OPINION: “Behavior is … contrary to what academic freedom is about”
Editor of the scientific journal Bioethics just sent a clear message to the online “outrage machine” that seeks to exclude scientists with unpopular opinions: Stop the mudslinging.
There is a better way to advance academic knowledge, and that is through open, free debate. Editor-in-chief Udo Schuklenk (pictured) wrote in a recent editorial.
It is refreshing and encouraging to see the editorial board taking such a stance – especially after other magazines have caved in to pressure and retracted pro-life articles.
Schuklenk wrote the article in response to the “social media-enabled outrage” that had led to calls for the retraction of academic papers and the resignation of editors.
“What confuses me about this behavior is that it contradicts what constitutes academic freedom,” Schuklenk wrote on behalf of the editorial board.
A philosophy professor at Queen’s University in Canada, he said that “diversity of thought” is crucial in science, especially in the field of bioethics. And that means being able to publish articles that even the editors might personally disagree with.
In his editorial, he repeatedly mentioned online attacks against pro-life scientists.
Schuklenk revealed his political views when he labeled these scientists “pro-abortionists,” but he nonetheless defended their academic freedom.
“In this journal we have published a number of articles in recent years by a small group of – arguably – activist, anti-abortion academic authors,” he wrote.
But “pro-abortion academic social media activists have strongly criticized the journal for publishing such content,” even though the articles have gone through the standard peer review process, he said. The journal also has the articles reviewed by at least two reviewers from both sides before publication, he said.
However, this did not satisfy the outraged mob. Schuklenk wrote:
“Peer reviewed or not, such offensive content should not be published. Doubts were raised about the motives of us editors, were we perhaps secret supporters of a Handmaid’s Tale-type society? Of course, questions also arose about the quality of the journal and its review processes. How could we publish such obviously flawed articles? The operating principle seemed to be to throw mud at the journal, its editors and its reviewers and hope that something sticks. These concerns, oddly enough, never seem to arise in relation to content that these academic social media activists find acceptable.”
The Bioethics The editors did not give in. However, the same cannot be said of other journals.
As The College Fix At the beginning of the year, the editors of The new bioethics changed course and rejected an article about abortion that it had initially accepted on X following complaints from a reader. The editors cited concerns that the scientist was a “white” “male.”
Only a few months earlier Sage Journals retracted three abortion studies by a group of well-known pro-lifers, including a former faculty member at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health.
But with BioethicsSchuklenk said the editorial team was committed to “protecting controversial ideas,” including “views that some readers may find offensive.”
When controversial ideas are published and attract attention, it can be a good thing because it provides an opportunity to examine views “in a scientifically sophisticated way,” he wrote.
Cancel culture on the Internet is “contrary to what constitutes academic freedom,” wrote Schuklenk.
Science needs more editors like those of Bioethics who are ready to confront the outraged mob and defend academic freedom.
MORE: Magazine rejects pro-life article by ‘white’ ‘male’ author
IMAGE: Bioethics Journal, Udo Schuklenk/X
Read more
How The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
