Guillermo Gonzalez — the latest

_{William Dembski

November 28, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Backers battle ISU professor’s tenure denial
By LISA ROSSI • REGISTER AMES BUREAU • November 28, 2007

Ames, Ia. — The fight will rage on over Iowa State University astronomy professor Guillermo Gonzalez, who advocated for intelligent design, the theory that disputes parts of evolution, and lost a bid for tenure.

Advocates for Gonzalez said in a release distributed Tuesday that they will hold a news conference at 11 a.m. Monday in Des Moines. There, they said, they will discuss documents they contend will prove that Gonzalez “lost his job” because he supports intelligent design, not because he was deficient as a scholar. Gonzalez’s backers say an appeal to the Iowa Board of Regents and possibly a lawsuit would be the next steps.

MORE

Comments

Don't meet the standards of your department? They are, clearly, unreasonable. It's not possible that you just failed.Bugsy_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PST}

“he failed to meet the expectations for scholarly achievement for a faculty member in the department of physics and astronomy during the six years of his probationary, pre-tenure period of appointment.” Are grants considered a "scholarly achievment"? Geoffroy said he focused his review on Gonzalez’s overall record of scientific accomplishment as an assistant professor at ISU. Are grants considered a "scientific accomplishment"? I doubt it because: He also said he considered peer review publications, Gonzalez’s level of success in attracting research funding and grants, the amount of telescope observing time he had been granted, the number of graduate students he had supervised and the overall evidence of his future career promise in the field of astronomy. It looks like grants are third on the list. And as I have already stated if finding habitable planets does not attract research grants then there is a problem with the institutions funding the grants.Joseph_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PST}

I don't know what ajl's background is, but I think that he is essentially correct. I saw that as a graduate student. Faculty are expected to bring in money. This is why I have chosen a different career path than attempting to gain tenure at a large research institution. There is a tremendous amount of pressure. Why do you think many institutions don't want to be associated with ID (Baylor). There's no money in it. Sad but true.DrDan_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PST}

Hi Dave. Here are some perspectives: Surely if grant money is so important to job performance for professors in ISU’s astronomy department a minimum sum is written down somewhere in the tenure track performance guidelines. ya-think, huh? But, that is not how it works. Remember, academia is not Dell :-) In many ways, its stupid, but its the only process you've got. So no, you will not find in any University, anywhere benchmarks for tenure. Only vague ideas. I know you don't like this answer, but it is the correct perspective at what happens at Universities. But, theres more... Otherwise how would a tenure track professor know if he’s on track or not in this regard? thats right. and, thats also reality in academia. Now, of course you also have tenure review. So, the other question is, what was said to GG during his review. Sometimes his committee would say "you are doing great with publications, but you really need to work on getting some grants in the next 3 years". I'm not sure if that happened or not. He published more than even the head of the astronomy department! well, oftentimes heads of departments no longer publish as their administrative duties just become overwhelming. it is assumed, without being written down anywhere, that publication requires money to conduct the research which is being published. not really. There are two things here: 1. for some fields, research does not require that much money. Think of your field in computing. If I am being paid to teach courses, perhaps I have enough money to live on now. At a research university you may only teach 1 course, so you have all this other free time (for which you are expected to do research). So, during that free time, me and my computer work to develop really cool algorithms, and I publish them. Thats not good. The University is paying me to only teach one course, and giving me a good salary to do that. The reason they are doing that is so that I have alot of free time to do research and generate income. 2. the other issue is this: did GG make his money from Priviledged Planet? If so, that money went to GG, not to Iowa. The University, wants, needs, and DEMANDS indirect costs. That is why when you are at a research university you only teach 3-6 credits a semester, but when you are at a teaching university you teach 12 credits per semester. If you only teach 3 credits, then you better darn well generate a few hundred thousand dollars a year. And, if you are using that free time to create other materials where YOU are generating income for yourself but not the university, that wouldn't be good. It would be like a Dell salesman building garagatronics PCs in his garage and selling them out of the back of his Dell supplied automobile. Dell would never stand for that. They expect the salesman to do something for them. When he gets fired he can't say: yeah, but look at all the computers I built in my garage. Indeed, if the record of published research is extraordinary with little cost that is considered a good thing. Dave, Dave, Dave. You are thinking like a businessman, not an academic :-) At Dell, you are absolutely correct. If you could develop something cheap, then you are set. But, imagine that the product you develop generates no income at Dell. Dell would not want it. At a University, research generates income. Income pays for labs. Income pays for graduate stipends, administrator salaries, etc. Remember, GG probably had a low teaching load. So, he is expected to bring in money. Look at it this way: suppose you got a $100 grant. Well, about $50 would go to you, and $50 to the University. Of the $50 at the University, about $25 goes to your individual college (to pay salaries, but computers, fix buildings, scholarships, etc.). Of the $25, about $12 goes to the Department (to pay for the secretary, paint the offices, provide undergraduates with money, etc.). Now, if it is true that GG only generated around $64K (god, I hope its not true), then that is beyond awful. And, thats only because his job requirements are to bring in money.ajl_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST}

Also, the 10 publications that I found were only the ones in which he was first author. I'm sure he is co-author in many moreDrDan_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PST}

Hello all, Go to http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html to do a litature seach on Guillermo Gonzalez. I found about 10 peer reviewed publications for Gonzalez since 2003. Furthermore, the topics were of a wide variety which is impressive in this age of over-specialization.DrDan_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PST}

aardpig Surely if grant money is so important to job performance for professors in ISU's astronomy department a minimum sum is written down somewhere in the tenure track performance guidelines. Otherwise how would a tenure track professor know if he's on track or not in this regard? A minimum number of publications is given in those guidelines but unless everyone somehow missed it there is no mention of grant money. Gonzalez easily rose above the publication requirements. Indeed he surpassed his tenured and non-tenured peers in the ISU astronomy department in that regard. He published more than even the head of the astronomy department! While SciAm is not peer reviewed, per se, a cover story is an accomplishment that few astronomers in the world manage to get and one that no one else in ISU's astronomy department can brag about. Since SciAm is an old and well respected popular science journal that can be seen prominently on every magazine rack in the western world this represents a tremendous positive advertisement for both Gonzalez personally and for the ISU astronomy department in general. The fact of the matter is that it is assumed, without being written down anywhere, that publication requires money to conduct the research which is being published. In other words the proof of the pudding is in the tasting not the expense of making it. That is why no minimum amount of grant funding is written in the tenure track guidelines. Indeed, if the record of published research is extraordinary with little cost that is considered a good thing. Better results at lower cost is something to be strived for not something to be shunned. Anyone with any financial sense at all should know that.DaveScot_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PST}

"Galatic Habitable Zone" was also published in Icarus. But let's consider 15-20 papers over 5 years- That is 3+ per year! Writing a paper takes research. Research takes time. Research in astronomy takes quite a bit of time due to the vast distances involved. (it takes time to detect movement in far-away bodies) The number of papers he was involved with seems to be OK- 1+ every 4 months. During that time he also was one of the authors of an astronomy textbook. I would say the number of papers bows to the quality of research papers. Now if universities want funding- ie grants- then perhaps they should have a full-time staff that does that and thereby letting the scientists do what scientists do- research. Professors/ scientists should: 1- Teach students 2- Drive original research 3- Report on said research 4- Get the students involved in the research as for his future career- well he did tell us where to look and what to look for to find habitable planets. To me that is huge! And if that doesn't bring in the $$$ then I would say there is something else that is preventing that from happening.Joseph_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PST}

I'm not an astronomer, but I am a scientist in a research university, and I can confirm that aardpig's description of the factors that matter in tenure decisions is accurate. gore: If GG had only $64,000 from the one major funder (NASA) on the list, and it was spread from 2001-2004 as stated in the link you cite, then that would be considered meager funding in ANY field. University jobs are hard to get, and there is fierce competition. In my department, someone with GG's funding record would probably not survive tenure review because there are many more scientists coming up through the ranks who have better funding records. We would have needed an exceptional reason to grant GG tenure, rather than recruit someone else who can contribute more.MacT_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PST}

One of the great things about the internet is anyone can be a professor of astronomy huh aardpig;)! Especially when it comes to lurking ID websites with something to prove! If you read the link provided by russ, he shows that Gonzalez had funding from NASA... As for how much money is expected to be received to keep tenure, I will ask actual professors of astronomy at NAU tomorrow. Ooh wait, am I still supposed to pretend to be the professor? Anyhow, I will post tomorrow with my findings!gore_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PST}

aardpig, Interesting details. And if it wasn't for the aggressive moves against intelligent design, and apparently Professor Gonzalez personally as a result of his ID affiliation, I think concern about the event would be minimal. But, you say one thing, and other sources say something different. And considering the 'sink ID at all costs attitudes' some have thrown around (Are they sympathetic to ID? Flunk 'em! Is the paper suggest of ID? Sink it!), I've got to say that all of the noise being made about this can only help straighten things out. Problems like this are unavoidable when there's such strong ideaology in play. And really, I don't just mean on the side of some ID proponents.nullasalus_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PST}

I'm sorry, but Casey Luskin isn't qualified to evaluate Gonzales' publication record. He's a lawyer, not an astronomer. I, however, *am* an astronomer. While none of us will probably ever know what went on at ISU, let me offer some perspectives based on my *own* experience of the tenure process in astronomy departments at research universities. First, publications. If you count only papers in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, then Gonzales' publication count over the 5 years leading up to the tenure decision is on the order of 15-20. Of these, he is only the first author on a minority. This is a less-than-stellar (pardon the pun) record for someone who is up for tenure *in Astronomy* (Luskin's comparison with other, non-Astronomy faculty at ISU who were up for tenure at the same time as Gonzalez is disingenuous, since norms vary from field to field). Moreover, the grant money brought in by Gonzalez was lacking, both in amount and sustainability. As a rule of thumb, to get tenure at a research university, not only must one land typically $500k or more on funding; but this funding should come from a mainstream source such as NASA, DOE, NSF, etc. The university needs to know that you've got the ability to land big grants from organizations that are in the habit of giving out big grants. One-off contributions from organizations like DI and the Templeton Foundation just won't cut it. Things are rather different at liberal arts colleges, where the emphasis is more on teaching (and perhaps getting undergraduates involved in research). However, at a primarily research-based university, grant income is king. During a recent faculty hiring process at my own institution, it was stipulated that desirable candidates should be able to bring in c. $300k PER ANNUM. Compare that to Gonzales' record, and it's clear that he wasn't even in the running.aardpig_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PST}

Below is an excerpt from an article discussing GG's research funding: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/misinformation_left_unchecked.html
Rossi's implication is that Professor Gonzalez was denied tenure because he didn’t receive enough grant money. Ironically, this is refuted by an op-ed the Des Moines Register printed by ISU physicist John Hauptman, who admitted that his vote against Gonzalez's tenure was based solely on Gonzalez's support for intelligent design. Moreover, Gonzalez actually received more grant money than many of those given tenure at ISU this year, and he has more peer-reviewed publications than nearly all of those approved for tenure. Clearly, it is incredible to believe that Gonzalez was objectively less qualified than the 91% of ISU faculty applying for tenure in 2007 who were approved.
russ_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PST}

Erm, gore -- SciAm is not a peer reviewed article; it is a popular science magazine. And in response to other posters: arguably, the amount of money brought in is the *most* important factor in tenure decisions at research universities. Gonzalez really didn't bring in any significant amount of money, and that would have counted strongly against him.aardpig_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PST}

btw, the link I posted shows the actual article (I am not sure if its just an abstract, or the whole thing). Hm, peer reviewed ID article? No wonder they want to get rid of him!gore_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PST}

I doubt that he was a bad professor, or didn't bring in any money. Here is what it says on the website I belived for the center of complexity. It states "Guillermo Gonzalez has also published over sixty articles in professional astronomy and astrophysical journals including Astronomy and Astrophysics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Astrophysical Journal and Solar Physics. His current research interest in astrobiology focuses on the "Galactic Habitable Zone" which was the featured cover story in the October 2001 issue of Scientific American." Being skeptical of things myself (even tho, I am in favor of ID) I looked into it for myself. Here is a link of it in the scientific american. I can't tell by the picture of the magazine if it is about his article. However, check out the link. http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=D58C8F02-6ED0-4FEE-B12C-BE6BC261B6C I hope this helps!gore_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PST}

ISU doesn’t strike me as a “hot-bed” for scientific endeavors
Maybe. But the astronomy program is considered quite good. In 2000 the National Academies Press ranked it #30 among astronomy and astrophysics programs. It's something even to be on that list, which only covers the top programs. I'm only pointing out that, since it is a top-flight program, it's no shame to be denied tenure. Getting big grants seems to be a key.getawitness_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PST}

Gloppy, I don't think that research dollars and scholarship are mutually exclusive. I'm only writing this because I sense that people are going to defend GG without knowing all the facts. I think it was wrong not to tenure GG. But, that being said, if he didn't raise money, then he has left a gaping hole in his portfolio at a major research institution.ajl_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PST}

Off topic: Another "surprise" for materialists/evolutionists 'Intelligence genes' proving hard to find: study http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071128/ts_afp/sciencebiotechgenesintelligence_071128185555bornagain77_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PST}

ajl sez:
Most everyone in academia knows that indirect costs are critical to running a university, and a critical part of a professor’s job.
YES! Scholarship is old hat. Now we have SUPPLY SIDE ACADEMICS! Get modern. GloppyGalapagos Finch_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PST}

But as joseph said, ISU is no astronomically good cosmology school (sorry for the pun, but it was easy), so I don't think G should sweat this one. There are plenty of other universities that will allow him to speak his mind. Maybe he should just play the Darwinist's game until he gets tenure there. Then it will be too late to take any action against him, even if they could.Dog_of_War_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PST}

just be careful you don't jump the gun on this one. A few months back, we blogged on this, and a real debate came about that GG did not bring in hardly any money. Many people said "thats not important". Well, it is. Its very important to a research university. Most everyone in academia knows that indirect costs are critical to running a university, and a critical part of a professor's job. I certainly hope its not true (that GG did not bring in much research), but if it is, I don't want to see ID people getting egg on their face on this one.ajl_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PST}

ISU doesn’t strike me as a “hot-bed” for scientific endeavors
Well that is exactly it. They want to improve their reputation and don't want to be associated with ID, kind of like Baylor.Jehu_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PST}

ISU spokesman John McCarroll said in an e-mail that Gonzalez did not receive tenure because "he failed to meet the expectations for scholarly achievement for a faculty member in the department of physics and astronomy during the six years of his probationary, pre-tenure period of appointment." ISU President Gregory Geoffroy said in June that Gonzalez's advocacy of the "intelligent design" concept was not a factor in the decision to turn down his request for tenure. Geoffroy said he focused his review on Gonzalez's overall record of scientific accomplishment as an assistant professor at ISU. He also said he considered peer review publications, Gonzalez's level of success in attracting research funding and grants, the amount of telescope observing time he had been granted, the number of graduate students he had supervised and the overall evidence of his future career promise in the field of astronomy.
It will be interesting to see if they support those claims. And even though there may be a point to be made in this case perhaps Gonzalez should just say bye-bye to Iowa State and find refuge at a university that promotes open discussions about the scientific data, evidence and observations. ISU doesn't strike me as a "hot-bed" for scientific endeavors...Joseph_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply