On December 7th, Beth Daley of the Boston Globe reported on a lawsuit filed against Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) by former employee Nathaniel Abraham, who was terminated from a post-doctoral research position in December, 2004. In June, 2006, Abraham filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, asserting that he had been unlawfully fired by his supervisor, Woods Hole senior scientist Mark E. Hahn, because he expressed a disbelief in the theory of evolution.
In April 2007, the Commission ruled that "there was insufficient probable cause to find that Hahn and Woods Hole engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices." Abraham subsequently enlisted the assistance of David C. Gibbs III of the Christian Law Association, a Seminole, Florida group that offers pro bono representation to "Bible-believing churches and Christians who are experiencing legal difficulty in practicing their religious faith." He is seeking $500,000 in compensation for violation of his civil rights.
As with all such cases, this one is made up of unsubstantiated, and unverifiable, claims and counter-claims concerning what was said off the record, what was "understood" between parties at any given time, and so forth. In the interests of a rational approach, let's look only at the facts we know.
According to his complaint filed on November 29, 2007 in U.S. District Court in Boston, Abraham replied to a job posting. He was hired, in March, 2004, because of "his exceptional qualifications as a zebrafish developmental biologist and specific expertise in programmed cell death," an esoteric specialization that the grant position defined precisely.
Neither the job posting, the grant parameters, nor the subject under research explicitly required "acceptance, or application of, the theory of evolution as scientific fact." Most relevant to Abraham's case is Item 17 in the complaint: "Plaintiff at all times, before his employment began helping to design and construct the lab, and during his employment, performed exemplary work and was often praised and commended by Defendant Hahn and other staff members for the quality of his research, commitment and scientific presentations."
This is the critical element of the case, disregarding all furor over just what ideological disagreements may be frothing on the surface. Abraham claims that there were no criticisms of his work whatsoever until he mentioned in a casual conversation that he did not believe in evolution. He was consequently called in for a meeting with his supervisor, Mark Hahn. Abraham says that after this point, he was pressured to change his beliefs - not his work, which up to then had been praised, but his beliefs.
Article comments
1 - Damien
Thanks for writing and publishing this. I have to say that I am a Christian but not a fundamentalist. I respect the study of science and it complements my world-view. I have run across vehement fundamental scientists (usually professed atheists) and they have less ground in fact than most cults who knock on my doors.
Thanks again for the article.
2 - duane
Good writeup, Inanna. Interesting case.
From what you've included here, I think the issue boils down to Hahn's statement:
"You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work..."
Assuming that is an accurate statement...
If a scientist refuses to publish research and discuss it in the context of a theory upon which research at the institute is conducted, that is grounds for dismissal. That part of the story is cut and dried.
Take an analogous example: Fred is a car salesman for Ford. He is also an environmentalist. He persuades customers to go shop at Honda, instead of pushing Fords. He would be fired. It would be disingenuous of Fred to claim that he was fired for his philosophical beliefs.
It does come down to funding at WHOI. It's a publish or perish world, and if Abraham won't publish in a manner that highlights the full relevance of the work to modern scientific theories, he can be replaced. The religious philosophy is not the reason for the dismissal, it's the refusal to follow through.
Whether or not he was ridiculed or cajoled or shunned by his peers and supervisors gets into different (and uglier) issues. That's all workplace relations and politics. Everyone suffers in one way or another. Womanizers, bigots, drinkers, Republicans, Mormons, nerds, sluts, bad dressers, Democrats, atheists, slobs, fashion plates, the overweight, the vain, illiterates, snobs, the overly sensitive, the brash --- all the crap by which people are judged --- lives in the workplace, everywhere, all the time.
Being disliked and/or marginalized at the personal level is not grounds for being fired, but that seems not to be the case here.
3 - Inanna/Vyrdolak
Damien--thanks for your comment. I'm not a Christian, or a trained scientist (although I have some scientific training, which isn't the same thing). But I find irrational hyperbole and rigid thinking distressing in any context. There are Neo-Pagan fundamentalists and libertarian fundamentalists and feminist fundamentalists...you name it. But the two groups who seem to have the largest, and most harmful, influence at the moment are the Christian and the scientistic fundamentalists. Unfortunately, many people seem to feel they have to defend the causes of whichever group they sympathize with, and that's how wars get started.
Duane: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree: the lawsuit does boil down to Mark Hahn's statements in the termination letter. If Hahn's statement is true, then Abraham's termination is defensible. But Abraham claims he did not refuse to do any work asked of him. It's one man's word against the other's, which is usually what leads to a lawsuit.
Your analogy is only apt if Abraham refused to conform to expectations. If that car salesman sincerely believed that Hondas are superior and more ethical cars to drive, yet sold Fords to customers to the best of his ability, he should not be fired for holding an opinion. He should be fired for underperforming, or sabotaging his employer, no matter what his motive, but his opinion is his right. To give a non-hypothetical example: I worked for ten years for a domestic violence shelter. I held, and openly expressed, many strong opinions about domestic violence that were at sharp variance with the "party line." Nevertheless, I was considered a valuable employee (albeit a gadfly) because despite my views, I followed policies and procedures and served the clients to the best of my ability.
Unfortunately, confidentiality issues probably prevent Mark Hahn and WHOI from discussing the situation in more detail. I know there is a whole other side to the story that we're not hearing.
4 - Tim
Get the facts straight Inanna!
The job posting states: "Results will be interpreted within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the genes and species under study."
The "subject under research" is developmental biology -- which is inextricably linked to evolutionary biology these days.
I am sick to death of ignorant pundits throwing around "fundamentalists" whenever REAL scientists demand that REAL science go on in science labs. I would suggest you stick to vampires and other ephemera, as you clearly know bugger-all about science.De
5 - Inanna/Vyrdolak
Thanks for sharing, Tim! You've demonstrated my point admirably.
6 - Christopher Rose
Inanna, your response to Tim shows that it is in fact you that is the fundamentalist and that you clearly have an agenda in writing this article in the first place. Apart from the first half of his last sentence, his comment was entirely accurate and factual.
7 - Inanna/Vyrdolak
"An agenda?" Not at all. I'm very careful not to take either side, and I say repeatedly that no outside party can possibly know what really happened based on how little information is available. I'm just discussing the social/psychological issues that relate to the lawsuit, as I see them. I thought it was an interesting story that might get readers thinking, it was timely, and I needed a topic for this week's article because I haven't finished a review book yet. So much for my agenda.
Characterizing and attacking the speaker while ignoring the matter being discussed is the informal logical fallacy, Ad Hominem, and typically the first response of any type of fundamentalist to something he or she doesn't like hearing. Of course, non-fundamentalists tend to use it, too. Reasonable thought about charged issues is not a common phenomenon. You just need to read blog comments to infer that conclusion!