The Catholic Exchange, reporting on the hunger strike, mentions racism only as another reason, but one linked to his stance on stem cell research.
Sherley himself alleges that he was opposed for tenure at MIT by his colleagues in part because his research “poses an intellectually disruptive threat.” . . . the researcher also charged the university with racism, saying that his fellow researchers “might tolerate and even celebrate such a challenge from a white faculty member, but never from one who is black.”
Rush Limbaugh took up Sherley’s cause:
But here is the key to this: “Mr. Sherley, who is 49, works with adult stem cells. He opposes research using human embryonic stem cells because he believes it amounts to taking human life.” Now, is this the real racism?
Is he being denied tenure not because of his race, but because he’s on the politically incorrect side of an issue of science? If you want to know — if you had any doubts — that science has become as politicized as any other institution in America, you need look no further than this story. Here’s a guy who wants tenure. He thinks he’s not getting it because it’s race based. He’s simply on the wrong side of the stem cell issue! This is MIT. They’re not going to tenure a guy who doesn’t fall in line on this embryonic stem cell business. “In September, Mr. Sherley won a prestigious $2.5 million grant from the National Institutes of Health,” but it means nothing. Now he’s on a starvation diet, simply because he hasn’t gotten tenure.
Nor has he shied from the topic. To some.
The website Pro-Life with Christ reports on an interview Dr. Sherley gave to Celebrate Life magazine.
Dr. James Sherley–recently denied tenure at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he says for his views on embryo research–accused some of his colleagues of deliberately misleading the public about the beginnings of human life in order to justify embryonic research. . . .
While Dr. Sherley said he initially attributed the MIT chair’s refusal to consider him for tenure to racism–Dr. Sherley is of African descent–suggestions by colleagues during the two-year investigation of his complaint pointed to his outspoken opposition to embryonic research as a major factor in the case.
And he has been vocal.
In criticizing Michael J. Fox for promoting stem cell research, Sherley said:
“Michael J. Fox doesn’t have all the information–he needs to make sure he gets the facts right. By criteria that scientists understand, a human embryo is alive. We all started out that way and it’s an insult to devalue someone based on his or her stage of life. It’s the same as saying that 50-year-olds are invalid.”
See also MercatorNet for an interview with him in 2005, To clone or not to clone, and another Globe piece from 2004, Stop the cloning madness.
Should all this matter? Should it be included in reports of his strike?
I’d say no if he was consistent in saying that he thought the reason he was denied tenure was because of racism. But even he says otherwise when it suits his audience.
I am left wondering if the race card is being tossed because every sane person can side with him on that. But if it’s about a fundamental disagreement with MIT about the science, doesn’t the university have the right to deny tenure? Would anyone expect them to grant tenure to a professor in a science department who doesn’t believe in evolution but wants to teach creationism?
I’m not saying that opposing embryonic stem cell research is akin to opposing evolution. I think it’s a legitimate area of disagreement.
James Sherley: Despite the confusion that some like to create on the questions of “are embryos human beings?” and “when does a human life begin?”, both scientists and physicians know very well that human embryos are alive and human. A human life begins when a diploid complement of human DNA is initiated to begin human development. Therefore, a life can be initiated by the fusion of sperm and egg or by the introduction of a diploid nucleus into an enucleated egg (ie, “cloning”).
Given that embryos are human beings, they have a right to self and a right to life. Exploiting their parts (ie, cells) or killing them for research is moral trespass that society should not allow. Even if the research might, and let’s be clear, might benefit others, this trespass is not justified.
What I’m saying is that I’m not a scientist, nor do I work at a university, so I don’t know if professors with different positions could work together or should. I’m just asking.
And I’m not alone.
For an inside-MIT perspective, check out the Redstar Perspective blog:
But, there’s no doubt in my mind now that Sherley chose his battle cry very carefully, choosing to believe that racism was a broader catch-all for his grievances than the fact that his choose-life-oriented science was seen as a poor and distasteful fit in this aggressively-entrepreneurial science and engineering institution in which academics are expected not only to produce original, cutting-edge research, but also to grapple with the commercial (i.e., money-making) application of their work (with BE being one of the more commercially-oriented departments on campus). Stem cell research and MIT both sit at the nexus of the academic-industry boundary. It is no surprise that BE has no desire to play host to a researcher who discredits both this area of research and his colleagues who do this work; there is also a strong debate that his research is not up to snuff (my own research on his publication record demonstrates that it is well below the average pub rates of his peers, and this is one of the most durable metrics in tenure cases. Yes, his NIH award suggests otherwise.).
(I assume “BE” means his department, Biological Engineering.)
(and before you ask, I do NOT oppose research on donated surplus embryos, but have problems with creating new ones specifically for research purposes – but, there are thousands of surplus embryos burned every day as medical waste, and THAT is a tragedy).
why is it racism or stem cells?
<
p>
why are you skeptical of MIT’s claim that he, like thousands of other brilliant phds denied tenure at top universities, wasn’t as good as other geniuses who DID get tenure?
…right?
<
p>
The issue of embryonic stem cells vs. adult stem cells has been all over even the popular science magazines such as Scientific American over the last few years. There are a number of problems regarding adult stem cells, including increased likelihood of induced cancer, that far less likely to be present in embryonic stem cells.
<
p>
BTW, don’t even think about diverting to the issue of amniotic stem cells.
who claim that “embryos breathe” or that scientists are deceiving people about when “human life begins.”
How rediculous it is of him to claim that embryos are warm to the touch. i guess that would be after he took them from the liquid nitrogen (decidedly not warm) and put them into growth media, the temp of which he, the researcher controls. They are not warm of their own volition.
All the homeless have to do to keep warm is use their volition! All living organisms will eventually succumb to the environment’s temperature, which often corresponds to when they die. Metabolizing creates heat, and embryos metabolize, they take in oxygen and nutrients and convert them to co2 and waste. That’s what he mean by both “are warm” and “breathe”, embryos aren’t inert pebbles that only start to metabolize when they are implanted. Granted, they can be frozen, and I don’t know whether they would qualify as being “alive” while they are frozen. I wouldn’t say so, I’d say they are dead, with a possibility of being brought back to life.
Sherley’s rhetoric is completely disingenuous though.
<
p>
From NIH: “The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst.”
<
p>
You think anyone’s going to feel that metabolic heat by “touch”?
There is nothing the the Globe article. A hunger strike following a denial of tenure really seems a bit much.
<
p>
Maybe they denied him tenure for his stated belief that human embryos breathe, despite their lack of lungs. Assuming that statement wasn’t just weird hyperbole or some strange, ill-fitting metaphor, it seems at odds with his area of study.
You’ve already said that you don’t think the analogy with opposition to evolution is perfectly apt, but I would say that it’s not even close.
<
p>
I don’t understand disagreement about “when a human life begins” to be a scientific disagreement at all. (It could be if there were disputed questions of fact, but I don’t see any evidence that that’s the case here. If he’s gotten this far in his career I don’t see how there could be.)
<
p>
I also don’t believe that ethical disputes regarding the uses to which science is put are best resolved by simply getting rid of everyone who holds the point of view which makes less money. Of course, for a university department with a certain focus, that’s exactly the best way to resolve it. But we really can’t afford to operate that way as a society, can we?
<
p>
I don’t imagine he’s got any kind of legal case on those grounds, though. A $2.5 million NIH grant seems like something that would make him welcome at plenty of universities. Of course, knowing the priorities of the Bush administration, my paranoid mind wonders if he had an advantage competing for that money because of his stem-cell position.
Science does not have a good definition for alive. So there is scientific dispute over when life begins. There is also some dispute over whether viruses are alive or not. For any given definition of life, everyone agrees on when life begins. It’s similar to the debate over whether Pluto is a planet or not. None of the scientists are disagreeing about Pluto’s properties, they are just disagreeing about whether it qualifies as a planet or not.
I think our only disagreement turns on how the word “scientific” is used.
<
p>
For any given definition of life, everyone agrees on when life begins.
<
p>
I think that’s true. And to me, it’s equivalent to saying that there is no scientific dispute. I don’t consider the question of Pluto’s planethood to be a scientific dispute either, by the way, but a pedagogical one.
<
p>
Some questions which are not strictly “scientific” (according to my definition) are probably best resolved within the scientific community (the most useful definition of “planet”, for instance), but I don’t think all of them are.
<
p>
Thanks for helping to clarify the distinction I wanted to point out.
Yes everyone agrees they need to breathe, i.e. take in oxygen.
<
p>
Therefore, a logical deduction would be that lungs are not necessary for an organism to breathe.
…fish have gills. An embryo left on its own without a human or scientific host to give it oxygen would die very quickly. If we presume that breathing (by whatever means) is something an organism does by itself, then no, an embryo cannot breath.
Just because something can die and therefore in some sense is living (if only by artificial means) does not mean that it is a life. Human life and mere life or living are not the same thing.
You don’t define it as breathing because if it wouldn’t breathe on it’s own (even it though it’ metabolizing, which requires oxygen for the electron transport system in cellular respiration, my AP Bio teacher would be crapping himself if he knew I remembered that). But what about a newborn? For all intents and purposes, it has the same level of independence as it did back when it was a ball of cells. If you try to define something as “living” only when it is at a level of self-sustaining-ness, then I would surmise we aren’t living til we’re what…12?
….to a newborn is not relevant. Everyone agrees that a newborn is a human life so the relative degree of a newborn’s dependence for its survival is not analogous. That is why it is difficult to define when life, beyond mere living or existence begins. But ultimately, that is really irrelevant to the issue at MIT. If a private institution wishes to define through its tenure protocol how it views this issue (a purely conjectural assertion) it has every right to do so. Pro-life proponents are not a protected class.
does everyone agree a newborn is human life?
….your question is on the face of your question. People consider a newborn a human because it is newly born. The debate as to the start of human life is framed by when, before birth does life begin. I don’t think universally accepted presumptions require deconstruction unless there is something to be gained from the process. Do you think that doctrinally codifying the belief that a newborn is unquestionably a human life will shed any light on when prior to birth that is also true?
What is the foundation of our universally accepted presumption? Should the fact that it’s universally accepted be in of itself justification for acceptance? What is it that makes a baby that is newly born different from one in the womb?
<
p>
That’s why the abortion debate has become so trite. Either you think it’s a human the whole time it’s in there, or you don’t. People who are for some abortions should be for all of them, including late-term and partial birth blah blah, because to take an arbitrary point in development and say “it’s a human here!” would not only be scientifically farcical but an insult to humans who have no reached that state of development.
<
p>
So yes, we must look to our presumptions to help answer our quandaries. Why is a newborn a human, but wasn’t 30 minutes ago when it was in the womb?
….you make this statement:
<
p>
That’s why the abortion debate has become so trite.
<
p>
And then you say this, which is a bit trite:
<
p>
Either you think it’s a human the whole time it’s in there, or you don’t.
<
p>
For a lot of people, the idea of post utero viability is an important benchmark in the progression from cellular cluster to human being. But, of course, it is not that simple.
<
p>
I don’t know the answer to the difficult cosmic questions but I also know that I don’t get to decide the unknowable for everyone else. That is where choice comes in. I’m lucky, I’m a gay man who will never have to deal with an unwanted pregnacy. I’m not going to tell those who may what choice is right for them.
…To raise the embryo right into a developed baby outside the uterus? I don’t know, but no doubt someday. I feel like the more we know about science, the less we know. Every answer is just a door to another question.
What do you mean it doesn’t breathe by itself? I don’t think there is an EMT in the womb giving it CPR. The mom isn’t doing any special extra effort reaching out to help the embryo, the embryo is, like has been infamously suggested disparagingly, like a parasite, acting on its own accord. So were the egg and sperm, for that matter, but they weren’t human beings.
…As far as I can tell, a “lung” is a device that allows oxygen to be absorbed into the organism. Fish have gills, which, unlike nostrils, allow oxygen to be absorbed into the organism. They aren’t like human lungs. But plant lungs–which also allow oxygen and also CO2 to be absorbed in the organism–aren’t like human lungs, either. PZMyers might disagree (he is the expert on biology, after all), but I’ll just leave it at that.
<
p>
BTW, your idiotic tag line is very annoying. Couple of words is OK, a couple of lines isn’t. Consider changing it. If you really want a tag line from a German, I’ll give you a few.
…is oftentimes longer than your comments, and your comments push the text over to a little bit of the right-hand side of the screen. That’s why it’s annoying.
<
p>
What specifically do you intend to mean from that idiotic Rede from Bismarck? It’s stupid as hell, Bismarck didn’t believe it, and history has shown it to be Quatsch, einen Schmarrn.
Denn du so intelligent bist, prüfst du dieses Unrecht.
Or dieses rather.
…Sieen Sie mir. Ich habe Sie nicht erlaubt, mir zu duen.
And any common courtesy or politeness I would extend to another is hitherto not extended.
Kein Text.
Within MIT, there is a little more information flowing, but not much. One thing I haven’t seen in this discussion, though, is mention of the demands that Prof. Sherley is making, which seem to be designed to inflame matters as much as possible.
<
p>
From his letter the the community, (http://www-tech.mit….), Sherley’s first demand is:
<
p>
“Professor Sherley must receive an immediate grant of tenure as an admission that his tenure case was unfairly reviewed and decided and that his formal complaint against the negative decision was unfairly handled.”
<
p>
This is very different from what Chomsky and company are saying (http://www-tech.mit….)
<
p>
“All aspects of the grievance process should be reviewed by a committee composed of members from inside and outside of MIT to determine the adequacy and fairness of the process. Details of this review should be reported to the faculty in full and in a timely fashion. Should the committee determine that the process was flawed or inadequate, then appropriate redress should be made to Prof. Sherley”
<
p>
Because of the way that tenure decisions are made, it’s very hard to get any information public about what the others in the department actually based their decision on, and that’s probably a good thing. Whether his stem-cell views are at issue or not, Sherley seems to be trying to back MIT into a corner where they have no choice but to kick him out with maximum public drama. He can’t imagine that they are really going to back down and give him instant tenure, throwing out any kind of review process.
<
p>
I wouldn’t care to speculate on his motives, but I will also be extremely interested to see where he gets hired when he ends his hunger strike.
…it really is somewhat stupid for a university to make its tenure determinations on the basis of a hunger strike. The guy might be right, he might be a decent stem cell researcher (although his apparent claim that adult stem cells are just as useful as embryonic ones doesn’t appear to hold up), but he should just move on, already, and stop embarrassing himself.