What intellectual independence is all about, according to the article, “behaviour is… contradictory.”
Quit the mudslinging, the editors of the scientific journal Bioethics merely sent a powerful message to the website “outrage machine” that attempts to ban academics with unhappy opinions.
There is a better way to advance scientific knowledge, and it’s available, free conversation. Not silencing others, Editor in Chief Udo Schuklenk ( pictured ) wrote in a recent editorial.
Particularly in light of the pressure being put on another journals to pull articles from pro-life authors, it’s encouraging and refreshing to see the editorial board take such a stand.
Schuklenk wrote the article in response to the” social media assisted anger” that has resulted in resignations for editors and academic papers.
On behalf of the newspaper table, Schuklenk wrote,” What puzzles me about this behavior is that it is opposed to what intellectual freedom is all about.”
A theory professor at Queen’s University in Canada, he said “diversity of thought” is vital to education, particularly the area of bioethics. And that means publishing publications that even the readers might find objectionable.
His newspaper made some online threats to pro-life authors.
Schuklenk defended these researchers’ academic freedom, but he let his social beliefs show when he referred to them as “antichoice.”
” In this book, we have published during the last few decades a good number of papers by a small party of—arguably—activist antichoice educational authors”, he wrote.
Even though the documents passed the normal peer review process, he claimed, “prochoice educational social media activists lambasted the book for publishing such content.” He added that the journal’s authors, who cover each problem, review documents before publishing them, also have two writers on each side.
That did n’t satisfy the outrage mob, however. Schuklenk wrote:
” Peer review or not, like offending material should not be published. Doubts of us Editors ‘ motives were raised, were we probably surprise supporters of a Handmaid’s Tale form society? Moreover, of course, queries about the quality of the blog and its evaluation processes appeared. How may we publish such blatantly weak articles? The running strategy appeared to be to spray mud all over the journal, its editors, and reviewers in hopes that something will stick. Strangely, those concerns never seem to manifest in relation to the information these same scientific social media activists find acceptable.
The Bioethics editors did n’t give in. The same cannot be said for additional periodicals, though.
Editors at The New Bioethics reversed course and rejected an essay about abortion that was immediately accepted following complaints from a user on X, as The College Fix reported earlier this year. The readers cited worries about the professor being a “white” “male”.
A group of well-known pro-life researchers, including a former university part of Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, had only withdrawn three pregnancy reports from Sage Journals just a few months prior.
But at Bioethics, Schuklenk said the editor board is committed to “protecting questionable thought”, including “views some readers may find offensive”.
When questionable ideas are published and achieve attention, it can be a good thing because it gives students the chance to test their ideas “in an intellectually demanding way,” he wrote.
According to Schuklenk, the online withdraw society is “antithetical to what intellectual freedom is all about.”
Academia needs more bioethics editors who are willing to fight back against the outcry and defend educational flexibility.
Less: Journal rejects’ white’ ‘ male’ author’s pro-life post
Photograph: Bioethics book, Udo Schuklenk/X
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Instagram.
