Talk:James Sherley

Letter to Nature
Sir

Although tenure evaluations are not primarily accountings of publications, you reported in your News story 'Researcher refuses to back down over race case' (Nature 447, 762–763; doi:10.1038/447762a 2007) that I published six peer-reviewed research papers during the years before the decision taken by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) about my tenure.

My years as a principal investigator before MIT's decision include research at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. MIT's tenure decision should have been based on my comprehensive work as a principal investigator, not limited only to time at MIT. The MIT faculty personnel record submitted for my tenure evaluation listed 41 scholarly articles published, in press, or accepted for publication, including 11 peer-reviewed primary-research articles, two peer-reviewed review articles, five peer-reviewed proceedings papers and four book chapters (two peer-reviewed). Not included in this total are four research manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals and 10 published patent applications.

Your comparison of my tenure application with those of two other faculty awarded tenure at the same time is not a fair comparison, because people who arrive at an institution mid-career are not comparable to those who began their faculty careers at the institution at which they later apply for tenure. Their research programmes are at a different stage of maturity, and often the projects undertaken differ significantly in degree of challenge and impact. Even so, another mid-career faculty member received MIT tenure within the same timeframe as my application, largely on the basis of contributions that had been made before arrival there.

My main complaint against MIT is the manner in which my case was decided by the faculty chair. For example, at MIT, when a tenure-case decision is being made, review of the case is prohibited outside its department. If the case is not advanced to the next level of review, it is sealed. So why was a professor who is neither a member of my faculty nor an expert in my field — stem-cell biology — asked by the faculty chair to review the case before the decision was announced? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7151/full/448250b.html Dsol 17:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding credibility of this Academic (?)
Hunger strike over tenure? It may be that wiki may wish to consider suspending this post as it may be that Wiki is being used inappropriately. Charley sf (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just found this recent article in the L.A.Times which I post here below:

Plaintiffs in stem cell lawsuit made news for other issues

James Sherley once staged a hunger strike to protest a denial of tenure, which he blamed on racism. Theresa Deisher claimed harassment by former colleagues amid an SEC inquiry.

August 24, 2010|By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times

Dr. James L. Sherley and Theresa Deisher, the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit that threatens to end federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells, are perhaps better known for their extracurricular activities than for their scientific feats.

Sherley, an African American, is a former MIT researcher who claimed racism when he was denied tenure, then garnered headlines when he went on a 12-day hunger strike in 2007 to protest the decision. Now employed by the Boston Biomedical Research Institute in Watertown, Mass., he writes frequent letters to Boston newspapers protesting articles or commentary he views as pro- abortion.

Deisher, founder of AVM Biotechnology in Seattle, is a frequent speaker warning against the use of embryonic cells to produce vaccines and other medical products. The company name — AVM, as in "Ave Maria" — reflects the struggling firm's efforts to provide products that don't rely on embryonic or fetal cells for their production.

Neither plaintiff is talking to the media, according to Steven H. Aden, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents them in the suit.

In declarations they submitted with the lawsuit, the two claimed that awarding federal funds for research on embryonic stem cells necessarily restricted the amount of funds available for their research on so-called induced pluripotent stem cells — that is, adult cells that can be rewound to an almost embryonic state.

Sherley, the son of a Baptist minister, received Ph.D. and M.D. degrees from Johns Hopkins University in 1988, then did postdoctoral studies at Princeton University. He was on the staff of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia for seven years before joining MIT in 1998.

He was vocal in his opposition to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells and frequently got into loud discussions with colleagues, including a shouting match in a school cafeteria, according to newspaper reports.

In 2006, he was one of 13 young scientists who received the National Institutes of Health Director's Pioneer Award, which included a $2.5-million grant to be disbursed over five years. The award supports research that is considered "cutting edge and risky."

In a 2009 letter to the Boston Globe, Sherley characterized abortion as "a social disease whose eradication requires a more enlightened society."

Posted by Charley sf (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Sherley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922044329/http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients06.aspx to http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients06.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)