Evolutionary biologist fired for not believing....

"Don't Ask; Don't Tell"....
Oh, wait a minute...that's for something else...

From the article:

"It is inconceivable that someone working in developmental biology at a major research institution would not be expected to deal intimately with evolution," she said.

From Dictionary.com:

evolutionary biology –noun
the branches of biology that deal with the processes of change in populations of organisms, esp. taxonomy, paleontology, ethology, population genetics, and ecology.

Evolutionary biology is not the same as developmental biology. The employer, not the employee, says he was hired to work in the field of developmental biology, not evolutionary biology.

From the US EEOC:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Act also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer (see also 29 CFR l605). Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers are examples of accommodating an employee's religious beliefs.

Employers cannot schedule examinations or other selection activities in conflict with a current or prospective employee's religious needs, inquire about an applicant's future availability at certain times, maintain a restrictive dress code, or refuse to allow observance of a Sabbath or religious holiday, unless the employer can prove that not doing so would cause an undue hardship.

An employer can claim undue hardship when accommodating an employee's religious practices if allowing such practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs. Undue hardship also may be shown if changing a bona fide seniority system to accommodate one employee's religious practices denies another employee the job or shift preference guaranteed by the seniority system.

An employee whose religious practices prohibit payment of union dues to a labor organization cannot be required to pay the dues, but may pay an equal sum to a charitable organization.

Mandatory "new age" training programs, designed to improve employee motivation, cooperation or productivity through meditation, yoga, biofeedback or other practices, may conflict with the non-discriminatory provisions of Title VII. Employers must accommodate any employee who gives notice that these programs are inconsistent with the employee's religious beliefs, whether or not the employer believes there is a religious basis for the employee's objection.

Also from the EEOC:

* harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
* retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
* employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and
* denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.

The employer admits they hired this person to work as a developmental biologist and not an evolutionary biologist, so it would seem to me that he has a case. Also, the employer seems to admit that they don't know the difference between the two, which makes me wonder about their scientific credibility as an institution.

Also, so far as I'm aware, while evolution within a species can be shown to exist, no one has ever shown conclusive proof that evolution from one species to another is anything more than a theory. Accepting it as fact without question could be viewed as scientifically irresponsible at best, and discriminatory towards other viewpoints at worst.

Don't forget, at one time "everyone" knew that the earth was flat and anyone who thought otherwise was ostracized.

Bob, the employer clearly stated in the article that Abraham has hired to work as a developmental biologist, not an evolutionary biologist. They just are not the same thing, and it looks to me like the employer is blurring the line between them, after the fact.

A job description and copies of the letters referred to might shed more light on this, but I'm going on what the employer said in the article:

Developmental biology is not the same thing as evolutionary biology.

Let's see the job description.

Not many people get to know what Galileo felt.

One can work on only certain parts of a project and not others. The employer will have to show that the job description specifically said that in Abraham's capacity as a developmental biologist, he would have to write about the evolutionary implications of the work he specifically did on the project, and that it would create an undue hardship for someone else involved to write about that part instead of Abraham. As the articles states:

If you look at most any scientific paper, you'll see that there is usually more than one author. It is not uncommon for one author to write one part of a paper and another to write a different part. I've done this myself.

It's interesting to note that on the Woods Hole website, Abraham is not listed as a former member of the Hahn Lab, and others are. Also, this is interesting:

Also, as near as I can tell, BU describes that grant for Hahn's Killifish work as:

http://www.bu.edu/dbin/sph/research_centers/superfund_projects.php

I don't see evolution mentioned there, do you? And as near as I can see, here are some of the papers written by members of the Hahn lab as a result of this grant:

Hahn, M.E., Karchner, S.I., Franks, D.G., and Merson, R.R. (2004) Aryl hydrocarbon receptor polymorphisms and dioxin resistance in Atlantic killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus). Pharmacogenetics 14:131-146.

W.H. Powell, H.G. Morrison, E.J. Weil, S.I. Karchner, M.L. Sogin, J.J. Stegeman, and M.E. Hahn. (2004) Cloning and analysis of the CYP1A promoter from the Atlantic killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus). Marine Environmental Research 58: 119-124.

Meyer, J.N., Wassenberg, D.M., Karchner, S.I., Hahn, M.E., and DiGiulio, R.T. (2003) Expression and inducibility of aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) pathway genes in wild-caught killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus) with different contaminant exposure histories. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22: 2337-2343.

Bello, S.M., Franks, D.G., Stegeman, J.J., and Hahn, M.E. (2001) Acquired Resistance to Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Agonists in a Population of Fundulus heteroclitus from a Marine Superfund site: In Vivo and In Vitro Studies on the Induction of Xenobiotic Metabolizing Enzymes. Toxicol. Sci. 60: 77-91.

I haven't looked up these articles, but I don't see evolution mentioned in their titles either. But then, it appears that the evolutionary aspects were added by Hahn:

It would appear that a review of the project proposal would also be in order.

The bottom line is that the employer has to show that Abraham was fired because they couldn't accommodate his religious beliefs without undue hardship. Woods Hole is a big facility, with a lot of projects and lots of developmental biologists. That might be hard to do.

Seems fine to me. A minister who doesn't believe in God should also be fired.

It is not uncommon for a minister to have a "crisis of faith." That does not prevent them from ministering to others.

The only mention of Nathaniel Abraham on the WHOI site (that I could find) was under "Non-Disclosure Agreements":
"Nathaniel Abraham - Patent agreement for undisclosed technology - 18-Jul-07 - Moved to Patent Inventory File"

This will be an interesting case; I look forward to seeing it evolve.

rk, Abraham is a developmental biologist, not an evolutionary biologist, and was apparently hired as such, so it's not the same thing. Also, I think the grant is federal money, so there may be even more hidden implications, depending upon how the proposal was specifically written. Hahn's website give a bad link to the proposal submitted.

BTW, it's against the law to ask someone of their religious beliefs during the hiring process, or to expect a perspective employee to divulge them, despite the implications in the article. Just try asking someone if they're a Muslim during the hiring process and see what happens.

:lol:

Yes, NIH is federal money (I've been paid through such grants in the past).

What Galileo felt? He died of old age/debilitation under house arrest. Ask Giordano Bruno how he felt after bing burned at the stake.

:P :P

I don't understand why they guy would want the job, if he doesn't believe in the research? Doesn't make much sense?

I answer your question charlotte, we'd need the job description and grant proposal.

I agree with Ken. More fundamentally, I believe that an employer should be able to fire someone for any reason. Employment is a two-way street; it is not a benefit given to employees by employers. If the college is giving up a skilled biologist then they are losing as much if not more than the man who was fired. If he's any good he will likely get another job (and may even end up with a book deal).
Anyone complaining of discrimination is talking like a lib 8)

Evolution: man evolved from apes.
so why are there still apes?
and why aren't there new Neanderthal men?

Has any attempt ever been made to force an evolutionary change that would settle the question?

Calvin,

Your opening statement is false. The questions you ask are therefore out of order until you establish a valid opening premise. This is known in logic as "Here we go again."

Has any attempt ever been made to force an evolutionary change that would settle the question?

DUH !!!!!!! Teenage Mutant Nina Turtles ....dude!

PMH.
I know it's false but that's the premise that keeps getting repeated.
Should I read into your response that you believe in creation? :?:

Woods Hole burned an employee at the stake?

Mark 8)

No idea, but it might be worth a Google or two. I know fruit flies, whose life span is something like 20-30 days, have been studied for many generations. As far as I know, they've never "evolved" into black flies or anything else other than fruit flies.

Not only that, but they are exposed to mutagenic compounds for the expressed purpose of studying mutations, of which there are many. Eye color, wing shape, feet and hands, body color, blindness and more are all mutations. To date, they are all still fruit flies.

Looks like a good place to revive a related previous thread by "Tom C" which discusses the upcoming Feb. '08 release of a documentary titled, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed :

Dr. Richard Sternberg is one scientist who is interviewed by Ben Stein in Expelled.
Sternberg writes (on his website):

I know I said this on the previous thread, but the thought still stands:
"IMO, Sternberg's case is particularly revealing of the ingrained bias which exists especially when you consider his background.
--He holds two PhD's - one in Biology (Molecular Evolution), the other in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology).
--He "subscribes to a school of biological thought often termed "process structuralism"."

Calvin,

Since you recognize it as a false premise, why even mention it?

Do I believe in creation? Since I am here, of course I believe it. Do you perhaps mean creationism? I certainly do not. My tongue-in-cheek comment about "here we go again" was directed at the sort of threads that usually pop up after someone offers your false premise. It's true name in logic is, naturally enough, arguing from a false premise.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html