Black professor pro adult stem cell only research, denied M.I.T. tenure

[hellokeith]

Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Associated Press

A black professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began a hunger strike Monday to protest the university's decision to deny him tenure ? a decision he claims was based on racism.

James Sherley, 49, is known for his controversial theories about stem cells. He works with adult stem cells and opposes research using human embryonic stem cells, saying it amounts to taking human life.

Sherley said he has tried unsuccessfully for two years to persuade MIT administrators to reverse a decision by his department head to reject his bid for tenure. He had warned school officials he would start the hunger strike Feb. 5 outside the office of MIT provost L. Rafael Reif.

He stood outside Reif's office for several hours Monday morning, accompanied by about 25 friends and supporters. He said he plans to ingest only water, vitamins and electrolyte supplements until MIT acknowledges racism played a role in the tenure decision. He said he would spend three hours each morning outside Reif's office, then continue his research work in his lab in the afternoons.

MIT Chancellor Phillip Clay would not comment on the specific reasons Sherley was not advanced on the tenure track. But he said administrators, as part of the tenure process, sought input from experts in Sherley's field outside MIT.

"He didn't come up to the standard we expect based on those inputs from the outside," Clay said.

I doubt how much this has to do with race as it has likely more to do with his ethical stance on embryonic stem cell research. Translation of the last bolded line: "He doesn't subscribe to our pro-killing innocent human life dogma, so we aren't going to let him be part of the boys club."

In September, Sherley won a prestigious Pioneer Award from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The $2.5 million grant is for scientists taking innovative approaches to biomedical problems.

Guess the pro-embryonic M.I.T. guys didn't ask the NIH for input on his qualifications.:disgust:

 

[ProfJohn]

I would like to know why he is not getting tenure before I make a judgment on this.

BTW which side does the media choose on this? A black man being held down by the whites? Or a crazy pro-lifer trying to push his radical ideas on the wider scientific community?

 

[DealMonkey]

Save the cells!

 

[senseamp]

Sounds like a sore loser to me. Good luck with his diet.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Translation of the last bolded line: "He doesn't subscribe to our pro-killing innocent human life dogma, so we aren't going to let him be part of the boys club."

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as the OP it wouldn't kill you to keep your personal bias out of first post about this article. You have no idea why he was denied tenure, it's presumptous to assume it has to do with anyone elses views about a perticular subject, and it's certainly not neccesary to link your views on embryonic stem cell research with their decision-making process. Lets try to keep an open mind.

I would be interested to hear why exactly they denied him tenure, obviously I would hope they have a good reason. I do however doubt racism is part of their reasoning, in the age we live in firing any minority for even the most obvious reasons can still be countered with a lawsuit, even if it's not a valid case, that's enough to make anyone paranoid about an issue like this so I assume they would have their ducks in a row.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds like a sore loser to me. Good luck with his diet.

Playing the race card is sure to win him a reversal - NOT

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Save the cells!

:thumbsup:

 

[imported_Shivetya]

my only question is, why do outsiders have say in who is tenured at the university? Shouldn't it be falculty and the alumni at most?

 

[ebaycj]

Hunger strikes inevitably lose out to survival instinct.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Save the cells!

:thumbsup:

It's kind of curious that this guy has associate professor status but doesn't have tenure. It's about 50:50 on the number of people on that list that are full prof vs associates. Further, he's a little bit of an underachiever to be nearly 19 years out of his degree program Hopkins (MD/PhD 88) and lack full prof status. Granted, that varies a lot by institution and department. Plus he's only got 26 pubs from 1988-2007.

The MD/PhD before him, Rosalind Segal, has 47 pubs though she graduated only two years prior (Rockefeller85, Cornell86). Plus she appears to split time between bench research and clinical duties.

He's a little chubby so the diet may do him some good.

 

[senseamp]

I didn't know Gary Coleman was at MIT

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I would like to know why he is not getting tenure before I make a judgment on this.

BTW which side does the media choose on this? A black man being held down by the whites? Or a crazy pro-lifer trying to push his radical ideas on the wider scientific community?

You win either way right? Its either the media making a big deal about a race issue or its the media degrading pro-lifers. It cant just be about someone reporting on a story, always has to be a spin to it :roll:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
my only question is, why do outsiders have say in who is tenured at the university? Shouldn't it be falculty and the alumni at most?

Tenure decisions are a black box. One guy in my department is getting the boot after this year and all of the students are campaigning for him to stick around becaues he's a great teacher and mentor. I'm not sure how many publications he has. When we asked the department chair, he just says 'don't make any judgments... You don't know the facts,' then refuses to give us the facts. It's all hush-hush, probably to avoid just this sort of controversy.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Shivetya
my only question is, why do outsiders have say in who is tenured at the university? Shouldn't it be falculty and the alumni at most?

Tenure decisions are a black box. One guy in my department is getting the boot after this year and all of the students are campaigning for him to stick around becaues he's a great teacher and mentor. I'm not sure how many publications he has. When we asked the department chair, he just says 'don't make any judgments... You don't know the facts,' then refuses to give us the facts. It's all hush-hush, probably to avoid just this sort of controversy.

It's not a black box:

1) leader (or up N comer in your field) - bunch of publications with at least a few being highly referenced works

2) rainmaker - grants . . . center grants, site grants, project grants . . . and most importantly . . . renewable grants

3) got a clue - how does your work fit in the roadmap (for those doing biological sciences/NIH)

4) don't be an arse - you get tenure . . . then you can be an arse . . . usually a great big arse


Now if you do ALL of the above and don't get tenure:

1) Your institution may be unfair.
2) Your institution may be broke.
3) You may need to consider killing someone in your department that has tenure.
4) Uh . . . the other people seeking tenure may be better.
5) Your institution may be holding a slot for someone they plan to steal from another institution.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Translation of the last bolded line: "He doesn't subscribe to our pro-killing innocent human life dogma, so we aren't going to let him be part of the boys club."

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as the OP it wouldn't kill you to keep your personal bias out of first post about this article.

Ummm, unless I misunderstand the P&N posting rules, you are required to inject your personal bias (or analysis, basically same thing) or your post will be locked.

Originally posted by: Arcex

I would be interested to hear why exactly they denied him tenure, obviously I would hope they have a good reason. I do however doubt racism is part of their reasoning, in the age we live in firing any minority for even the most obvious reasons can still be countered with a lawsuit, even if it's not a valid case, that's enough to make anyone paranoid about an issue like this so I assume they would have their ducks in a row.

Hmm.... After seeing that he has received a hefty & respected grant award, your remarks above strike me as a compelling arguement that he was, in fact, denied tenure because of his stem cell stance.

It's not incompetence, it's not race. So yeah, it's like it's the stem cell thingy.

Reminds me of the recent story about the female climatologist (or something similar) who suggested that any weather person who questions global warming have their license revoked.

Fern

 

[Balt]

There is nothing in the article to indicate that his stance on stem cell research has caused him to be denied tenure.

I'm sure if he's as spectacular as the OP seems to think, he'll have quite an easy time finding a job somewhere else.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Save the cells!

:thumbsup:

It's kind of curious that this guy has associate professor status but doesn't have tenure. It's about 50:50 on the number of people on that list that are full prof vs associates. Further, he's a little bit of an underachiever to be nearly 19 years out of his degree program Hopkins (MD/PhD 88) and lack full prof status. Granted, that varies a lot by institution and department. Plus he's only got 26 pubs from 1988-2007.

The MD/PhD before him, Rosalind Segal, has 47 pubs though she graduated only two years prior (Rockefeller85, Cornell86). Plus she appears to split time between bench research and clinical duties.

He's a little chubby so the diet may do him some good.

Cool, two people I know on that list.

Anyway for the OP, lots of people don't get tenure. My office neighbor just got turned down even though her lab seems to be thriving. But she's not hunger striking, she's lined up another position with a raise in pay.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I didn't want to say it . . . but . . . there is the possibility that the only reason this guy received the Pioneer Award was because he was working on ADULT stem cells. NIH, like other institutions during the Bush reign, aren't exactly tied to the notion of meritocracy above all.

And from my previous post . . . this guy may have arsehole tendencies.

MercatorNet: Your rejection of therapeutic cloning must be a lonely stand, especially in Cambridge, where therapeutic cloning is championed by several eminent researchers at MIT and Harvard. Why do you think most scientists back it?

Sherley: I don?t know that they are doing anything more than protecting their own turf and promoting their own goals with a variety of motivations, including, in some cases, the best intentions of doing public good. However, they can often turn an amazingly blind eye to the contradictions in their position on therapeutic cloning. For example, the same scientists who argue that reproductive cloning would produce disease-ridden individuals insist that tissues created from therapeutic cloning will function normally! Illogical position, hidden agenda.

He gave that interview 14 months ago. While we often cling to the notion of the Ivory Tower being the epitome of meritocracy . . . you still have to watch out for calling the wrong people names.

If you click on the first full prof in his division, Ann Belcher, she got her degree 9 years after him (UC-Santa Barbara97) and has 37 pubs in half the time it took him to get 26.

The last guy listed as a full prof studies adult, cord blood, and fetal stem cells. Granted, he does other work as well.

You don't have to be incompetent to be denied tenure . . . just unexceptional . . . for a given institution.

The other issue is not meeting expectations. MD/PhD from Hopkins vs PhD from SUNY . . . it's not quite fair but if the former isn't the pacesetter . . . you'll get kicked to the curb. A mentor of one my mentors has the motto, 'under promise . . . overperform.'

 

[shadow9d9]

So, if you don't get tenure, you just need to blame it on a wedge issue to get attention... and then all the fools like the OP dance around it and say "see! see!"... This is no more "news" than fat people suing mcdonald's...

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Save the cells!

We can discard cells, starting with your own.

Originally posted by: Shivetya
my only question is, why do outsiders have say in who is tenured at the university? Shouldn't it be falculty and the alumni at most?

This is true, in practice they may be as prejudice and narrow minded as they see fit. The purpose after all, is indoctrination. However, don?t tax dollars fund them with specific strings attached? Pull on a string from Washington DC and you?ll be surprised what can or cannot happen.

 

[DVK916]

Why would anyone be against stem cell research. It has the potential to save billions of lives.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DVK916
Why would anyone be against stem cell research. It has the potential to save billions of lives.

Because they have this idea that a clump of cells are the moral equivalent of a human being simply because they contain all the genetic coding. Of course by this logic every single cell on your body is a human being and if you get a sunburn, you're committing murder.

There is this rather unscientific argument that the use of embryonic stem cells is unnecessary because adult stem cells can do all the things embryonic ones can, which is the type of argument this professor has probably put forward. However, this is exceptionally incorrect on a number of levels, and no serious stem cell researcher consider it a valid scientific position. While it's impossible to say why this guy was denied tenure, I think this is reason enough...he works in a field where he denies the science because he doesn't like where it leads. Which is great, but that should imply he belongs in another field. This whole half-ass bullshit people seem to be brining to various professions lately (pharmacist, scientist, cabdriver) isn't really more defensible because you have some particular religious belief. If you don't like what goes on in your job, find a new one. But you can't just ignore a fundamental part of your job because you don't like it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DVK916
Why would anyone be against stem cell research. It has the potential to save billions of lives.

I thought it was because in order to get these stem cells you have to destroy an embryo and that embryo you destroy would turn into a baby if it was placed within a uterus.

Also many on the religious right believe that life begins at conception and therefore when you destroy an embryo you are destroying a life.

It is a pretty complicated moral issue. And Rainsford totally misses the issue with his "clump of cells are the moral equivalent of a human being" statement. This 'clump of cells' would in fact turn into a human being in its natural state. The skin you kill when you go sunbathing will not turn into another human being.

And we should note that people are not against stem cell research, they are against certain types of stem cell research.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DVK916
Why would anyone be against stem cell research. It has the potential to save billions of lives.

I thought it was because in order to get these stem cells you have to destroy an embryo and that embryo you destroy would turn into a baby if it was placed within a uterus.

Also many on the religious right believe that life begins at conception and therefore when you destroy an embryo you are destroying a life.

It is a pretty complicated moral issue. And Rainsford totally misses the issue with his "clump of cells are the moral equivalent of a human being" statement. This 'clump of cells' would in fact turn into a human being in its natural state. The skin you kill when you go sunbathing will not turn into another human being.

And we should note that people are not against stem cell research, they are against certain types of stem cell research.

No, I'm pretty sure the point-missing is pretty much happening in ProfJohn land. I bolded the two key statements here. As you first noted, your second point is in fact wrong...the artificially created embryo would NOT "turn into a baby" unless we did something else with it, helped it along. Now you may not think that's comparable to laboratory cloning from a handful of skin cells, but the principle is EXACTLY the same. The "life" in question is in fact NOT going to become a human being without outside intervention. It's "natural state" is a producer of embryonic stem cells as much as it is a baby human being. My "clump of cells" argument is entirely valid, as it IS just a clump of cells by itself.

Now I'm not saying it's not a complicated moral issue, but if you'll read the rest of my post, you'll notice my point was much more broad than what I consider to be the beginning of life. Like most fields, stem cell research involves things as the core part of the field that people might object to for various reasons. Which is fine, but I don't see how they can expect to be given just as much consideration doing half the job as their peers putting in their full effort. Embryonic stem cell research is arguably far more important than adult stem cell research, but even if it wasn't, I don't think a reasonable person can think they deserve professional recognition when they aren't willing to do what their job requires. I respect people who think differently than I do, but that doesn't mean I think they should have a right to do whatever job they like in whatever manner they damn well please.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
no serious stem cell researcher consider it a valid scientific position..
he works in a field where he denies the science because he doesn't like where it leads. Which is great, but that should imply he belongs in another field. This whole half-ass bullshit people seem to be brining to various professions lately (pharmacist, scientist, cabdriver) isn't really more defensible because you have some particular religious belief. If you don't like what goes on in your job, find a new one. But you can't just ignore a fundamental part of your job because you don't like it.

Scientific tolerance at its best.:disgust: