“Slipped past a loaded committee” is more likely. As I pointed out with the Wakefield Lancet paper, the gatekeepers sometimes let bad papers slip through, and that likelihood increases when there’s people who favour the conclusions sight unseen. I would honestly love to hear the reasoning from the liberal opponent you mentioned as to why this passed.

Yes, gatekeepers are imperfect, which is one of the reasons that I strongly support post-publication peer review (in all sciences). I think peer review is too often considered a stamp of correctness when usually it’s just a (imperfect) stamp of “technically sound.” Shoddy research happens, and it’s the robust academic freedom that allows the bad ideas to filter to the bottom and the good ideas to filter to the top. Incidentally, I’d also love to hear Jencks’ reasons, but he’s not talking. I considered dropping by his office hours to have a conversation off the record, but that would feel too much like an ambush.

Once they start to propose a dragon-powered economy, thats when we need to start subjecting the research to increased scrutiny.

Agree 100%. I think the scrutiny that the Heritage Foundation report is getting is appropriate and justified. Hell, I think the criticism and scrutiny that Richwine’s thesis is getting is appropriate and justified. What worries me is the people saying he shouldn’t have gotten the PhD in the first place. Vigorous dissent is appropriate, silencing is not.

shouldn’t heightened scrutiny and skepticism be a more important subject than the generic freedom to publish said shitty papers?

No. Heightened scrutiny and skepticism that’s out in the open is more important than keeping bad ideas under wraps. People are always going to have bad ideas, and they’re always going to find ways to justify them. Academia will be healthier if that debate happens in the sunlight.

Too often, these arguments serve to support bigotry, since they present an environment where bigoted speech is more likely to be defended than CRITICISM of bigoted speech.

I agree, and that’s a problem. But as Razib was saying, we need to be wary of making any arguments in favor of suppressing any speech (or research), for fear that it will be used against us when the shoe is on the other foot. I agree people can misuse this impulse, and that’s worth fighting against. Free speech an academic freedom are great big messes, but they’re worth it.

My worry is that the cry of academic freedom here is a misdirection of the more important issue in this case: that of academic rigour

You’ll never hear me argue against academic rigor. Unfortunately, I’m not qualified to comment on the actual thesis in this case. I can say that the proper procedures and review seem to have happened, which gives me confidence in the rigor. Again, this doesn’t mean I have confidence in the conclusions, things can be missed, and even the most honest and rigorous studies can be wrong (my entire thesis project is built on a dogma in my field that has great experimental evidence, but is nonetheless wrong).

I’m going to walk my comments back a little, since I think we might be talking past each other.

The only thing I’m going to reply directly to is this:

you can’t argue that it was rubber stamped by a stacked committee.

Stronger than what I was arguing. “Slipped past a loaded committee” is more likely. As I pointed out with the Wakefield Lancet paper, the gatekeepers sometimes let bad papers slip through, and that likelihood increases when there’s people who favour the conclusions sight unseen. I would honestly love to hear the reasoning from the liberal opponent you mentioned as to why this passed.

Now, as to why I think we’re talking past each other: Fundamentally, I agree with you. If a person wants to spend their life chasing dragons, I have no issue with them wasting their lives on the pursuit. Once they start to propose a dragon-powered economy, thats when we need to start subjecting the research to increased scrutiny.

To me, that’s the real issue of this paper: not that it goes against “political correctness” boogeymen, but that it’s badly done science in the service of bigoted politics. Given the long history of poor research papers intended to advance a political agenda with the proven capacity to cause immense political harm, shouldn’t heightened scrutiny and skepticism be a more important subject than the generic freedom to publish said shitty papers?

What set me off is that this argument feels very much like those who lecture critics of bigotry about the importance of free speech. While the argument is correct, it’s also attacking a straw-man, as the critics are engaging in free speech to be critical, not suppressing free speech by force of law. Too often, these arguments serve to support bigotry, since they present an environment where bigoted speech is more likely to be defended than CRITICISM of bigoted speech. This becomes even worse when the defended speech is baseless slander and demonization, rather than an actual argument (as in the link).

My worry is that the cry of academic freedom here is a misdirection of the more important issue in this case: that of academic rigour.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/

If Richwine had written a dissertation showing that “CO2 is plant food” written by 4 interns at the AEI and passed by a dissertation committee member who was a global warming denialist, and then turned round and wrote a paper for the Heritage institute that promoted burning coal for better agricultural yield, would you still be arguing “Academic freedom”?

Yes. And as I mentioned, one of the members of his committee that approved his thesis was a liberal and has done work specifically opposing Richwine’s thesis – you can’t argue that it was rubber stamped by a stacked committee.

Andre Wkaefield’s paper in the Lancet was so bad, they ultimately retracted it. Should we be talking about Andrew Wakefield’s academic freedom? What about a young earth creationist?

That’s the scientific process working. People are wrong all the time – it sucks, but it’s hard to know that a priori. I think that medical journals would be wise to increase scrutiny of any further publications based on his past performance, and based on his alleged misconduct I think people in the medical community are wise to bar him from practicing. That’s not suppressing his academic freedom.

And young earth creationists should be free to study what they want and attempt to advance the theories that they want. If someone was a careful empiricist and uncovered evidence that the fossils from the cambrian explosion are only a few thousand years old, I think that should be published. I know the field of biology better than I do sociology, and I’m confident that that won’t happen, but people advancing unorthodox views should not be rejected out of hand.

Why is it that social stiences involving race are _not_ treated with the same skepticism as phrenology or acupuncture?

I honestly don’t know. Though in all fairness, there are biologists publishing studies on acupuncture. Personally, I think studying acupuncture is a waste of money, and if I were on a granting committee, I doubt that I would fund a grant seeking do that research. But others disagree, and they should be free to disagree, and the results of their studies should be published if they are technically sound.

I think healthy skepticism is important, and as I’ve said, I think Richwine’s thesis is repulsive. However, that alone is not sufficient reason to block such research.

Andre Wkaefield’s paper in the Lancet was so bad, they ultimately retracted it. Should we be talking about Andrew Wakefield’s academic freedom? What about a young earth creationist?

At best, race is a social construct pre-dating genetic and evolutionary theory which describes easily visible phenotypic markers, and occasionally regional subgroups. At it’s worst, it has centuries of pseudo-science in service of truly horrific political policies.

Why is it that social stiences involving race are _not_ treated with the same skepticism as phrenology or acupuncture? I would think that scientists studying human evolution would be aware of this tainted history, and would be especially rigorous about sloppy science used for political agendas.

Instead, we get full-throated defences of “Academic freedom”, in a way other suspect fields do not.

Why is that?

*Don’t hate me social scientists – I was making a joke

#5, did you read my first comment? i obviously acknowledged that kevin’s position.