Björn Brembs

Scientists are used to vested interests disputing scientific claims.
Tobacco corporations have tried to discredit the science about lung
cancer and smoking, creationists keep raising always the same,
long-debunked objections against evolution, climate-deniers claim the
earth is cooling, anti-vaxxers believe the MMR vaccine causes autism and
homeopaths delude themselves that a little drop of nothing has magical
healing powers. No amount of evidence will convince such
"unpersuadables".

What receives less attention, though, is what may be a more severe
problem for science, namely the dismissal of science by scientists --
unpersuadable scientists.

Documenting this phenomenon is difficult, because the dismissal of
science is only rarely uttered in writing or in public. One would tend
to hope that this is an indication that such behavior may be rare. I am
aware of only two instances. One is the now [infamous blog
post](https://web.archive.org/web/20170312041524/http:/www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no)
by [Brian
Wansink](https://www.timvanderzee.com/the-wansink-dossier-an-overview/),
and another are the public statements by decision-makers at a German
conference
[documented](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2015/07/evidence-resistant-science-leaders/)
elsewhere. Recently, I have witnessed a third instance.

At a dinner table with about ten participants, all academics, the
discussion entered the topic of 'quality' academic journals and journal
rank. When I referenced the data showing that [higher journal rank tends
to be associated with lower experimental
reliability](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full),
several individuals mentioned that they find these results hard to
believe. When I asked about data to the contrary which may be the basis
for their hesitation, the participants only emphasize they had no other
data, just their "intuition" and "gut feeling". When I asked what they
do when their own experiments yield data that go against their intuition
or gut feeling, one professor exclaimed: "I tell the postdoc to do the
experiment again and a third time if need be!". When I expressed my
shock at such practices, the two most senior professors, one of whom
once a university president and both medical faculty, emphatically
accused me of being dogmatic for giving primacy to scientific evidence,
rather than intuitions or gut feelings.

Recent evidence points towards published scientific results, at least in
some fields, being far less reliable than one would expect. If it were
common that the reliability of science hinged on postdocs standing up
for their data against the gut feeling of the person who will write
their letters of recommendation and/or extend their contract, we may
have to brace ourselves for more bad news coming from the
reproducibility projects being carried out right now.

Wansink was trained in marketing and had no idea about science. His lack
of training and incompetence in science may be an excuse for his
behavior. These two individuals, however, have graduated from medical
school, have decades of research and teaching experience behind their
belt and one of them even complained that "most of the authors of the
manuscripts I review or edit have no clue about statistics". Surely,
these individuals recognize questionable research practices when they
see them? Nevertheless, similar to Wansink, they wouldn't take a
"failed" experiment for an answer and similar to the decision makers at
the meeting in Germany in 2015, they would put their experience before
peer-reviewed evidence.

If scientific training doesn't immunize individuals against unscientific
thinking and questionable research practices, how can we select a future
cadre of decision-makers in science that do not put themselves before
science and that will implement evidence-based policies, instead of
power-brokering their way to new positions? There is a recent article on
"[intellectual
humility](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/4/17989224/intellectual-humility-explained-psychology-replication)"
-- maybe this is the way to go?

P.S.: There are more instances of scientists publicly dismissing
evidence to the contrary of their own belief:
[Zimbardo](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/28/17509470/stanford-prison-experiment-zimbardo-interview),
[Bargh](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2012/03/10/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/)
spring to mind and I'll look for others.


Scientists are used to vested interests disputing scientific claims. Tobacco corporations have tried to discredit the science about lung cancer and smoking, creationists keep raising always the same, long-debunked objections against evolution, climate-deniers claim the earth is cooling, anti-vaxxers believe the MMR vaccine causes autism and homeopaths delude themselves that a little drop of nothing has magical healing powers.

Unpersuadables: When scientists dismiss science for political reasons

Apparently, the outrage of science denialists over their exposure in a
recent psychological paper [shows no signs of
abating](https://quakerattled.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/its-a-conspiracy/).
It was denialists' complaints and legal threats of libel/defamation
suits that started the investigation of the paper and also in the
comments to my [post announcing my
resignation](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2014/04/resigning-from-frontiers/)
as editor for *Frontiers*, the denialists complained that their public
blog comments were used in a scientific paper. Blog responses by Henry
Markram, editor-in-chief of *Frontiers*, confirmed my decision to
resign: essentially, [he sided with the
denialists](https://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830)
and opined that public comments were not fair sources for psychological
study.

Let's stop for a moment and ponder if there are some analogous offline
scenarios to taking a public online comment and analyzing it.

Literature springs to mind: every literature department at every
university takes published words and analyzes them. Apparently, Markram
and the science denialists think this should all be abolished, or at
least that it is a questionable practice which ought to be better
regulated. Perhaps they think that literature departments should study
literature without mentioning the authors? Once literature departments
are up for grabs, why stop there? Why not prohibit political analysts
from telling the public about their politicians? Obviously, you'd start
with those analysts unfavorable of the ruling politicians. Why not fire
all music critics from newspapers and magazines (those that still have
such employment, that is)? Heck, isn't "American Idol" or "America's
Next Topmodel" and all the other casting shows exactly analogous: taking
a public performance and scrutinizing it publicly? It's perhaps worth
reminding everybody that online comments are public performances, like
it or not.

In essence, what Lewandowski et al. have done in their 'recursive fury'
paper is in more than a few ways akin to what the jury does in casting
shows. They've been the jury when the science denialists went up on
stage to sing and dance. If that had actually happened offline, maybe
Lewandowski et al.'s jury comments might have gone like this:

"When you sing, it sounds like the quaking of a duck!"

"When you dance, you have the grace and elegance of an antelope -- no,
wait, what was the name of that animal with the trunk again?"

"You are seriously coyote ugly!"

After it occurred to them what fools they had made of themselves on
stage, the denialists went to the TV station airing the show
(*Frontiers*) to complain that broadcasting their embarrassing
performance with the negative jury comments were defamatory. Obviously,
in the real world, the TV channel people would have ROTFLTAO. In science
publishing, *Frontiers* caved in and axed the broadcast.

Morale of the story: if you can't take the consequences, don't get up on
stage.


Apparently, the outrage of science denialists over their exposure in a recent psychological paper shows no signs of abating. It was denialists’ complaints and legal threats of libel/defamation suits that started the investigation of the paper and also in the comments to my post announcing my resignation as editor for
<em>
 Frontiers
</em>
, the denialists complained that their public blog comments were used in a scientific paper.

If you comment online, you’re on stage

Last month, I was
[alerted](https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/20/science-journal-retracts-paper-showing-how-climate-change-sceptics-were-conspiracy-theorists-after-sceptics-shout)
to an [outrageous
act](https://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/21/controversial-paper-linking-conspiracy-ideation-to-climate-change-skepticism-formally-retracted/)
of a scientific journal [caving
in](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/21/contrarians-bully-climate-change-journal-retraction)
to pressure from
[delusionals](http://blogarchive.brembs.net/comment-n539.html) demanding
the science about their publicly displayed delusions be hidden from the
world: the
[NPG-owned](https://www.frontiersin.org/news/Nature_Publishing_Group_and_Frontiers_form_alliance_to_further_open_science/266)
publisher [Frontiers](https://www.frontiersin.org) retracted a
scientific article, with which they could not find [anything
wrong](https://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00293/full):
The article

> attracted a number of complaints which were investigated by the
> publisher. This investigation did not identify any issues with the
> academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine
> that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers
> wishes to retract the published article.

Essentially, this puts large sections of science at risk. Clearly, every
geocentrist, flat earther, anti-vaxxer, creationist, homeopath,
astrologer, diviner, and any other
[unpersuadable](http://blogarchive.brembs.net/comment-n596.html) can now
feel encouraged to challenge scientific papers in a court. No, actually,
they don't even have to do that, they only have to *threaten* court
action and publishers will cave in and retract your paper.

As if we needed any more evidence that [publishers are bad for
science](http://blogarchive.brembs.net/comment-n820.html).

Now even the supposedly "good guys" show that the are not really on the
side of science. Instead of at least waiting for a law suit to be filed
and perhaps at least attempting to stand their ground ([as Simon Singh
did](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCA_v._Singh)), they just took the
article down in what can only be called anticipatory obedience. This is
no way to serve science.

A week or two ago, I talked with a Frontiers representative on the phone
and she explained a few things to me which prompted me to read the
[paper in
question](https://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf),
so I could make up my own mind. After reading the paper, any of the
attempted explanations on the phone rang hollow: I'm certainly not a
lawyer, but if taking publicly posted comments and citing them in a
scientific paper, discussing them under a given hypothesis which has a
scientific track record and plenty of precedence constitutes a cause for
libel or defamation lawsuits, it is certainly the law and not the paper
which is at fault. It is quite clear, why the content of the paper may
feel painful to those cited in it, but as long as "conspiracist
ideation" is not an official mental disorder, I cannot see any
defamation. If you don't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist, don't
behave like one publicly on the internet. Therefore, after reading the
paper, in my opinion, Frontiers ought to have supported their authors
just as their home institution ([UWA](https://www.uwa.edu.au/)) is
supporting them as their employees.

As the Frontiers representative did not disclose any details and what
she was able to disclose was both very general, hence not very
convincing, and I promised not to disclose even that, one can only
speculate what the motivations and considerat1ions might have been at
Frontiers as to why they decided to throw their authors under the bus.

Clearly, if legal problems are cited, it's always money that's at stake,
I'd be surprised if this were controversial. I have heard through the
grapevine that Frontiers apparently may have felt some pressure
recently, to make more money, to publish more papers. I was told that
they have sent out literally millions of spam emails to addresses
harvested from, e.g. PubMed, soliciting manuscript submissions.
Obviously, a costly libel or defamation suit in the UK would not have
been a positive on the balance sheets.

Alas, as much fun all of this speculation may be, it is not really
relevant to my conclusion: Frontiers retracted a perfectly fine
(according to their own investigation) psychology paper due to financial
risks for themselves. It can only be seen as at best a rather lame
excuse or at worst rather patronizing, if Frontiers were to claim to be
protecting their authors from lawsuits by removing the 'offending'
article. This is absolutely no way to "[empower researchers in their
daily work](https://www.frontiersin.org/AboutFrontiers.aspx)". In the
coming days I will send resignation letters to the Frontiers journals to
which I have donated my free time for a range of editorial duties.
Obviously, I will complete the tasks I have already started, but I will
not accept any new tasks at Frontiers -- at least not until they show
more support of their authors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

**P.S.:** I should perhaps add that the reason I supported Frontiers
almost since its inception was that they were and in many respects still
are among the most innovative publishers out there and that they drive
our communication system away from the entirely antiquated *status quo*.
Of course, Frontiers still serves this particular function very well. My
criticism very specifically targets this particular paper and leaves all
the other positive contributions of Frontiers to our publishing
ecosystem intact. I guess that much of my personal disappointment comes
from the feeling of betrayal, when I felt Frontiers was on the side of
researchers for so many years. I would have expected such behavior from
legacy publishers, but not from Frontiers. This incident, together with
several other events over the past month or two have prompted me to
think more generally about my involvement with publishers and there will
be another post on this topic at some point.


Last month, I was alerted to an outrageous act of a scientific journal caving in to pressure from delusionals demanding the science about their publicly displayed delusions be hidden from the world: the NPG-owned publisher Frontiers retracted a scientific article, with which they could not find anything wrong: The article  Essentially, this puts large sections of science at risk.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Unpersuadables: When scientists dismiss science for political reasons

If you comment online, you’re on stage

Recursive fury: Resigning from Frontiers