A trio of authors has, during a 12 months period, submitted - by their own account - 20 manuscripts to academic journals they broadly identify as being in disciplines or fields of study associated with 'academic grievance studies'. From what I gather they are not too terribly fond of social constructionist colleagues in their own academic disciplines, and presumably other disciplines. Let me say at the outset that I am sympathetic to some of their concerns. They rightly lament that what they broadly label as 'academic grievance studies' has led to thought crimes prosecutions of sorts (just think about the Hypatia controversy involving an article by Rebecca Tuvel - mob justice might be one way to describe what happened to Tuvel). Ironically, Hypatia is again among the offending journals, which is interesting in so far as it isn't a journal entirely dedicated to publishing social constructivist content, another bugbear of the initiators of the Sokal-on-steroids hoax.
In any case, they apparently spend their while producing 20 hoax articles that they planned to submit to top journals in different disciplines or areas of study that they find disagreeable. I am genuinely curious whether this research project was submitted to their institution's ethical review committee, because it uncontroversially involved involuntary human research participants (identifiable journal editors, reviewers).
Here's the result of their efforts: Of these 20 papers 7 were accepted, 6 were rejected outright, and the rest were somewhat in-play, including a number that received a revise and resubmit verdict. The hoax initiators claim that two papers received a verdict of 'revise and resubmit' that they took to mean 'usually results in publication.' For what it's worth, at the journals I co-edit this verdict means renewed external review with the possibility of an outright rejection. So, no, not 'usually results in publication.' I wonder whether this interpretation is self-serving in so far as they needed to, of course, bolster their case as good as they could.
At the end of the day, they had 20 submissions, 7 acceptances.
I agree with the team of hoaxters that this constitutes egg on the faces of the editors of those journals, and more so, on their reviewers' faces. It's embarrassing.
I read a few comments on this project along the lines that in STEM subjects journals also face large numbers of retractions each year, and so it's not surprising that terrible content also passes peer review in humanities' areas. While that is true, it shouldn't distract from the fact that well-established, influential journals were coaxed here into accepting garbage. Of course, that matters!
My problems really lie elsewhere. One is that a study where n=20 doesn't demonstrate that a particular discipline has methodological problems. It simply means that - when all is said and done - 7 crappy papers were accepted by non-specialist journal editors based on their reviewers' recommendations. Big whoop! Frankly, this shows us that on this occasion reviewers failed. On 7(!) occasions. We do not know whether the same would have transpired if hundreds of such papers had been submitted to the same journals. It's one such paper per journal. Talking anecdotal, this is as anecdotal as it gets.
Let me be honest here, as an editor of journals that rarely if ever publish social constructionist papers, I could also be accepting papers that succeeded in fooling our peer reviewers. I don't have the subject expertise to be confident in evaluating all the manuscripts that are submitted to my journals. I rely on - these days - mostly reluctant reviewers who hopefully provide me with good (sometimes excellent, detailed) comments and recommendations. I rely on competent reviewers being diligent. I rely on colleagues I ask to review a manuscript to come back to me if they do not consider themselves competent. I rely on unpaid reviewers spending a considerable amount of time doing their job, when they could spend that time writing their own papers, or on a grant application, or a job application, or they could simply spend time with their loved ones. Not all of them, all the time, deliver a reliable review. Big whoop. If a faulty paper gets published (and it hasn't happened to us yet), I'm confident, over time responses to such a paper would eventually show where the paper we published went wrong, and why. A case in point is this Editorial I wrote. One of the articles flagged there was making false empirical claims, it has since been retracted. The article in question passed external peer review, but it is clear that the reviewers took the empirical claims made by the authors to be true, referenced as they were. It turns out that that was a mistake.
All of that happens without hoaxters wasting my time and that of our reviewers.
The hoaxter trio takes these 7 accepted manuscripts as evidence for the methodological failings of what they refer to as 'social constructivism'or 'radical constructivism'. They apparently 'corrupt' scholarship.
The thing is, that might well be true, and social constructivism scholarship is truly a naked emperor. Unfortunately, pointing to 7 anecdotal papers as evidence that that is the case, is plain ludicrous. As far as I can see, there wasn't even a control group (say, 20 manuscripts submitted to analytical journals, 20 manuscripts submitted to STEM subjects).
To my mind, if you wish to criticize social constructivism (and much critical that I wholeheartedly agree with has been published over the last few decades) don't avail yourself of childish activities like these kinds of hoaxes. Show by means of analysis and argument that, and why, the social constructivism emperor is naked.
The process of producing and publishing peer reviewed academic content relies on an assumption of good intent and genuineness among authors. Obviously, this is not justified in all cases, that's where critical responses and retractions come in handy. The last thing needed is a cottage industry of 'gotcha authors' like our hoaxter trio. They could and should have spend their time producing one sound academic paper taking on social constructivism, placing it in a top-notch journal, and subsequently enjoying the fireworks of rebuttal and response. That's how progress in the academy is facilitated.
I have sat on this for a good week, because I wasn't sure whether I should bother writing a response. On the one hand I share many of their concerns, on the other hand, this was such a time wasting pointless exercise, it boggles the mind smart people would have resorted to that sort of thing.
When health‐related tragedy befalls newborns, bioethical culture warriors are never
far behind. The sad case of Alfie Evans1 seemingly opened up renewed campaign opportunities, and every opportunist, from the
leader of the Roman Catholic Church to the Italian government, as well as a line‐up
of minor academics, newspaper columnists and social media warriors, chimed in to score
political points.
Alfie Evans was as 23‐month‐old toddler suffering from a degenerative brain disease
that led tragically to him eventually being in a semi‐vegetative state extending over
more than a year. The specialists caring for him at the UK's Alder Hey Children's
Hospital concluded that the boy suffered a ‘catastrophic degradation of his brain
tissue’, and they asked for court permission to withdraw ventilator support, because
in their considered judgement continuing ventilator support was not in the child's
best interest. The parents fought the clinical judgement, both in the courts, and
on social media. They travelled to Rome to meet the leader of, presumably, their church,
the Pope. The Pope duly tweeted his support for the family, in line with his organization's
categorical stance on the maintenance of human life, regardless of its quality. Among
others, senior Brazilian staff members of the same organization issued a video message
demanding that the UK government pay for the continuing futile care of Alfie Evans.2 Obviously Brazil's religious warriors had little else to do in their own backyard.
Assuntina Morresi, a biochemistry professor and a member of the Italian government's
National Bioethics Committee, posted a photo of the entrance to a German Nazi concentration
camp with the accompanying headline: ‘Gran Bretagna oggi’ (Great Britain today).3 Professor Morresi is not alone: in a commentary, Charles Camosy, a theologian at
a Catholic college in New York City, also tried to put the case in historical perspective
by raising the spectre of the Catholic Church objecting to the Nazi euthanasia program
for the disabled.4 Unsurprisingly these kinds of ahistorical missives are published in media aimed squarely
at ideological fellow travellers, they are ideological echo chamber activities designed
to mobilize one's troops. There is invariably much talk about disrespect of the disabled,
as if there is no difference between a disabled child living a life worth living and
a child whose brain has been irreversibly catastrophically damaged. Add to that a
liberal amount of second guessing and questioning of the clinical judgement made by
clinicians involved first‐hand in the care of the toddler by academics, activists
and religious lobbyists with no clinical qualifications and no first‐hand knowledge
of the facts of the matter.
Enter stage right: Ted Cruz. Not unexpectedly the United States’ best‐known culture warrior, Texas Senator Ted Cruz stepped into the fray with his own press release, likely less directed at Britain and more directed at his donors. He wrote (inter alia), that what was happening in the UK was a ‘grim reminder that systems of socialized medicine like the NHS vest the state with power over human lives, transforming citizens into subjects.’ This is utter nonsense, and, even if it were true, it's unclear how Cruz's preferred private healthcare system would change that situation, given that in a private healthcare system a for‐profit entity would decide how much money would be made available for the care of particular patients. Futile care typically is justifiably not funded ad infinitum by for‐profit health insurance companies either. Still, this minor detail got lost in the agitation and propaganda efforts by conservative U.S. politicians weighing in on this case.5
Remarkably, the government of Italy issued a citizenship certificate for the toddler to enable him to be treated in a Catholic hospital. Sensing how inappropriate this action was, the Italian Embassy in the UK stressed that the citizenship was merely meant as a signal to the court that the country would be willing to take him in should the UK court let him be transferred. That, of course, was denied by the court, precisely because nothing would have been gained for the boy by this activity.
A predictable consequence of the flurry of activism across the globe was that a sufficiently large number of activists was motivated to try to storm the hospital where the boy was cared for. Yes, they tried to storm the hospital! They even, for a brief period, managed to block an ambulance from entering the hospital. Without any sense of proportion, they call(ed) themselves Alfie's Army. No, I'm not kidding, army! Not terribly surprising: if you genuinely think that you are fighting a crime akin to the holocaust you will think about it in fairly militant terms. Agitation and propaganda have consequences.
I appreciate that well‐meaning people can hold different views on cases like this. One could, for instance, argue that if parents – or their supporters – are willing to pay for futile care provided to patients like Alfie Evans, the state should leave it to parents to decide what is in their children's best interest. It is not a view I would support, because I would be concerned that parents in such situations are vulnerable to making choices that satisfy their own psychological needs, potentially at great cost to the children whose best interest takes a backseat. If futile care is joined by additional suffering visited upon the patient (it is unlikely this was the case with this patient), such decisions should not be left to parents alone to decide. It is arguably unfair to leave grieving and distressed parents with the burden that such decisions entail. However, this certainly is a legitimate question to ask and it is one where well‐meaning, well‐informed people can agree to disagree.
What is unacceptable for anyone who wishes to engage in these debates, is to abuse such catastrophically ill children for their own ideological conquests and culture wars. Nothing of what happened in Britain (and other countries like it) has anything at all to do with what happened in Nazi Germany. Such ahistorical comparisons are deeply offensive to the victims of the holocaust.
UK bioethicist Iain Brassington, to my mind, hit the nail on its head when he wrote in a commentary, ‘what we see here is a child being bounced around to satisfy the desires of a number of adults.’6 Politicians, leaders of global religious organizations, and academics ideologically aligned with the latter have reason to reflect on the morality of their own actions, that is the abuse of tragedies like Alfie Evans to promote their own ideological agendas.
Alfie Evans was as 23‐month‐old toddler suffering from a degenerative brain disease
that led tragically to him eventually being in a semi‐vegetative state extending over
more than a year. The specialists caring for him at the UK's Alder Hey Children's
Hospital concluded that the boy suffered a ‘catastrophic degradation of his brain
tissue’, and they asked for court permission to withdraw ventilator support, because
in their considered judgement continuing ventilator support was not in the child's
best interest. The parents fought the clinical judgement, both in the courts, and
on social media. They travelled to Rome to meet the leader of, presumably, their church,
the Pope. The Pope duly tweeted his support for the family, in line with his organization's
categorical stance on the maintenance of human life, regardless of its quality. Among
others, senior Brazilian staff members of the same organization issued a video message
demanding that the UK government pay for the continuing futile care of Alfie Evans.2 Obviously Brazil's religious warriors had little else to do in their own backyard.
Assuntina Morresi, a biochemistry professor and a member of the Italian government's
National Bioethics Committee, posted a photo of the entrance to a German Nazi concentration
camp with the accompanying headline: ‘Gran Bretagna oggi’ (Great Britain today).3 Professor Morresi is not alone: in a commentary, Charles Camosy, a theologian at
a Catholic college in New York City, also tried to put the case in historical perspective
by raising the spectre of the Catholic Church objecting to the Nazi euthanasia program
for the disabled.4 Unsurprisingly these kinds of ahistorical missives are published in media aimed squarely
at ideological fellow travellers, they are ideological echo chamber activities designed
to mobilize one's troops. There is invariably much talk about disrespect of the disabled,
as if there is no difference between a disabled child living a life worth living and
a child whose brain has been irreversibly catastrophically damaged. Add to that a
liberal amount of second guessing and questioning of the clinical judgement made by
clinicians involved first‐hand in the care of the toddler by academics, activists
and religious lobbyists with no clinical qualifications and no first‐hand knowledge
of the facts of the matter.Enter stage right: Ted Cruz. Not unexpectedly the United States’ best‐known culture warrior, Texas Senator Ted Cruz stepped into the fray with his own press release, likely less directed at Britain and more directed at his donors. He wrote (inter alia), that what was happening in the UK was a ‘grim reminder that systems of socialized medicine like the NHS vest the state with power over human lives, transforming citizens into subjects.’ This is utter nonsense, and, even if it were true, it's unclear how Cruz's preferred private healthcare system would change that situation, given that in a private healthcare system a for‐profit entity would decide how much money would be made available for the care of particular patients. Futile care typically is justifiably not funded ad infinitum by for‐profit health insurance companies either. Still, this minor detail got lost in the agitation and propaganda efforts by conservative U.S. politicians weighing in on this case.5
Remarkably, the government of Italy issued a citizenship certificate for the toddler to enable him to be treated in a Catholic hospital. Sensing how inappropriate this action was, the Italian Embassy in the UK stressed that the citizenship was merely meant as a signal to the court that the country would be willing to take him in should the UK court let him be transferred. That, of course, was denied by the court, precisely because nothing would have been gained for the boy by this activity.
A predictable consequence of the flurry of activism across the globe was that a sufficiently large number of activists was motivated to try to storm the hospital where the boy was cared for. Yes, they tried to storm the hospital! They even, for a brief period, managed to block an ambulance from entering the hospital. Without any sense of proportion, they call(ed) themselves Alfie's Army. No, I'm not kidding, army! Not terribly surprising: if you genuinely think that you are fighting a crime akin to the holocaust you will think about it in fairly militant terms. Agitation and propaganda have consequences.
I appreciate that well‐meaning people can hold different views on cases like this. One could, for instance, argue that if parents – or their supporters – are willing to pay for futile care provided to patients like Alfie Evans, the state should leave it to parents to decide what is in their children's best interest. It is not a view I would support, because I would be concerned that parents in such situations are vulnerable to making choices that satisfy their own psychological needs, potentially at great cost to the children whose best interest takes a backseat. If futile care is joined by additional suffering visited upon the patient (it is unlikely this was the case with this patient), such decisions should not be left to parents alone to decide. It is arguably unfair to leave grieving and distressed parents with the burden that such decisions entail. However, this certainly is a legitimate question to ask and it is one where well‐meaning, well‐informed people can agree to disagree.
What is unacceptable for anyone who wishes to engage in these debates, is to abuse such catastrophically ill children for their own ideological conquests and culture wars. Nothing of what happened in Britain (and other countries like it) has anything at all to do with what happened in Nazi Germany. Such ahistorical comparisons are deeply offensive to the victims of the holocaust.
UK bioethicist Iain Brassington, to my mind, hit the nail on its head when he wrote in a commentary, ‘what we see here is a child being bounced around to satisfy the desires of a number of adults.’6 Politicians, leaders of global religious organizations, and academics ideologically aligned with the latter have reason to reflect on the morality of their own actions, that is the abuse of tragedies like Alfie Evans to promote their own ideological agendas.
Footnotes
- 1 BBC News. (2018). Who was Alfie Evans and what was the row over his treatment? BBC News April 28. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43754949 [Accessed April 29, 2018]
- 2 Brazilian Bishops support Alfie. April 22, 2018. https://gloria.tv/video/6LPxwNLMsNkSBAqBF8aj3cdNy [Accessed April 29, 2018]
- 3 Facebook post by Professor Morresi: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1995113310532730&set=ecnf.100001022418993&type=3&theater [Accessed April 29, 2018]
- 4 Camosy, C. (2018). Alfie Evans and our moral crossroads. First Things April 25. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/04/alfie-evans-and-our-moral-crossroads [Accessed April 29, 2018]
- 5 Freiburger, C. (2018). Senator Ted Cruz, conservatives speak out for Alfie Evans. Lifesite News https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u.s.-congressmen-conservatives-speak-out-for-alfie-evans1 [Accessed April 29, 2018]
- 6 Brassington, I. (2018). Alfie Evans: Please, just stop. Journal of Medical Ethics Blog April 24. http://blogs.bmj.com.proxy.queensu.ca/medical-ethics/2018/04/24/alfie-evans-please-just-stop/ [Accessed April 29, 2018]
