In 2003, Meyer submitted an article titled The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories to the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article provided extensive references from the scientific literature to support Meyers argument that DNA carries complex specified information that cannot be produced solely by natural processes such as mutation and selection. Relying on an inference to the best explanation, Meyer concluded that intelligent design was the cause of the enormous increase in biological information required to produce the major animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion.The editor of the Proceedings, Richard M. von Sternberg, was a research associate at the Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) with two doctoral degrees in evolutionary biology. Following standard procedure, Sternberg sent Meyers article to three reviewers, all of them evolutionary and molecular biologists at well-known institutions. The reviewers recommended that the article be published, though only after substantial revisions. Meyer revised his article in accordance with their recommendations, and the journal published it in August 2004.This alarmed Darwinists at the Smithsonian Institution (SI), with which the Biological Society of Washington (BSW) is loosely affiliated. Smithsonian Darwinists teamed up with the militantly pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE) to control the damage to their cause. NCSE staffers sent long, detailed e-mails attacking Meyers article to high officials at the Smithsonian. The NCSE then worked closely with Smithsonian employees to develop a strategy of character assassination to punish Sternberg for publishing the article. To protect himself, Sternberg lodged a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), established by Congress to investigate such cases.In August 2005, the OSC sent Sternberg a letter notifying him that a recent administrative decision had removed his case from their jurisdiction, but confirming that members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited, noting that OSC questions the use of appropriated funds to work with an outside advocacy group for this purpose. The OSC letter also confirmed that the management of the Smithsonian had falsely accused Sternberg of mishandling specimens in his research and of violating Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington policies in the publication of Meyers article. The managers later admitted that the accusations were false, but the OSC saw no evidence that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was known. There were other abuses, too, but since the OSC lost jurisdiction over the Sternberg case the SI is now refusing to cooperate with our investigation. Nevertheless, the OSC concluded that the management of the publicly funded Smithonian Institution had deliberately created a hostile working environment for Sternberg, hoping that he would leave or resign.To investigate the Darwinists accusation that Sternberg had circumvented the normal peer-review process, the president of the Council of the BSW, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, reviewed the file, and he found that the peer review had been properly conducted. McDiarmid said to Sternberg in an email message on August 25th, 2004, Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]. Nevertheless, the council subsequently issued a statement declaring that the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings. Although the BSW stopped short of formally retracting the article, the Darwinists did not end their ruthless campaign of character assassination against Sternberg.