cosmos: Imagining the Universe from Heraclitus to Hawking


In this fascinating and highly original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards advance a persuasive argument, and marshal a wealth of diverse scientific evidence to justify that argument. In the process, they effectively challenge several popular assumptions, not only about the nature and history of science, but also about the nature and origin of the cosmos. The Privileged Planet will be impossible to ignore. It is likely to change the way we view both the scientific enterprise and the world around us. I recommend it highly.

Philip Skell
Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus of Physics, Pennsylvania State University
Member, National Academy of Sciences


This new book is an excellent and timely contribution to the broadening and increasingly important discussion of origins.

Henry F. Schaefer III
Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry
Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia
Five-Time Nobel Prize Nominee
 
1. Despite the praises you quoted, you can see that most scientists quoted disagreed with the opinions in the book.

2. Your quotes are proof that most scientists are open minded, and do not hesitate to praise works that oppose to their own beliefs.

3. At the end, it's the quality of work, not theology, that wins scientific arguments.

Which one is it? That the scientists love Gonzalez's work, or that they hate it? You can't have it both ways. You just provided the perfect counter example to the main point of this thread.
 
I think this episode is pretty clear. There was an organized effort among the faculty to blackball this guy, and it had nothing to do with his producitivity or lack thereof. It was based soley and expressly on his religious beliefs. They were able to intimidate enough other faculty and administrators to deny this man what he was entitled to. So much for tenure "protecting academic freedom."

I look forward to the inevitable lawsuit.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think this episode is pretty clear. There was an organized effort among the faculty to blackball this guy, and it had nothing to do with his producitivity or lack thereof. It was based soley and expressly on his religious beliefs. They were able to intimidate enough other faculty and administrators to deny this man what he was entitled to. So much for tenure "protecting academic freedom."

I look forward to the inevitable lawsuit.
More...

In addition to being an occasional rumor monger, now you're a mind reader as well. What a talent!
 
Let there be a lawsuit, let there be a discovery process, let there be depositions, let a jury decide...etc.

Let the truth come out, after all, that is really all you want...right?

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

In addition to being an occasional rumor monger, now you're a mind reader as well. What a talent!
More...
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

In addition to being an occasional rumor monger, now you're a mind reader as well. What a talent!
More...

I don't have to be the Amazing Kreskin to know what happened here. And it had nothing to do with publications.
 
The Truth about Research Grants, Gonzalez and ISU

by John West


As evidence has mounted that intelligent design played a role in the denial of tenure to gifted astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University, efforts to distract attention from that fact have also increased. The latest salvo is a one-sided article in today's Des Moines Register that implies that inadequate research funding must have been the key factor. Reading like it was produced by ISU's press office, the article distorts Gonzalez's actual research funding as well as the published standards at Iowa State. The article follows unfounded speculation at various websites and blogs where some people have falsely claimed that Gonzalez had no research funding at the time he was at ISU. Here are the facts:

1. As we have reported previously, outside research funding is not a published criterion for earning tenure in Dr. Gonzalez's department. Indeed, it isn't even mentioned in the departmental standards for tenure and promotion. So if this factor was considered key in his tenure denial, Gonzalez's department was applying a criterion outside of its own stated standards. (The primary standard according to the departmental policy on tenure and promotion is peer-reviewed publications, and 15 articles are "ordinarily" supposed to "demonstrate excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation." Dr. Gonzalez has 68 peer-reviewed publications, or 350% more than the departmental standard. Twenty-one of these articles were published since 2002, the year after Dr. Gonzalez arrived at ISU.)

2. Contrary to some reports, Dr. Gonzalez did receive outside grant funding during his time at ISU:

From 2001-2004, Dr. Gonzalez was a Co-Investigator on a NASA Astrobiology Institute grant for "Habitable Planets and the Evolution of Biological Complexity" (his part of the grant for this time period was $64,000).

From 2000-2003, Dr. Gonzalez received a $58,000 grant from the Templeton Foundation. This grant was awarded as part of a competitive, peer-reviewed grant process, and his winning grant proposal had been peer-reviewed by a number of distinguished astronomers and scientists.

Earlier in 2007, Dr. Gonzalez was awarded a 5-year research grant for his work in observational astronomy from Discovery Institute (worth $50,000).

3. Using selective figures provided by ISU, the Register implies that one was expected to bring in an average of $1.3 million in grant funding to get tenure in Dr. Gonzalez's department. Again, there is nothing in the departmental standards about this, and it is hard to know how accurate or comparable this figure is without seeing the specific data for all of the astronomers in the department, and without seeing comparable data from other departments at ISU. Unfortunately, ISU has thus far stonewalled efforts to get grant and publications data for those considered for tenure during the past several years. On May 16 Discovery Institute filed a public documents request for the grant and publication data of those considered for tenure in Dr. Gonzalez's department since 1997 and for faculty in other departments considered for tenure since 2002. Thus far the university has provided no data in response to these requests, nor as of today has it responded to repeated requests about when the materials will be provided.

It is worth pointing out again that 91% of ISU faculty considered for tenure this year received it. Did they all receive more than a million dollars in grants in order to get tenure? Did they all exceed by 350% their departmental standards for publications? We are trying to find out, but ISU apparently doesn't want people to know the answers to these questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top