... and a Korean translation of 50 Voices of Disbelief

Great news! The anthology 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists that Russell Blackford and I put together for Wiley-Blackwell, is now also being tranlated into Korean! Korea, here we come :).

Why mention countries or regions when that serves no purpose

I got an interesting letter the other day, from academics in Turkey. For reasons that will become apparent sooner rather than later, I will likely be criticized for mentioning the country where the plagiarism occurred. The letter writers essentially are annoyed that in reports about plagiarism country affiliations of researchers feature prominently. So, the headline could say 'Harvard Hoititoiti Lab Researchers Caught Plagiarizing', but instead it says that ' US Americans Caught Plagiarizing'. The authors of said letter criticize that Western media and Western academics (the target of their scorn is an article in Nature) go out of their way to point fingers at countries rather than individual academics, just as if individual academics in a particular country plagiarizing something implicate many or most other academic researchers in the same country with wrongdoing. In this particular instance, under a big heading mentioning Turkey, in a kind of block in the centre of the Nature article, an Italy based academic is mentioned as saying that in certain cultures plagiarism is not considered deplorable. Anyone merely browsing the pages of Nature could be forgiven for taking home the message that plagiarism is not considered deplorable in Turkey, when really in this particular instance Turkish universities withdrew papers they considered plagiarized. That does not exactly suggest that they considered plagiarism anything but deplorable. So, what purpose did it serve for Nature to mention that the transgressions occurred in Turkey, and for designing the article in such a way as to suggest to the superficial reader that plagiarism in Turkey is not considered deplorable, when the opposite is actually true.

Interesting point that is being made by these academics. This nearly falls into the same category as racist talk (aka Black people are this, White people are that), but not quite so, given that it is superficially linked to a particular case at least. Still, it makes me wonder whether we should take country mentions out of paper headings unless they are relevant to the case. That's not to say that we mustn't add this kind of information within articles or in reference sections.

Webmedcentral - an early 1st April joke?

A few days ago I received an invitation from a computer to review a manuscript. The computer's name is Webmedcentral, it seems, and it's the latest incarnation of Open Access file uploading. At the moment you can publish (ie upload a file to said computer) free of charge, but that's gonna change by January 2012. None of the computer's content is indexed in any databases at all, except tragically by google scholar. 


The paper I was asked to review consisted of 427 words and 2 references. The computer explained to me that the paper had been published already, and that the review would take place after publication of the article in question. Authors could then publish revised versions of their article in response to the reviews received, or ignore the reviews altogether. Either way, said computer (hardwarewise not that different from other Open Access 'journals' - and neither quality wise in all too many instances) explains on its website that it has 'have full faith in the honesty and integrity of the scientific community and firmly believe[s] that most researchers and authors who have something to contribute should have an opportunity to do so.' Despite strong evidence of widespread cheating in academia trust is what drives this computer.  


How does this thing work then? 'We have introduced a novel method of post publication peer review, which is author driven. It is the authors' responsibility to actively solicit at least three reviews on their article. During the submission stage the authors are asked to provide details of three reviewers who are contacted by the WebmedCentral team when the article is published. Authors can seek more reviews, if they so wish. We discourage authors from choosing their reviewers selectively.'


'Our peer review process is author driven. With our innovative method of publishing, peer review takes place after publication. It is authors' responsibility to organise at least three reviews for their articles. We aim to generate an open debate on the article after its publication. WebmedCentral reserves the right to invite additional reviews as and when necessary.


All pretty clear: any crook can pick his or her best mates to 'review' content they have already 'published'. They're strongly encouraged not to be crooks, of course. That should just do the trick.


The computer mentions in passing  that it has neither an Editor nor an Editorial Board: 'With our model of publishing, we do not need an editor or editorial board for our journal. Authors are completely in charge of the entire publication process including soliciting reviews and submitting revised versions of the manuscripts if needed.' It's kinda unclear how a journal without Editor or Editorial Board is going to solicit  further reviews, 'if needed', but hey, minor detail in the big swing of the Webmedcentral universe.


There is a bit of confusion, too (well, I remained confused about the modus operandi). It seems as if you'd upload your papers free of charge to the computer, then have the article send to your three best mates whose compliments will also be 'published'. If they review more than three other files they can send more of their own non-reviewed drivel for publication purposes to the Webmedcentral server. Basic maths would suggest that soon review co-operatives identifiable by one's three best mates will monopolize much of Webmedcentral's file uploading activities. According to Webmedcentral the comments are also considered publications. It goes without saying that in this uploading orgy minor details such as doi identifiers are missing, but hey, it's a minor detail while you 'publish' a paper per hour to beef up your publications record. 


It's all pretty random and no doubt databases controlled by people as opposed to algorithms will not index stuff emanating from webmedcentral. Google scholar at least is happily indexing the contents on the Webmedcentral server. The price you pay for letting machines do the job humans arguably should be doing. 


The only nice thing is that webmedcentral could easily be confused with biomedcentral. It couldn't hit a nicer 'publisher' :-). 


Oh, the list of shame, aka academics prepared to be associated with this charade, is here. What people confuse with academic publishing here is academics publishing anything they feel like. No different to my blog really... feel free to comment (aka 'review' in Webmedcentral lingo).

Freshco and friends, why are you doing this to us?

I'm sure you also get those flyers during the weekend where supermarkets and other retail outfits try to persuade you to do your shopping with them. Invariably they've also sorts of special offers for us, usually involving buying more than we need of something (you know 5000 for the price of 1). Hence our ever growing mountains of rubbish.

Anyhow, so Freshco (a Canadian outfit) today sent me the flyer  that I am displaying to the left. You see the cheaper price guarantee. If I find the same product in some other store or some other flyer they will not just give the product to me at the same price, no, better even, they will 'beat' it. - The usual conditions apply. 

So, here are just a few of Freshco's conditions. They are both hilarious as well as offensive. They are unsurprisingly also more difficult to display, because they're longer than the original, seemingly straightforward deal. At least there's some information as to what 'beat it' means. And I quote: '... and we will sell you that item for 1c less'. Prior to getting that 1c discount on their best competitor you have to take the flyer to their store (yes, drive there for the 1c discount instead of buying it where it's cheaper to begin with, without the haggling). 

Anyhow, you might still think that it's worth it (for reasons unbeknownst to me), so to make things ever so slightly more complicated,here are a few minor additional conditions: 'Our major supermarket competitors', 'geographical trade areas' and 'comparable items' are determined solely by us and are based on a number of factors that can change from time to time.' So, you'd well head to Freshco, competitors' flyers in hand, to get your 1c discount per product, only to discover that, according to the store manager that you start haggling with, the flyer ain't from Freshco's 'major supermarket competitor' (ie your flyer doesn't count), or that the competitor is in the wrong part of town (ie 'geographical trade areas') etc etc. Random excuses are possible (you really would be bothered subjecting yourself to this sort of nonsense for 1c???).

Tesco in the UK was a tad bit more certain that its products really are the cheapest, so it offered to refund double the difference (as opposed to the ludicrous 1c Fresho is offering its price conscious customers). Well, that certainly flopped. They had to abandon the offer quickly because they could not afford paying out all those claims. No doubt Fresho ain't serious about its price guarantee otherwise it would not qualify the amusingly low-brow 1c deal on no less than 4 lines of smallest print. Really...

My view on offers like Fresho's is to always purchase from the retailer who offers you a decent deal straightaway as opposed to doing business with someone who first tries to charge you more and then offers you 1c (after haggling, and with said conditions applying) so that you do business with them anyway. I must also say that this sort of offer would annoy me sufficiently to stop doing business with Fresho altogether, simply because its marketing people tried to fool me with its 'beat it' promise. 

Let the buyer beware, true then, true now :).

50 Voices of Disbelief in Polish

coming in September, apparently.

Supporting the powers that are - Queen's Rector vs Queen's Principal

This likely is a first for me, at least on this blog. I agree with the powers that are (avid readers of this blog will know that I tend to enjoy being a thorn in their side).

It's a story about Israel (you might be tempted to say 'spare me the details'). I came across it because of Facebook. Facebook friends contacted me and asked me to sign a petition supporting the Queen's University Rector against demands that he step down. There is a lot of talk about academic freedom in that petition, please read it yourself. Now, our Rector is an elected student representative.  He wrote in his capacity as Rector to the leader of the federal opposition, Mr Ignatieff, defending Israel Apartheid week against criticism of that event, uttered by the Liberal politician. Israel Apartheid Week likens the state of Israel to - you guessed it - apartheid South Africa. I won't tell you what I think about Israel Apartheid Week, because that is not what this blog entry is all about. You are welcome to agree or disagree with the main proposition of Israel Apartheid Week, and yet you should be able to agree with me regardless.

The Queen's Rector was called in to the University Principal's office. Principal Woolf essentially told the Rector, Nick Day, that it was inappropriate for Rector Day to use his title as Rector to make the statement that he made. After all, the student body of Queen's University has taken no stance on Israel Apartheid Week (let alone Mr Ignatieff's statement), and so Mr Day had no reason at all to pretend he was representing Queen's University's student body when he wrote to Mr Ignatieff. Woolf here is showing himself to be way more sophisticated than his predecessor who did not hesitate to declare a few years ago that Queen's University would never support academic boycotts of Israel for reasons of academic freedom and whatnot, when (of course) Queen's University's governing bodies had taken no stance on this matter. Woolf, on his blog, makes quite rightly clear, that one could hold legitimately differing views on Israel Apartheid Week. At issue is that Mr Day chose to use his Rector moniker to impress Mr Ignatieff, instead of writing to Mr Ignatieff as Mr Day.

If the relevant student governing bodies at Queen's had taken a stance on Israel Apartheid week then Mr Day would have been entitled to write to Mr Ignatieff, especially if these bodies had tasked him to do so.

What's a bit puzzling is said petition claiming 'academic freedom' for the undergraduate student Rector. This strikes me as a rather bizarre complaint. Mr Day could have written to Mr Ignatieff and express his views as Mr Day (even as Mr Day, undergraduate student at Queen's University). Nothing would have stopped him. Asking that he refrain from using his title as Rector when he is not entitled to speak as Rector is not an infringement of academic freedom (if we assume there is such a thing for undergraduate students). I wonder what the same petitioners would have said if Mr Day had chosen to write as Rector in support of the establishment of a 'Keep Asian students out of Queen's Week'? Academic freedom? Really? Nonsense.


The question remains whether Rector Day should remain Rector Day or whether he should resign and become Mr Day again. If past experience is precedent setting, one could argue that given that the past Queen's Principal who confused her personal views on academic boycotts with those of the University was not forced to resign (over this matter), perhaps the Rector should not be treated differently. At the end of the day, this is a political decision the students need to make. I have no strong views on this one way or another.

Scientific misconduct

The news on research misconduct is coming in hard and fast. A Bradford University professor was reportedly caught having published content that he plagiarized from Indian academics.  Germany had its fair share of significant scandals fairly recently. Retraction Watch reported on Professor Joachim Boldt who had some 90 or so papers retracted because they involved academic misconduct of some kind or other. The country defense minister was forced to resign (mostly because of outrage among the conservative middle classes and widespread anger among academics) because his doctoral thesis basically was a patchwork of stuff he copied elsewhere. Der Spiegel weekly magazine reports that the head of sport medicine at Freiburg University is currently under investigation by university authorities for having plagiarized parts of his habilitation (a German kinda second doctorate that you need if you wish to go for professorial jobs - a waste of time by any stretch of the imagination, but that's a story for another day). As yet unsubstantiated rumors have it that he delayed his PhD student's thesis defence so that he'd be able to publish his habilitation first. The university also investigates claims that said professor's wife, in order to speed up her doctoral thesis defense misappropriated content from doctoral theses her husband supervised for her own thesis.

At Bioethics, a journal that I am associated with as an Editor, we had to face - in this year alone - two plagiarism cases, each time involving stuff we published being plagiarized elsewhere. One paper has since been retracted by BMC Medical Ethics, an Open Access electronic publication operated by Springer Publishing. The retraction did not occur until significant pressure was exerted on the reluctant publisher. In case of doubt, strangely, publishers and editors seem quite happy to cover their authors' tracks and opt for Errata as opposed to retractions, the dreadful word 'plagiarism' is avoided at nearly all cost by publishers and editors. It's unclear to me whether that is due to legal reasons as opposed to lack of insight on the relevant editors' part. The other plagiarism claim is still investigated. When you realize that we publish only between 55 and 65 manuscripts in any given year, that's quite a bad start into 2011.

In Britain the conservative paper The Telegraph reports the results of a nationwide survey suggesting that some institutions had to face down hundreds of cheating students in just one year. You'll be pleased to know that the supposedly best universities in the country, Oxford and Cambridge (where likely the pressure to perform is highest) reported in 2009/2010 12 and 1 instances respectively of cheating amongst their students. I guess, the good news is that once you've been admitted there you don't have to worry too much about getting caught while you engage in academic misconduct. Their  enforcement of academic standards is likely to be pretty lax indeed. Cambridge having caught one student cheating in said academic year seems to be the perfect place to study these days. I recommend the league table to you in case you consider enrolling in places where you stand a fair chance at getting away with cheating because nobody seems to bother checking too carefully. Go for those universities that report close to no students cheating, and you likely are on to a winner. To my academic colleagues asking for evidence I have to say that I do think students everywhere cheat in significant numbers. It's simply the case that some institutions care more so than others about catching cheats. A low number of caught cheats in my reality is not evidence of fewer cheats, rather it is evidence of lax enforcement and monitoring.

In unrelated news, the BBC reports that Germany is today the world's most popular country, closely followed by Britain...

End the Tsunami of Executions in Iran

The Islamic Republic of Iran is the execution capital of the world. Already in 2011, it has executed at least 86 people after unfair trials and forced confessions under torture - three times last year's rate. It is the worst rise in executions since the regime's massacre of political prisoners in the summer of 1988.

 

There has been one execution every 8 hours and at least 8 of those executed have been political prisoners. Some of those killed by the state include: Zahra Bahrami, 45 year old Dutch/Iranian national who was arrested during protests last year, Ali Ghorabat for apostasy and Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Haj Aghaie for enmity against god. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani still faces execution.

 

We, the undersigned, demand an immediate end to this state-sponsored murder that aims to intimidate the protest movement in Iran and call on the United Nations and governments to exert pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran for an immediate and unconditional halt to executions. A regime that slaughters its citizens must face diplomatic isolation.

 

Signed by: Shahla Abghari, University Professor, Human Rights and Women Rights Activist, USA; Nazanin Afshin-Jam, President & Co Founder of Stop Child Executions, Canada; Mina Ahadi, Spokesperson, International Committee against Stoning & Execution, Germany; Sayeed Ahmad, Coordinator, Ain o Salish Kendra, Bangladesh; Association Fenomena Kraljevo, Serbia; Russell Blackford, Writer and Philosopher, Australia; Caroline Brancher, UFAL, France; Helle Merete Brix, Journalist, Denmark; Roy W Brown, International Representative, International Humanist and Ethical Union; Richard Dawkins, Scientist, UK; Patty Debonitas, Spokesperson, Iran Solidarity, UK; Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International, India; Sonja Eggerickx, President, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Belgium; Caroline Fourest, Writer and Columnist, France; A. C. Grayling, Writer and Philosopher, UK; Rahila Gupta, Activist and Writer, UK; Maria Hagberg, Chairperson, Network Against Honour-Related Violence, Sweden; Trefor Jenkins, Professor Emeritus / Honorary Professorial Research Fellow, South Africa; Hope Knutsson, President, Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association, Iceland; Nevena Kostic, Women for Peace, Serbia; Hartmut Krauss, Social Scientist, Germany; Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, USA; Terry Liddle, Freethought History Research Group, UK; Anne-Marie Lizin, Honorary Speaker of the Belgian Senate, Belgium; Marieme Helie Lucas, Founder, Secularism Is A Women's Issue, France; Ed McArthur, Freethought History Research Group, UK; Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law For All Campaign, Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran, and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, UK; Salman Rushdie, Writer, USA; Daniel Salvatore Schiffer, Philosopher and Writer, Belgium; Terry Sanderson, President, National Secular Society, London, UK; Michael Schmidt-Salomon, Spokesperson of the Giordano Bruno Foundation, Germany; Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Philosophy and Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics, Canada; Siba Shakib, Filmmaker and Writer, USA; Joan Smith, Writer and Activist, London, UK; Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director, American Humanist Association, USA; Annie Sugier, President, Ligue du Droit International des Femmes, France; Peter Tatchell, Human Rights Campaigner, UK; Giti Thadani, Writer and Filmmaker, India; Michele Vianes, President, Regards de Femmes, France; Eli Vieira, President, Secular Humanist League of Brazil, Brazil; and Women in Black, Belgrade, Serbia.

 

2. Join us at a the International Conference on Women’s Rights, Sharia Law and Secularism, which will be held at the University of London Union, The Venue, Malet Street, London WC1E, on 12 March from 1000-1900 (Registration begins at 10am for a 1030am start). For information and to register go to: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/12-march-2010-international-conference-on-women%e2%80%99s-rights-sharia-law-and-secularism-london/

 

3. Please support our work! We welcome in kind and financial donations. You can donate at

http://iransolidarity.org.uk/donate_to_iran_solidarity.html.

 

4. Get in touch and join us! Contact Patty Debonitas, iransolidaritynow@gmail.com, Tel: +44 (0) 7507978745

Or visit http://iransolidarity.org.uk where you will also find contact details of our international branches. Patty Debonitas has taken over the role of Spokesperson from founder and previous Spokesperson Maryam Namazie.

HIV/AIDS in Jamaica

One is tempted to feel sorry for Jamaica’s Health Minister, the Honourable Rudyard Spencer. There he is, trying his best to do his job, and, among other urgent health matters, reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS in his nation. Unfortunately, on his own account, this is proving to be next to impossible lest Jamaicans change their cultural attitudes to – you guessed it – sex. The Jamaican Ministry of Health website quotes him with these eminently sensible concerns about specific attitudes: ‘These include a widely held belief that sex with a virgin can cure HIV/AIDS, the high level of sexual relations between older men and young girls and a persistently hostile anti-gay environment which all contribute to the stigmatization and discrimination of infected and affected persons. A strong religious culture also inhibits open discussion on matters of sexuality.  … We to [sic!] need begin the process of unlearning those beliefs that endanger the health lives of others and rethinking the tendency to be obscene and degrading in rejecting values that conflict with our own.”[1]

A bit of background on HIV/AIDS in Jamaica:  2008 study commissioned by the Ministry of Health concluded that about 31.8% of men who have sex with other men (MSM) are HIV infected in the island state.[2] There is a strong correlation between men being HIV infected and them belonging to lower socioeconomic groups, and them having been victims of antigay violence. Thankfully the number of AIDS deaths per year is decreasing because the country has begun the rollout of antiretroviral medicines.

The Jamaican Health Minister and others tasked with improving public health have their work cut out for them. The country has the second-highest HIV-prevalence rate among MSM in the world, right after another notorious violator of the human rights of gay people, Kenya. Homosexual men in Jamaica rarely ever live in monogamous relationships because of the security risks involved in living with a member of the same sex over longer periods in the same household. This is partly a result of colonial legislation prohibiting same sexual activities among men. I decided to actually read-up on the relevant legislation. The flowery prose under the heading ‘Unnatural Offences’ is sufficiently antiquated that I should like to share it with you:

76. Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term not exceeding ten years.

77. Whosoever shall attempt to commit the said abominable crime, or shall be guilty of any assault with intent to commit the same, or of any indecent assault upon any male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding seven years, with or without hard labour.

Up to 10 years of labour camp for a mature-age man who has voluntarily sex with another consenting adult male is a fairly draconian penalty for a self-regarding act. One justification for this law is hidden under that well-known Christian natural law moniker of ‘unnatural’. Unfortunately, for Jamaican law makers, there is no such a thing as unnatural conduct. If something is physically possible it is very much within the laws of nature, and therefore by necessity it is natural. Normatively nothing follows from this. The phraseology of the ‘unnatural’ explains and justifies nothing. Many natural things are not desirable, natural conduct can be unethical, even criminal. However, as is well known to legal philosophers, not all unethical behaviours ought to be illegal.[3] Declaring homosexual conduct unnatural, as this law does, is arguably unintelligible and it begs the question of why the law exists to begin with.

The Jamaican law is not making a case for why sexual conduct between consenting adults is unethical, and if it is unethical, why it should be legislated against. For good measure ‘abominable’ has been added to this ‘crime’. This does not add anything either by way of justification. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary enlightens us that the 14^th century originated word ‘abominable’ means that something is variously disagreeable or unpleasant or worthy of causing disgust or hatred. Finding something disagreeable or unpleasant is not a good reason to make it illegal, and frankly, whether I am disgusted by something you do is not a good yard stick either by which to determine whether an act ought to be criminal. Well, and what about that hatred criterion? No doubt plenty of Jamaicans hate gay people, but how does that provide a justification in terms of outlawing same sex sexual conduct among consenting adults? One does not have to be an old-fashioned liberal in the tradition of John Stuart Mill to realize that the criminal law has no right to interfere with the self-regarding actions of consenting adults.

Jamaica today finds itself in a difficult situation. Sectarian religious mores has been enshrined in law by its former colonial master, and has since been duly maintained as the gospel by generations of Jamaican politicians. Indeed, to give Jamaican legislators credit where credit is due, they have managed to uphold unreasonable religious dictates decades after the British have discarded them. There is little by way of actual enforcement in current-day, but as is well-known, legal norms are capable of creating as well as reinforcing extra-legal norms.

The official Jamaican government report on HIV/AIDS to the United Nations General Assembly (2010) acknowledges the problems this legislation is causing: ‘The political framework towards HIV has not changed. With outdated laws that present obstacles for adolescents, SW, MSM and prison inmates, prevention and treatment efforts to these populations are not able to be fully maximized. The existing political framework has also been implicated in contributing to the stigma and discrimination faced by MSM. Several efforts have been made in this area however, through the review of laws that stand as obstacles to prevention, but to date no major achievements are noted in this aspect of political support.’[4]

The US based human rights organization Human Rights Watchhas published a report a few years ago highlighting the pervasive nature of oftentimes violent homophobia in Jamaica.[5] The price MSM are paying in Jamaica for this situation is very significant indeed, as can be demonstrated by the extraordinarily high prevalence of HIV/AIDS among this group of Jamaicans. Research has shown that gay Jamaicans are reluctant to present with health problems that could disclose their sexual orientation to health care providers out of fear for reprisals by health care professionals and others. It goes without saying that such health care professionals acting in such a manner would be violating international codes of health care professional conduct such as the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Geneva, requiring, as it does, that doctors ‘WILL NOT PERMIT [sic!] considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient.’[6] However, many Jamaican MSM patients reluctance to consult health care professionals is indicative of the climate in the country. It might be coincidental, but I do wonder why the Medical Association of Jamaica, unlike so many other national medical association, is seemingly not a member association of the World Medical Association.

Enlightened politicians such as Jamaica’s Health Minister, the Honourable Rudyard Spencer and his staff find themselves in an unenviable situation. They are representing or working for a government that continues to support legislation that contributes significantly to the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS among MSM. Unlike in South Africa where church leaders have come together to support efforts aimed at reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS, in Jamaica church leaders are busy trying to preserve the homophobic climate and legislative framework that assisted in giving rise to the public health problems the country faces today.[7]

It will be interesting to monitor how the situation will evolve in Jamaica. Many ethical questions arise not only with regard to the country’s unjust discrimination against its gay citizens, but also from a public health ethics perspective. The ethical challenge for Jamaica is far from unique, and it is this: is it ethical to uphold particular cultural values regardless of the human cost involved? 

Udo Schuklenk

---

[1] Ministry of Health Jamaica. (2010) Culture Shift Needed to Help in the Fight Against HIV/AIDS. http://www.moh.gov.jm/general/latestnews/1-latest-news/346-culture-shift-needed-to-help-in-the-fight-against-hivaids- [Accessed 13 February 2011]

[2] Kaiser Health News. (2009) Continued Discrimination Against Jamaican HIV-Positive MSM Hinders Their Efforts To Seek Health Care, Advocates Say  http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-reports/2009/march/12/dr00057435.aspx?referrer=search [Accessed 13 February 2011]

[3] Joel Feinberg. (1988) The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Vol. 4): Harmless Wrongdoing. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

[4] Ministry of Health. (2010) UNGASS Country Progress Report 2010 Reporting: Jamaica National HIV/STI Program. Jamaica, March 31, 2010: p. 32.

[5] Human Rights Watch. (2004) Hated to Death. Human Rights Watch 16(6B): 1-79.

[6] World Medical Association. (2006) Declaration of Geneva. WMA: Geneva. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/index.html [Accessed 13 February 2011]

[7] Thaddeus M. Baklinski. (2008) Jamaican Church Leaders Say Homosexuality Will Not Be Accepted As Normal. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/feb/08021804 [Accessed 13 February 2011]

Mass murderer

Is it OK to call someone else 'nuts'?

I have called folks 'nuts' on numerous occasions. I have called other people other somewhat offensive things, too. I don't think name-calling is necessarily a terrible thing, particularly when you're campaigning or agitating for some view or other. It's just part and parcel of political fights where people are more robust in their rhetoric than they would be if they talked to their loved ones. All you indicate is the strength of your deep felt disagreement with someone who you think doesn't deserve much respect with regard to certain views they old.

Usually when I use such terminology I mean to indicate just that strength of my disagreement with the person I refer to as 'nuts'. I only deploy it in cases where the person I call 'nuts' says something particularly implausible, irrational, unreasonable, name it. I'm sure you have heard other people calling someone 'nuts' or 'crazy' with similar intentions.

Who is it that I do not have in mind, when  I refer to someone else as 'nuts'? I  do not even think of someone with a mental disability. I would never refer to a person with a mental illness as 'nuts'. That would be quite pointlessly offensive and uncalled for.

A couple of weeks ago, in passing, I referred on this blog to a religious fundamentalist as 'nuts' (hint: he would object to that description :) who criticized me harshly in a newspaper article and blog entry, calling me - ironically - 'unhinged'. He made demonstrably false claims about the impact Catholic doctrine has on the clinical care patients can reasonably expect in some Catholic hospitals. I meant to offend this guy. He made obviously false factual statements and I called him on that. I was pretty angry about the audacity this guy displayed when he made these false claims and I wanted to ensure that my readers really understand the depth of my anger. So I called him 'nuts'.

Obviously, I did not call him 'nuts' in the sense that I meant to suggest that he is suffering from a mental illness that rendered him incompetent. Far from it, I very much meant to hold him responsible for the false claims he made, and I had no intention of 'letting him get away' under the pretext that he was not mentally competent anyway. So, calling him 'nuts' simply meant to suggest that his views were unreasonable, irrational, demonstrably false, name it. I can't imagine that any of my readers would have thought that I meant to suggest that the guy I criticized had a mental illness.

And yet, the blog entry caught the attention of a number of people in the US who are involved with groups looking after the legitimate interests of people suffering from mental illnesses. One of them attacked me on this blog pretty vigorously, stressing that my wording is offensive to mentally ill people, because 'nuts' is a term that is used in a derogatory manner by other folks referring to mentally ill people. The writer even suggested that stuff like my blog entry could lead to lynch mobs and other such nasty things. His comments were clearly way over the top, but the fundamental point he made, namely that I had made an error in judgment when I picked a term that is used by some people to offensively refer to  mentally ill people, seemed pretty sound to me. I immediately apologized on my blog. It's all nice and well that I did not intend to offend mentally ill people, and that I didn't not even have mentally ill people in mind when I picked the term I chose to offend the religious fundamentalist, but at the end of the day we should take into considerations - as much as is feasible - what the unintended consequences of our rhetoric might be.

Lesson learned, make sure that if you wish to offend 'A', you offend 'A' and only 'A' (or someone who is with regard to a relevant feature like 'A'), and not a whole bunch of other people.

Follow-up to 50 Voices of Disbelief in the Making

Russell Blackford and I published in late 2009 the anthology '50 Voices of Disbelief - Why We are Atheists'. The book has been pretty successful by academic standards. A Polish translation is forthcoming in a few weeks time. The publisher of the book is Wiley-Blackwell, one of the largest academic publishing houses in North America. Wiley-Blackwell is producing a series of popular volumes looking at for instance debunking myths about popular psychology. Russell and I have been asked to produce a volume looking at investigating 50 popular myths about atheism for this series. This certainly is an exciting project, both because of the popular reach of these volumes, but also because both of us thoroughly enjoyed putting together '50 Voices of Disbelief' at the time. Of course, the challenge this time is somewhat different in that we are not tasked with finding and herding together a diverse group of more than 50 contributors, instead this time around we will be writing the book ourselves.

Here then an appeal to anyone who has come across what they believe are particularly powerful myths about atheism that people fall for, do drop us a line so that we can consider including them in our line-up.

Farewell Nokia

Wow, now that's a nasty surprise that Nokia sprang on me. Just last week I decided that I'd replace my 3 year old Blackberry with a Nokia phone. I badly wanted a functional phone based on good quality hardware. My Blackberry (I had it on a rip-off contract with Bell Canada, but that's another story) has been a complete and utter disaster as far as the hardware is concerned. It effectively stopped working reliably about 8 weeks after I received it. Courtesy of Bell's 'warranty' mechanism ('Bell Canada warranty' is a contradiction in terms) I ended up receiving recycled and likely older phones than my new phone back from their 'repair' people. Goes without saying that my Blackberry essentially never worked properly. You try explaining that to Bell call centre person who barely speaks or understands English... - Anyway, I digress, so while I love the Blackberry keyboard, I would never again get another Blackberry, simply because I know now that these phones are manufactured so badly. IPhone is a no-brainer, their reception sucks and that's all that I need to know.

Well, once upon a time I was young, and in those long bygone times Nokia phones were pretty much the best. Turns out that the latest reviews suggest the same of their latest smartphone. Problem is that there's not gazillions of 'apps'. Truth be told, I don't need apps permitting me to switch my TV on from my mobile phone or to flush me toilet while I'm in the car, using said mobile phone. I need my mobile essentially for three purposes: phone calls, email and internet browsing. Nokia's phone does all that well, and it has better hardware than any other available smartphone (eg it boasts a 12MP camera). So, there I was bent on buying this phone - much to the amusement of blackberry/iphone using folks around me.

Too bad that's all history. Nokia's CEO has decided to tie Nokia's superb hardware to truly crappy software, namely Microsoft's. No wonder, given that said CEO is a former Microsoft executive. A German newsmagazine rightly suggested that these two turkeys won't make an eagle.

Any suggestions re a good smartphone that ain't Blackberry, Nokia or Apple and that does the three things that I'm keen on, do let me know!

Pride

I remain puzzled about people taking 'pride in being xyz', or about people saying, 'proud to be xyz'. Some of these pride taking activities are obviously not unreasonable and they are indeed understandable. These types of activities pertain to be people taking pride in things that they can take credit for. Say Usain Bolt has reason to be proud of his world record demonstrating that he currently runs faster in circles than other people who also would like to run faster in circle than anyone else in the world. Bolt can't reasonably take credit for bodily features that permit him to compete, provided he trains properly. He can take pride in training very hard and disciplined in order to do the circle run faster than anyone else in the world. So, my view is that pride taking requires some conscious deliberate activity on our part aimed at achieving a certain thing that we would like to achieve. When we have achieved this thing, we take pride in that achievement.

So, here's my puzzlement then. Lots of people take pride in things that they couldn't help one way or another. People take pride in being of one skin color or another, they take pride in being gay, disabled, tall, short etc etc. None of these things, surely, lend themselves to pride taking activities. After all, if you're black you are black you are black, and nothing (save some idiotic skin bleaching exercises) is going to change that. If you're tall, you're tall, you're tall, and nothing  (save some idiotic leg cutting exercises) is going to change this. Same for sexual orientation. Given that most, if not all, people do not make a considered choice to be asexual, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or whatever sexual, how can any of us sensibly take pride in being of a particular sexual orientation? At best we can take pride in making a considered choice to be good about who we are as opposed to being in denial.

One of my facebook friends said that she is proud of the Egyptian revolutionaries that are bent on kicking their dictator out. Now, how can she be proud of something that she had no hand in? Makes little sense, or does it? Have the people in Egypt who took risks during this revolution have every reason to take pride in their bravery. Arguably they have a case to be proud. Has someone who cheered them on from a comfy living room in Canada (supporting them on facebook or tweeting busily revolutionary slogans) reason to take pride in anything that has been achieved in Egypt? Surely not.

Over to you, would we not be better off if people stopped taking pride in things that they can't reasonably take credit for? Perhaps I have missed something in the concept of pride, so do not hesitate to comment and get back at me if you think so.

Malawi? Really?!

Something fishy is likely going on in Malawi, and I don't know what it is. You know that government or politicians generally have something to hide when they are desperate to draw our attention to irrelevant issues. Malawi lawmakers are quite busy by way of engaging in a remarkable set of skirmishing activities. So, they're busy currently drafting legislation making lesbian sex among consenting adult women illegal. They are also discussing legislation aimed at making farting in public illegal. Really? In a country where the life expectancy of its people hovers around the 50 year mark, they're concerned about legislating against the sex life of lesbians and those evil doers who dare to fart in public places? The atheist in me can't help but wonder whether these public and private 'decency' activities can be explained by way of the country's population being 80% Christian. I am not claiming that that's the reason for these bizarre policy propositions, but generally speaking, Christian conservatives have a habit of focusing on things that truly don't matter and ignoring things that do matter. You know, the kinds of people who busily protect the unborn life while they couldn't care less for any already born life, those sorts of Christians. Watch out for more exciting news coming out of Malawi, Uganda and other African places. Kinda ironic that the powers that are in these places seem to really work day and night to prove that Western stereotypes about 'Africa' are lived up to.

Policing academic fraud

A big scandal is brewing in good ol Germany. A former hospital based clinical and researcher, Joachim Boldt, was fired by his employer some time last year when it came to light that a study he had published in a US medical journal was forcibly retracted because the journal had sufficiently serious doubts about the veracity of the data. 


The editor of the journal published this editorial today:

1. There are no original patient data or laboratory data to support the findings in the study.

2. According to the head of the perfusionist team, no albumin has been used as a priming solution since 1999.

3. According to the pharmacy, no albumin has been delivered to the cardiac operating rooms for many years.

4. All laboratory measurements, including IL-6, IL-10, intercellular adhesion molecule, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, and alpha-glutathione-S-transferase, would have been performed in the clinical laboratory at the Klinikum Ludwigshafen. These assays have only been performed on patients receiving hydroxy-ethyl starch priming solutions. The laboratory could identify no assays from patients receiving albumin priming solutions.

5. Professor Boldt has admitted forging the signatures of the coauthors on the copyright transfer form submitted to Anesthesia & Analgesia.

6. The coauthors denied participation in the fabrication.

7. There is no convincing evidence that this study was performed at all.

The state medical board also investigated the good doctor. A press released issued today states: 

Based on today’s announcement, LÄK-RLP has reviewed 74 scientific articles describing

clinical trials subject to the requirements of the German Medicinal Act. This includes the article
by Professor Boldt recently retracted by Anesthesia & Analgesia and an article submitted by
Professor Boldt to Anaesthesia but not published. By law these studies required IRB approval.
Although the articles typically stated that IRB approval had been obtained, LÄK-RLP could not
find evidence of approval for 68 of these articles.

LÄK-RLP also identified 30 published articles that describe research that did not fall under the
jurisdiction of the German Medicinal Act but physicians performing such human research must
conform to the Code of Deontology, which includes a requirement for IRB review. Some articles
describing epidemiological studies with non-identifiable data did not require IRB review. For six
articles LÄK-RLP was able to document IRB approval. For the remaining articles LÄK-RLP has
not been able to document IRB approval.

LÄK-RLP has again contacted and asked the authors of published articles for which LÄK-RLP
cannot document IRB approval to provide evidence of such approval. LÄK-RLP is presently
awaiting documentation of IRB approval from the first/corresponding author of every questioned
article before making a final determination. LÄK-RLP will notify the respective journals of
articles describing clinical research for which there is no evidence of IRB approval.

Few comments:

1) it is odd indeed that co-authors on the initially published study claim to have not been 'involved' in the fabrication of relevant data. Well, does it mean, they did know about the fabcritation, but didn't technically contribute to the falsification? Or does it mean that he or she was co-author on a paper of which they had no idea how the basic data had come about? Or does it mean that because the good Prof Boldt forged their signature under the copyright release form, they had no idea they were even listed as co-authors? The latter is not very plausible a claim, because every researcher checks on google scholar or PubMed every now and then how their publications are doing by way of citations etc. Surely, a paper one is unaware to have contributed to would have popped out like a sore thumb then. Is it possible, in other words, that these folks really were unaware of their publication with Joachim Boldt. It is possible. Is it very likely? Not really. 

2) While this case is pretty terrible, it's a bit unclear what consequences should be drawn, procedurally, by journal editors or oversight bodies. Realistically journal editors are unable to investigate such fraud. How should we check whether or not eg a co-author signature is real or fraudulent? Similarly for the ethics committee (in the USA IRB) approval documentation. Some journals ask simply for confirmation from the principal author that ethics approval was given. If an author then lies, there is little we can do. Some journals ask for the approval letter from the IRB, but truth be told, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Photoshop and the necessary criminal energy, could forge such documents. And, as Boldt's case demonstrates, these sorts of folks are not exactly lacking criminal energy. This is not an easy one then to solve, because with the necessary infrastructure and resource deployment most such frauds could be caught, but realistically most publishers of academic journals are in it for the profits, and this would deplete such profits in a quite significant way. What should we do? We could unload the task to the employers of researchers. They could be required to keep tabs on their researchers' publications and cross-check them against their ethics approvals. If the necessary penalties were on the book for institutions failing to monitor their staff conduct sufficiently, I suspect we might be able to reduce unethical research. However, would this, or any other solution, completely eliminate academic misconduct of the type described? No chance. 

this snowstorm is coming our way ...

and now there's a near blizzard warning.

World Economic Forum

Wow, so there it is again, the great and the greatest mingling happily in Davos. Luxury hotels, private jets, prime ministers and presidents abound, the usual gaggle of academics to provide light entertainment, and then there is non-stop fawning coverage even on my beloved BBC World Service. And yet, honestly, I cannot recall that this meeting was ever anything other than a show of the great and those badly wanting to be seen to be great. Has it ever achieved anything tangible? Nope. Has it ever predicted problems (like the economic meltdown we experienced during the last 2 years)? Nope. Has it predicted the radical changes that are afoot in the Middle East? Nope.

Why not cancel the meeting and let the great and the greatest pay for their next vacation in Switzerland? Just wondering.

Completely unrelated, and just for your amusement. Notice how Faux News has relocated Egypt on its map...

Organised Christianity's Evil Consequences - Murder of gay activist in Uganda

I am reproducing here without further comment a piece that's over at blacklooks.org . Further information is here.  Write to the Ugandan Embassy or High Commission and ask that this murder be properly investigated and the perpetrators punished.

On Wednesday 26th January 2010  David Kato – Ugandan Kuchu, activist, human rights defender, Man of courage, stubborn, intense, the real. He lived without trimmings literally and metaphorically. David lived his life on the edge with no protection from the sickening campaign of hate unleashed by political and religious leaders in Uganda and their supporters in the US and elsewhere.

So today i am writing about David and whatever I write it will not be enough to express my feelings for him or on his murder.   I only met him in person exactly one year ago. He was in York on a human rights defender course. I was in London. He wanted to organise a tour speaking on the Ugandan anti-homosexuality Bill – the hate bill and thats how we came together.  `He stayed with me a couple of times and we traveled to Canterbury, London and Manchester speaking about the Bill and LGBTIQ struggles on the continent.  David was always cracking sarcastic jokes when he was speaking about the Bill. He traveled to Brussels where one woman asked him to wear a suit for his presentation. Where the fuck am I going to get a suit said David. Will they buy me a suit? Who do they think I am?  David, intense, stubborn and not given to idle chat whether in person, on the phone or  email.  I would get intense abrupt emails informing me of the latest hate in Uganda, requesting information or discussing strategy or just what the fuck is this – whats wrong with these people?

A couple of weeks ago he asked me to find out about a suspected WSF money scam. I tried but did not get back to him in time so I know I didn’t try hard enough.  David had been beaten up many times. He was constantly harassed, his home broken into. The last time this happened a few months ago he tried to raise some funds to make his home secure but it was not enough.  This is no blame time – people do what they can when they can. It’s just a fact.  He walked around with a dislocated shoulder in constant pain from a particularly severe beating – he tried to get it fixed in York but the NHS couldn’t or wouldn’t provide him with the treatment he needed.

Recently David together with Kasha Jacqueline and Pepe Onziema won a landmark case against the Ugandan tabloid, Rolling Stone who had published the names and photos of what it called “Ugandans top 100 homos” on October 2nd 2010 which also included the headline “Hang Them”. A number of the photos were ones used by activists on their Facebook profiles including David’s. The High Court ruled that Rolling Stone had “violated their constitutional rights to privacy and safety” and warned them and other news media not to repeat the outings. We do not yet know the exact details surrounding David’s murder but the fact that he has received repeated death threats since the Rolling Stone outing we see there are consequences to actions which actively encourage hatred.

The responsibility for the repeated harassment, beatings, death threats and now possibly his murder lies with all those members of Parliament, religious leaders both in Uganda, other countries on the continent and in the US, who have led the campaign of hate against LGBTIQ people: David Baharti, Red Pepper newspaper, Martin Ssempa, Ugandan Minister of Ethics Nsaba Buturu, Archbishop of Rwanda, Onesphore Rwaje , Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda, the All African Bishops Conference, Apolo Nsibambi of Uganda, Rev. Bernard Ntahoturi of Burundi, Archbishop Akinola and Nicholas Okoh of Nigeria, Peter Karamaga, the National Anti-Homosexual Task-force Uganda, President Museveni, Mrs Museveni, President Mugabe. Pastor Mulinde of Trumpet Church Uganda, Lou Engle, Rick Warren, Scott Lively and Dan Schmierer of the ex-gay group Exodus International, Jon Qwelane and President Jacob Zuma who sent him to Uganda, Bishop Lawrence Chai of Free Apostolic Churches of Kenya and Sheikh Ali Hussein of Masjid Answar Sunna Mosque. The African Union [AU] African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights who denied CAL observer status, all those who voted at the UN General Assembly Human Rights Committee to delete the reference to killings due to sexual orientation from a resolution condemning unjustified executions. And all those who hold positions of responsibility and power who refused to speak up against hatred.
The lives of all Ugandan Kuchus are now at risk – how will they be protected? Who will protect them? How will there be justice for David? One way is to ensure there is a sincere investigation into his murder including the role played by the homophobia of MPs and religious leaders and what must be done to protect others. Another is to speak about this as widely and as much as possible.

Condolences David’s family, his brothers and sisters at SMUG and to all those who knew and loved David. 


Rest In Peace David, we remember you for your courage, honesty and unwavering commitment to the struggle for the right and dignity for all of us to be who we are. We remember you, David for the beautiful human being you were and you will always live in our hearts. We have lost a great activist and a great man

“Determined to struggle till a yard done to the journey of liberating the LGBTI community from the discrimination and oppressional laws in the name of sodomy!” David Kato

Apologies for posting hiatus

Folks,

I have been away in Europe for talks in Germany and Britain. I will be back in Canada by the end of this coming week, and I will be posting stuff again. Meanwhile, enjoy this link. Also, I was castigated by some religious nut in Canada last year about claims I made about patients in Catholic hospitals being unable to be certain that they'll received best standards of professional care due to conflicting ideological (pardon me, religious) teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. You might want to check out this link in the Washington Post on the matter. It provides plenty of evidence in support of my contention.