bs_bs_banner
Bioethics ISSN 0269-9702 (print); 1467-8519 (online) Volume 28 Number 4 2014 pp 157–162
doi:10.1111/bioe.12066
SYMPOSIUM: ‘ANONYMISED PUBLISHING IN BIOETHICS’ NEW THREATS TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM FRANCESCA MINERVA
Keywords academic freedom, controversies, new media
ABSTRACT Using a specific case as an example, the article argues that the Internet allows dissemination of academic ideas to the general public in ways that can sometimes pose a threat to academic freedom. Since academic freedom is a fundamental element of academia and since it benefits society at large, it is important to safeguard it. Among measures that can be taken in order to achieve this goal, the publication of anonymous research seems to be a good option.
A CONTROVERSIAL PAPER In February 2012 a paper I co-authored with Alberto Giubilini entitled ‘After birth abortion, why should the baby live?’1 appeared ‘online first’ in the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME). The paper followed the train of thought explored by Michael Tooley and Peter Singer (among others) and discussed the moral status of embryos, foetuses and newborns. It concluded that if foetuses and newborns share the same moral value, then what we called after-birth abortion could be considered morally acceptable for the same reasons abortion (and especially late term abortion) would be considered morally acceptable. The thesis was not new, as it elaborated on well-known arguments. Nevertheless, the paper was picked up by some websites and we found ourselves in the eye of a media storm. The arguments proposed in the paper have not always been faithfully reproduced by newspapers, blogs, radio and TV programs. Titles like ‘Slaughter newborn kids, say academics’2 (The Sun) or ‘Doctors “should have the right to KILL unwanted or disabled babies at birth as they are not a real person” claims former Oxford aca1 A. Giubilini & F. Minerva. After-birth Abortion. Why Should the Baby Live? J Med Ethics 2013; 39: 261–263. 2 G. Wilson 2012. Slaughter Newborn Kids, Say Academics. The Sun 1 March http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4163762/ Slaughter-newborn-kids-say-academics.html [accessed 17 Jun 2013].
demic’3 (Mail Online) were misleading and aimed at shocking the reader rather than at introducing the philosophical debate about personhood. The public reaction was as violent as it was unexpected and I, as corresponding author, received more than 200 hate emails and death-threats email over the next six months. Comments in online newspapers and blogs were similarly hateful and angry, not to mention voluminous (the first online journal to report on our paper, The Blaze, elicited 1150 comments).4 Common reactions included: ‘your parents should have aborted you after-birth, the world would have been a much better place’ and ‘if it is OK to kill babies, then it must be OK to kill academics.’ However, some emails were more worrisome: ‘For your views on newborns not being people, you need to be eliminated along with your entire family. You are not human therefore you don’t have a right to live’. Someone else wrote ‘You two are perfect examples of people who should have been aborted at birth. You are advocating 3 F. Macrae 2012. Doctors ‘Should Have the Right to KILL Unwanted or Disabled Babies at Birth as They Are Not a Real Person’ Claims Former Oxford Academic. Mail Online 1 March http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article-2108433/Doctors-right-kill-unwanted-disabled -babies-birth-real-person-claims-Oxford-academic.html [accessed17 Jun 2013]. 4 L. Klimas. 2012. Ethicists Argue In Favor Of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ As Newborns ‘Are Not Persons’. The Blaze. 27 February. http://www .theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/27/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth -abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/ [accessed 17 Jun 2013].
Address for correspondence: Dr Francesca Minerva, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. Email: [email protected] Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
New Threats to Academic Freedom cold blooded murder. Watch your backs assholes. Time for your termination!’ We are certainly not the first (and not the last) academics to face a media storm or to receive death threats. Many of those who work in the field of climate change, for instance, are used to such reactions and receive emails that express not only disagreement, but also hostility. The same is true of people supporting the right to abortion, or evolution, or some economic theory over another, and so on. Indeed, emailed death threats have become common. Sometimes even papers that do not seem particularly controversial are picked up and attacked with surprising hostility. For instance, in February 2013, Gareth Jones and Robert Cole published in the New Zealand Medical Journal a paper in which they argued that it is better to use non invasive pre-natal diagnosis tests for Down Syndrome rather than more invasive (but more commonly used) ones.5 The paper elicited some very heated reactions6 from the lay public, and some academics expressed their concern about this new wave of hostility toward bioethicists.7 Such hostile reactions from the public are more predictable in some cases, as when an academic publishes an opinion piece in a newspaper rather than in a scholarly journal. For instance, in 2012 Peter Singer published a short piece8 for an online newspaper in which he suggested that airlines should not charge people according to the weight of their luggage, but according to the aggregate weight of the luggage and the passenger. Many readers took offence and reacted strongly. However, as the piece appeared in a non-academic forum, the public involvement was more predictable, although not for that reason any more justifiable in its offensive and aggressive forms. Academics generally have a relatively safe working life, and can busy themselves with reading, writing and teaching rather than handling hazardous materials or teetering atop unsteady ladders. However, in cases like the ones just described, academics face a degree of danger and distress that, I argue, can be easily avoided.
ACADEMIC CONTROVERSIES AND THE WEB Academia is no stranger to controversy. Sticking to the subject with which I began, Peter Singer and Michael Tooley, among others, wrote about infanticide some thirty years before we did. However, their work was published before the advent of the Internet. Discussion of their work remained within academic circles for years. Over time, pro-life activists became aware of Singer’s arguments in Rethinking life and Death and Practical Ethics, and protested Princeton University’s decision to hire him. Nonetheless, the point to emphasize is that no public uproar greeted the publication of Tooley’s paper or Singer’s books, as the immediate reactions to them remained mainly within the bounds of academia. Our paper fared differently. In the first few days following online publication, we were deluged with an average of 30 death threats and hate emails a day. Many blogs and online newspapers reported the news and thousands of Twitter, Facebook and Google+ users shared the links and commented on the articles. The discussion, largely in public rather than in academic journals, did not focus exclusively on the arguments of the paper but also on the authors. Perhaps attesting to an underlying current of sexism, the personal attacks were largely directed at me: I am a young woman and young women are supposed to have babies, not to argue in favour of after-birth abortion. This disparity got to the point that some newspapers even neglected to mention that the paper was co-authored, indicating me as the only author. The different treatment of Singer’s and Tooley’s work on the same topic on the one hand, and our paper on the other shows how the Web has changed the way academic ideas circulate. It is useful to highlight at least three aspects of this change: 1)
5
R. Cole & G. Jones. Testing Times: Do New Prenatal Tests Signal the End of Down Syndrome? N Z Med J 2013; 126(1370): 96–102. 6 Saving Down (website), PRESS RELEASE: Otago University Bioethics Director Must Resign Following Discriminatory Paper on Down. http://www.savingdowns.com/press-release-otago-university-bioethics -director-must-resign-following-discriminatory-paper-on-down -syndrome/ [accessed 3 Jul 2013]. 7 U. Schuklenk. Udo Schuklenk’s Ethx Blog. Stop Demanding that Academics ‘Resign’ Just because You Dislike What They Have to Say!, http://ethxblog.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/there-is-something-strikingly -odd-about.html [accessed 3 Jul 2013]. 8 P. Singer. Weigh More, Pay More. Project Sindacate, http://www .project-syndicate.org/commentary/weigh-more-pay-more [accessed 1 Nov 2012].
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
158
2)
The Internet has significantly speeded up the dissemination of academic ideas to the general public. Up to twenty years ago, access to academic work was almost exclusively through academic books and hard copy academic journals. Nowadays, many academic journals maintain an online version which is easily and quickly accessible. Journalists can read academic papers and write a piece for an online newspaper, which may be shared by millions of users on other websites, or Blogs, and social network sites. Some challenges arise in connection with the ease of publishing on one’s own blog or website, and of sharing these through social network sites. While the editor and ombudsman roles attached to older publication media act as some sort of check on the publication of false or offensive content, and as a channel
159
3)
Francesca Minerva 5.2) Campus Security at my place of work advised me to work from home for a few days. As my location on campus is publicly available, the worry was that someone might be verbally or physically abusive towards me. I was also advised to remove my name from my office, and to avoid answering phone calls for a while. On the day this all started, a security patrol escorted me home by car, as it was unclear how serious the death threats were. 5.3) The editors of the JME have been under attack for publishing the paper, and they received hate emails and death threats themselves. 5.4) Even Professor Sergio Bartolommei, who we thanked in a footnote for reading a previous version of the paper and for providing us with useful comments, ended up on some online blogs9 and received death threats.
for challenging and asking for the removal of such content, there is no corresponding check on personal blogs and websites. In any case, the proliferation of websites makes it difficult to keep track of those which report falsely on a relevant issue. The advent of the Internet also changes the form of our access to information: if in the past news usually faded from public consciousness after a few days, the memory of the Internet is practically eternal. Information, including false information, remains easily accessible even after decades, and each time a new person or group discovers it, discussion of it enters a fresh cycle.
THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF A MEDIA STORM It is difficult to judge how this episode might affect us, either personally or professionally, in the long run. However, some short term effects are readily apparent. 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
A job offer for a position in an ethics committee made to my co-author was rescinded a few days after the publication of the paper. A permanent job in a philosophy department was not offered to me because, as written in the email a member of the interview panel sent me, some members of the department were strongly opposed to the views expressed in the paper and therefore to hiring me. As the majority of the emails we received were sent from people in the USA, we have been advised against presenting talks in the States for the next year or so. If this precaution were actually necessary, it constitutes a significant limitation on our professional freedom. Our productivity decreased for the weeks following the publication of the paper, while we were worn down by the hate emails and requests for interviews from journalists. More generally, thinking and writing are activities that require a minimal level of tranquillity, something we certainly lacked in those weeks. The controversy was a source of worry not just to the authors, but also to others somehow related to us, such as our families and friends who were obviously worried that someone might harm us and/or them, as threatened in emails. 5.1) Our colleagues became embroiled in the controversy when they too received emails from people who perhaps hoped that our colleagues could do something to silence us in the future.
Given that so many people became involved in the affair and that it caused them a certain amount of distress and worry, it seems plausible to argue that the reactions to the paper caused a non-negligible damage. Additionally, while it is difficult to measure in objective terms how the event affected my personal and professional relationships, it is maybe useful to mention that I had the subjective perception that it was one of the most stressful times of my life. But the main concern is not the stress the single academic might experience, or any other negative impact on one person’s life. What is most worrisome at this point, is the fact that academic freedom is under threat, and for a number of reasons that will explained in the next paragraphs, this is a serious concern.
WHAT IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO SOCIETY? It is not easy to define academic freedom or to assess its limits, however, in general: [a]cademic freedom consists in the absence of, or protection from, such restraints or pressures (. . .) as are designed to create in minds of academic scholars (. . .) fears and anxieties that may inhibit them from freely studying and investigating whatever they are interested in, and from freely discussing, teaching or publishing whatever opinions they have reached.10 Over the centuries, academic freedom has been limited by different religious or political organizations. In liberal 9
Reflections from a Murky Pond (Blog) http://blog.jonolan.net/ethics -morality/an-ethical-quandary/ [accessed 1 Nov 2012]. 10 F. Machlup. On Some Misconceptions Concerning Academic Freedom. Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors 1955; 41(4): 753–784, p. 754.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
New Threats to Academic Freedom democracies today, these organizations are less intrusive, but there are new threats which are more subtle and therefore possibly underestimated. The Internet and the mass media in general can indeed threaten academic freedom in the sense outlined above, as they can create in academics ‘fears and anxieties that may inhibit them from freely discussing, teaching or publishing whatever opinion they have reached’. This emphasizes that we must assess academic freedom not merely in terms of the freedom to publish a paper, but rather in terms of the freedom to publish a paper without any fear for personal safety and professional life. Moreover, pressure was placed not only on the authors but also on the editors of the JME. Many emails addressed to the journal asked it either to justify the publication of the paper or to retract it. The public reaction has been so heated that two of the editors of the journal, Julian Savulescu and Kenneth Boyd, wrote two open letters to justify the decision to publish our paper.11 This is an exceptional occurrence and academics, including those who disagree with the ideas expressed in the paper, should be worried that the editors even felt the need to issue such a justification. The value of academic freedom should be sufficient reason for publishing a paper once the blind review process is complete and the paper has been accepted for publication. Research is, among many other things, about challenging common sense, testing the soundness of ideas that are widely accepted as part of received wisdom, or because they are held by the majority of people, or by people in power. The proper task of an academic is to strive to be free and unbiased, and we must eliminate pressures that impede this. A common mistake is to think of academic freedom as a privilege, rather than as a duty that academics owe to society. According to Ronald Dworkin: the conventional justification of academic freedom treats it as instrumental in the discovery of truth (. . .) We have a better chance of discovering what is true (. . .) if we leave our academics and their institutions free from external control to the greatest degree possible (. . .) So any violation of academic freedom is damaging in manifold ways. It is morally harmful to those whose freedom to speak or write or teach is restricted, because a deep responsibility is thereby thwarted. It is morally harmful to those whose learning is corrupted by the same restriction. It damages the general culture of independence that academic freedom nourishes, 11
J. Savulescu. ‘Liberals Are Disgusting’: In Defence of the Publication of ‘After-Birth Abortion’. J Med Ethics Blog. http://blogs.bmj.com/ medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the -publication-of-after-birth-abortion/; K. Boyd. Journal Of Medical Ethics Blog After-Birth Abortion..Editorial Comment. J Med Ethics Blog http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/after-birth -abortion-editorial-comment/ [accessed 3 Jul 2013].
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
160
because any invasion of academic freedom is not only harmful in itself, but also makes future invasions more likely.12 Fears, prejudices and biases, whether the academic’s own, or those of broader society, can hamper her pursuit of truth. Since this pursuit benefits society as a whole, and not merely the academic, these impediments to academic freedom can harm society as such. As Machlup points out: Ultimately, then, academic freedom is a right of the people, not a privilege of a few; (. . .) It is the people at large who have a right to learn what scholars may succeed in finding out if they are left free and secure from reprobation. It is the people at large who have a right to the cultural and material benefits that may flow from the teaching and the inquiries of scholars who have nothing to fear when they make honest mistakes.13 If academics find themselves increasingly involved in media uproars, and become more reluctant to write what they really think, this is ultimately harmful to society as a whole.
SHOULD ACADEMICS PUBLISH THEIR RESEARCH ANONYMOUSLY? Public reaction to the development of ideas in academia is, of course, not new to the Internet age. Enlightenment philosophers certainly faced this issue. As they advocated and spread ideas that were unpopular and dangerous in their time, they found a way to both circulate new ideas and protect their life and freedom by publishing anonymously or pseudonymously. Ira O. Wade,14 Manuel Benitez15 and Antony McKenna,16 among other scholars, have collected an enormous number of anonymous documents of Enlightenment philosophers. These writings are a historical token of the struggle of scholars for freedom of thought and speech, which are both elements of academic freedom.
12 R. Dworkin. 1996. We Need A New Interpretation of Academic Freedom. In The Future of Academic Freedom. L. Menand, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 181–198. 13 Machlup, op. cit. note 10. 14 I.O. Wade. 1967. The Clandestine Organization and Diffusion of Philosophic Ideas in France from 1700 to 1750. New York: Octagon Books. 15 M. Benitez. 1996. La Face Cachée des Lumières: Recherches sur les Manuscrits Philosophiques Clandestins de l’âge Classique. Paris/Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation. 16 A. McKenna. 1992. La Lettre clandestine. Bulletin d’information sur la littérature philosophique clandestine de l’Age classique. Paris: PUPS.
161
Francesca Minerva
To cope with the new pressures of the Internet age, it seems reasonable to revive this tactic from the Enlightenment and to publish anonymously (or under a pseudonym). The blind review process is already regulated by strict rules about anonymity, in order to make the evaluation of the paper objective. Once the paper passes the scrutiny of the blind reviewer, the author is no longer protected by anonymity. If she is lucky enough to have her paper published, her full name, academic affiliation(s), email and postal contacts are published together with the paper. In general, for papers that are not perceived as controversial (but it has become increasingly difficult to predict which papers will be considered controversial, as the case of Coles and Jones’s paper shows), there is nothing wrong with publishing the author’s name and details. Indeed academics are happy when they have their papers accepted for publication, and when they receive media attention and feedback from the general public. However, we must also cater for cases where public attention becomes a burden, if not a danger, to the researcher. Anonymous papers may still elicit hateful reactions from the public and the media, but these would be directed at the idea itself rather than at its author. A difference that is often forgotten in this kind of public pillory is that between the person who proposes an argument and the argument itself. It is certainly good to stimulate people to think about important issues and to develop their own reasoned positions. However, it is unnecessary to involve the author of the paper by, say, publishing her name and photo on-line in order to explain her position and to generate debate on a topic.
POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 1)
2)
A possible problem for this proposal to negotiate is the importance of publications for academic careers. Researchers should be able to claim authorship of their papers even if they publish anonymously or pseudonymously. One easy way to solve the problem is for the journal to release an official document certifying that on date X, author Y published paper Z. The certificate could be attached to a CV as part of a job application, allowing the committee that vets the applicants to be sure of a candidate’s claims of authorship. That the members of the committee reviewing job applications would learn the real name of the author of a certain paper need not be a problem, as information related to job applications is already protected by professional secrecy rules. It is sometimes useful to interview the author and ask her to clarify concepts or to comment on her article, and this may be lost if the article appears anony-
mously. Yet, authors may want to avoid involvement in the media debate. The inability to identify and interview the author does not seem too grave a consequence, as her argument would be already expressed in the paper, and other experts in the field would surely be available for public discussion. In any case, even if the author were identifiable, that would not guarantee that she would consent to interviews or reply to emailed comments. So, as far as the public interest is concerned, it makes no significant difference whether the author’s real name accompanies the published work, as the relevant ideas appear in the work itself. Indeed, the public would benefit from academic papers penned in honest pursuit of truth, uninhibited by fear. 3) The final objection to my proposal is that, if academics are able to conceal their identity from the public, they may feel less bound by responsibility for their writings, and may be tempted to write offensive, irrational, racist or sexist papers. However, the blind peer-review process should be an adequate filter for such unnecessarily offensive work, and a sufficient guarantee of its quality. Three additional measures can be taken to create greater accountability of authors to their peers. First, the name of the author should always be known by the editor of the journal. Second, the name of the author should always be disclosed to the head of the department where the scholar works. When publishing an anonymous paper, journals could notify those who directly deal with the author and inform them about the research, so as to allow the department to make informed decisions about whether or not to retain a certain person as an employee. Third, if the author agrees, we could also consider disclosing her name (e.g. added to the online version of the paper, or just published on the Website of the journal) after a certain amount of time, for instance five years. The time interval between the publication and the disclosure of the name should be long enough to let the possible media storm calm down and to make sure that any debate about a paper focuses on the ideas there developed, rather than being directed at the author.
CONCLUSIONS The publication of anonymous (or under a pseudonym) papers can benefit both academia and society. 1)
Academics will have the opportunity to publish their research without worrying about possible media storms. This peace of mind would allow original and new ideas to circulate more easily. Fear is a deterrent
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
New Threats to Academic Freedom to the public articulation of unpopular or challenging ideas and academics may justifiably fear undesirable consequences of media storms on their personal and professional lives. 2) Society will benefit from the lively debate and freedom in academia, which is one of the main incubators of discoveries, innovations and interesting research. Academia remains a place where tradition and innovation cohabit, as thoughts and practices are imparted to new generations at the same time that research on original topics is pursued. Without true academic freedom, society would fail to avail itself of this source of strength and innovation. New ideas may sometimes be condemned by the general public, but as history shows, public opinion is often a poor guide to the worth of an idea or practice. Ideas that were once condemned are now commonly accepted (from heliocentrism to evolution). Conversely, some ideas that once received majority assent (such as slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia) are now condemned. One of the most important lessons
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
162
from the history of ideas is that ideas should be discussed, regardless of how banal or absurd they look to the lay public. Giving academics the option to publish their research anonymously or under a pseudonym will give them the opportunity to develop new ideas, to challenge old biases, to solve old and new problems and to make the world a place where prejudice, ignorance and irrationality are challenged and, hopefully, defeated. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Peter Singer, Julian Savulescu, Sergio Bartolommei and Alberto Giubilini for discussing these ideas with me and for their comments on an early version of this article. I am particularly grateful to Sagar Sanyal who helped me to improve the article by reading different drafts of it. The responsibility for every idea expressed in the article remains with the author. Francesca Minerva is a McKenzie post-doctoral fellow at the University of Melbourne, CAPPE and School of Historical and Philosophical Studies. Francesca holds a Masters degree (laurea magistrale) in Philosophy and a PhD in Law and New Technologies, Bioethics.
Bioethics ISSN 0269-9702 (print); 1467-8519 (online) Volume 28 Number 4 2014 pp 157–162
doi:10.1111/bioe.12066
SYMPOSIUM: ‘ANONYMISED PUBLISHING IN BIOETHICS’ NEW THREATS TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM FRANCESCA MINERVA
Keywords academic freedom, controversies, new media
ABSTRACT Using a specific case as an example, the article argues that the Internet allows dissemination of academic ideas to the general public in ways that can sometimes pose a threat to academic freedom. Since academic freedom is a fundamental element of academia and since it benefits society at large, it is important to safeguard it. Among measures that can be taken in order to achieve this goal, the publication of anonymous research seems to be a good option.
A CONTROVERSIAL PAPER In February 2012 a paper I co-authored with Alberto Giubilini entitled ‘After birth abortion, why should the baby live?’1 appeared ‘online first’ in the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME). The paper followed the train of thought explored by Michael Tooley and Peter Singer (among others) and discussed the moral status of embryos, foetuses and newborns. It concluded that if foetuses and newborns share the same moral value, then what we called after-birth abortion could be considered morally acceptable for the same reasons abortion (and especially late term abortion) would be considered morally acceptable. The thesis was not new, as it elaborated on well-known arguments. Nevertheless, the paper was picked up by some websites and we found ourselves in the eye of a media storm. The arguments proposed in the paper have not always been faithfully reproduced by newspapers, blogs, radio and TV programs. Titles like ‘Slaughter newborn kids, say academics’2 (The Sun) or ‘Doctors “should have the right to KILL unwanted or disabled babies at birth as they are not a real person” claims former Oxford aca1 A. Giubilini & F. Minerva. After-birth Abortion. Why Should the Baby Live? J Med Ethics 2013; 39: 261–263. 2 G. Wilson 2012. Slaughter Newborn Kids, Say Academics. The Sun 1 March http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4163762/ Slaughter-newborn-kids-say-academics.html [accessed 17 Jun 2013].
demic’3 (Mail Online) were misleading and aimed at shocking the reader rather than at introducing the philosophical debate about personhood. The public reaction was as violent as it was unexpected and I, as corresponding author, received more than 200 hate emails and death-threats email over the next six months. Comments in online newspapers and blogs were similarly hateful and angry, not to mention voluminous (the first online journal to report on our paper, The Blaze, elicited 1150 comments).4 Common reactions included: ‘your parents should have aborted you after-birth, the world would have been a much better place’ and ‘if it is OK to kill babies, then it must be OK to kill academics.’ However, some emails were more worrisome: ‘For your views on newborns not being people, you need to be eliminated along with your entire family. You are not human therefore you don’t have a right to live’. Someone else wrote ‘You two are perfect examples of people who should have been aborted at birth. You are advocating 3 F. Macrae 2012. Doctors ‘Should Have the Right to KILL Unwanted or Disabled Babies at Birth as They Are Not a Real Person’ Claims Former Oxford Academic. Mail Online 1 March http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article-2108433/Doctors-right-kill-unwanted-disabled -babies-birth-real-person-claims-Oxford-academic.html [accessed17 Jun 2013]. 4 L. Klimas. 2012. Ethicists Argue In Favor Of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ As Newborns ‘Are Not Persons’. The Blaze. 27 February. http://www .theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/27/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth -abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/ [accessed 17 Jun 2013].
Address for correspondence: Dr Francesca Minerva, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. Email: [email protected] Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
New Threats to Academic Freedom cold blooded murder. Watch your backs assholes. Time for your termination!’ We are certainly not the first (and not the last) academics to face a media storm or to receive death threats. Many of those who work in the field of climate change, for instance, are used to such reactions and receive emails that express not only disagreement, but also hostility. The same is true of people supporting the right to abortion, or evolution, or some economic theory over another, and so on. Indeed, emailed death threats have become common. Sometimes even papers that do not seem particularly controversial are picked up and attacked with surprising hostility. For instance, in February 2013, Gareth Jones and Robert Cole published in the New Zealand Medical Journal a paper in which they argued that it is better to use non invasive pre-natal diagnosis tests for Down Syndrome rather than more invasive (but more commonly used) ones.5 The paper elicited some very heated reactions6 from the lay public, and some academics expressed their concern about this new wave of hostility toward bioethicists.7 Such hostile reactions from the public are more predictable in some cases, as when an academic publishes an opinion piece in a newspaper rather than in a scholarly journal. For instance, in 2012 Peter Singer published a short piece8 for an online newspaper in which he suggested that airlines should not charge people according to the weight of their luggage, but according to the aggregate weight of the luggage and the passenger. Many readers took offence and reacted strongly. However, as the piece appeared in a non-academic forum, the public involvement was more predictable, although not for that reason any more justifiable in its offensive and aggressive forms. Academics generally have a relatively safe working life, and can busy themselves with reading, writing and teaching rather than handling hazardous materials or teetering atop unsteady ladders. However, in cases like the ones just described, academics face a degree of danger and distress that, I argue, can be easily avoided.
ACADEMIC CONTROVERSIES AND THE WEB Academia is no stranger to controversy. Sticking to the subject with which I began, Peter Singer and Michael Tooley, among others, wrote about infanticide some thirty years before we did. However, their work was published before the advent of the Internet. Discussion of their work remained within academic circles for years. Over time, pro-life activists became aware of Singer’s arguments in Rethinking life and Death and Practical Ethics, and protested Princeton University’s decision to hire him. Nonetheless, the point to emphasize is that no public uproar greeted the publication of Tooley’s paper or Singer’s books, as the immediate reactions to them remained mainly within the bounds of academia. Our paper fared differently. In the first few days following online publication, we were deluged with an average of 30 death threats and hate emails a day. Many blogs and online newspapers reported the news and thousands of Twitter, Facebook and Google+ users shared the links and commented on the articles. The discussion, largely in public rather than in academic journals, did not focus exclusively on the arguments of the paper but also on the authors. Perhaps attesting to an underlying current of sexism, the personal attacks were largely directed at me: I am a young woman and young women are supposed to have babies, not to argue in favour of after-birth abortion. This disparity got to the point that some newspapers even neglected to mention that the paper was co-authored, indicating me as the only author. The different treatment of Singer’s and Tooley’s work on the same topic on the one hand, and our paper on the other shows how the Web has changed the way academic ideas circulate. It is useful to highlight at least three aspects of this change: 1)
5
R. Cole & G. Jones. Testing Times: Do New Prenatal Tests Signal the End of Down Syndrome? N Z Med J 2013; 126(1370): 96–102. 6 Saving Down (website), PRESS RELEASE: Otago University Bioethics Director Must Resign Following Discriminatory Paper on Down. http://www.savingdowns.com/press-release-otago-university-bioethics -director-must-resign-following-discriminatory-paper-on-down -syndrome/ [accessed 3 Jul 2013]. 7 U. Schuklenk. Udo Schuklenk’s Ethx Blog. Stop Demanding that Academics ‘Resign’ Just because You Dislike What They Have to Say!, http://ethxblog.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/there-is-something-strikingly -odd-about.html [accessed 3 Jul 2013]. 8 P. Singer. Weigh More, Pay More. Project Sindacate, http://www .project-syndicate.org/commentary/weigh-more-pay-more [accessed 1 Nov 2012].
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
158
2)
The Internet has significantly speeded up the dissemination of academic ideas to the general public. Up to twenty years ago, access to academic work was almost exclusively through academic books and hard copy academic journals. Nowadays, many academic journals maintain an online version which is easily and quickly accessible. Journalists can read academic papers and write a piece for an online newspaper, which may be shared by millions of users on other websites, or Blogs, and social network sites. Some challenges arise in connection with the ease of publishing on one’s own blog or website, and of sharing these through social network sites. While the editor and ombudsman roles attached to older publication media act as some sort of check on the publication of false or offensive content, and as a channel
159
3)
Francesca Minerva 5.2) Campus Security at my place of work advised me to work from home for a few days. As my location on campus is publicly available, the worry was that someone might be verbally or physically abusive towards me. I was also advised to remove my name from my office, and to avoid answering phone calls for a while. On the day this all started, a security patrol escorted me home by car, as it was unclear how serious the death threats were. 5.3) The editors of the JME have been under attack for publishing the paper, and they received hate emails and death threats themselves. 5.4) Even Professor Sergio Bartolommei, who we thanked in a footnote for reading a previous version of the paper and for providing us with useful comments, ended up on some online blogs9 and received death threats.
for challenging and asking for the removal of such content, there is no corresponding check on personal blogs and websites. In any case, the proliferation of websites makes it difficult to keep track of those which report falsely on a relevant issue. The advent of the Internet also changes the form of our access to information: if in the past news usually faded from public consciousness after a few days, the memory of the Internet is practically eternal. Information, including false information, remains easily accessible even after decades, and each time a new person or group discovers it, discussion of it enters a fresh cycle.
THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF A MEDIA STORM It is difficult to judge how this episode might affect us, either personally or professionally, in the long run. However, some short term effects are readily apparent. 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
A job offer for a position in an ethics committee made to my co-author was rescinded a few days after the publication of the paper. A permanent job in a philosophy department was not offered to me because, as written in the email a member of the interview panel sent me, some members of the department were strongly opposed to the views expressed in the paper and therefore to hiring me. As the majority of the emails we received were sent from people in the USA, we have been advised against presenting talks in the States for the next year or so. If this precaution were actually necessary, it constitutes a significant limitation on our professional freedom. Our productivity decreased for the weeks following the publication of the paper, while we were worn down by the hate emails and requests for interviews from journalists. More generally, thinking and writing are activities that require a minimal level of tranquillity, something we certainly lacked in those weeks. The controversy was a source of worry not just to the authors, but also to others somehow related to us, such as our families and friends who were obviously worried that someone might harm us and/or them, as threatened in emails. 5.1) Our colleagues became embroiled in the controversy when they too received emails from people who perhaps hoped that our colleagues could do something to silence us in the future.
Given that so many people became involved in the affair and that it caused them a certain amount of distress and worry, it seems plausible to argue that the reactions to the paper caused a non-negligible damage. Additionally, while it is difficult to measure in objective terms how the event affected my personal and professional relationships, it is maybe useful to mention that I had the subjective perception that it was one of the most stressful times of my life. But the main concern is not the stress the single academic might experience, or any other negative impact on one person’s life. What is most worrisome at this point, is the fact that academic freedom is under threat, and for a number of reasons that will explained in the next paragraphs, this is a serious concern.
WHAT IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO SOCIETY? It is not easy to define academic freedom or to assess its limits, however, in general: [a]cademic freedom consists in the absence of, or protection from, such restraints or pressures (. . .) as are designed to create in minds of academic scholars (. . .) fears and anxieties that may inhibit them from freely studying and investigating whatever they are interested in, and from freely discussing, teaching or publishing whatever opinions they have reached.10 Over the centuries, academic freedom has been limited by different religious or political organizations. In liberal 9
Reflections from a Murky Pond (Blog) http://blog.jonolan.net/ethics -morality/an-ethical-quandary/ [accessed 1 Nov 2012]. 10 F. Machlup. On Some Misconceptions Concerning Academic Freedom. Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors 1955; 41(4): 753–784, p. 754.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
New Threats to Academic Freedom democracies today, these organizations are less intrusive, but there are new threats which are more subtle and therefore possibly underestimated. The Internet and the mass media in general can indeed threaten academic freedom in the sense outlined above, as they can create in academics ‘fears and anxieties that may inhibit them from freely discussing, teaching or publishing whatever opinion they have reached’. This emphasizes that we must assess academic freedom not merely in terms of the freedom to publish a paper, but rather in terms of the freedom to publish a paper without any fear for personal safety and professional life. Moreover, pressure was placed not only on the authors but also on the editors of the JME. Many emails addressed to the journal asked it either to justify the publication of the paper or to retract it. The public reaction has been so heated that two of the editors of the journal, Julian Savulescu and Kenneth Boyd, wrote two open letters to justify the decision to publish our paper.11 This is an exceptional occurrence and academics, including those who disagree with the ideas expressed in the paper, should be worried that the editors even felt the need to issue such a justification. The value of academic freedom should be sufficient reason for publishing a paper once the blind review process is complete and the paper has been accepted for publication. Research is, among many other things, about challenging common sense, testing the soundness of ideas that are widely accepted as part of received wisdom, or because they are held by the majority of people, or by people in power. The proper task of an academic is to strive to be free and unbiased, and we must eliminate pressures that impede this. A common mistake is to think of academic freedom as a privilege, rather than as a duty that academics owe to society. According to Ronald Dworkin: the conventional justification of academic freedom treats it as instrumental in the discovery of truth (. . .) We have a better chance of discovering what is true (. . .) if we leave our academics and their institutions free from external control to the greatest degree possible (. . .) So any violation of academic freedom is damaging in manifold ways. It is morally harmful to those whose freedom to speak or write or teach is restricted, because a deep responsibility is thereby thwarted. It is morally harmful to those whose learning is corrupted by the same restriction. It damages the general culture of independence that academic freedom nourishes, 11
J. Savulescu. ‘Liberals Are Disgusting’: In Defence of the Publication of ‘After-Birth Abortion’. J Med Ethics Blog. http://blogs.bmj.com/ medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the -publication-of-after-birth-abortion/; K. Boyd. Journal Of Medical Ethics Blog After-Birth Abortion..Editorial Comment. J Med Ethics Blog http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/after-birth -abortion-editorial-comment/ [accessed 3 Jul 2013].
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
160
because any invasion of academic freedom is not only harmful in itself, but also makes future invasions more likely.12 Fears, prejudices and biases, whether the academic’s own, or those of broader society, can hamper her pursuit of truth. Since this pursuit benefits society as a whole, and not merely the academic, these impediments to academic freedom can harm society as such. As Machlup points out: Ultimately, then, academic freedom is a right of the people, not a privilege of a few; (. . .) It is the people at large who have a right to learn what scholars may succeed in finding out if they are left free and secure from reprobation. It is the people at large who have a right to the cultural and material benefits that may flow from the teaching and the inquiries of scholars who have nothing to fear when they make honest mistakes.13 If academics find themselves increasingly involved in media uproars, and become more reluctant to write what they really think, this is ultimately harmful to society as a whole.
SHOULD ACADEMICS PUBLISH THEIR RESEARCH ANONYMOUSLY? Public reaction to the development of ideas in academia is, of course, not new to the Internet age. Enlightenment philosophers certainly faced this issue. As they advocated and spread ideas that were unpopular and dangerous in their time, they found a way to both circulate new ideas and protect their life and freedom by publishing anonymously or pseudonymously. Ira O. Wade,14 Manuel Benitez15 and Antony McKenna,16 among other scholars, have collected an enormous number of anonymous documents of Enlightenment philosophers. These writings are a historical token of the struggle of scholars for freedom of thought and speech, which are both elements of academic freedom.
12 R. Dworkin. 1996. We Need A New Interpretation of Academic Freedom. In The Future of Academic Freedom. L. Menand, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 181–198. 13 Machlup, op. cit. note 10. 14 I.O. Wade. 1967. The Clandestine Organization and Diffusion of Philosophic Ideas in France from 1700 to 1750. New York: Octagon Books. 15 M. Benitez. 1996. La Face Cachée des Lumières: Recherches sur les Manuscrits Philosophiques Clandestins de l’âge Classique. Paris/Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation. 16 A. McKenna. 1992. La Lettre clandestine. Bulletin d’information sur la littérature philosophique clandestine de l’Age classique. Paris: PUPS.
161
Francesca Minerva
To cope with the new pressures of the Internet age, it seems reasonable to revive this tactic from the Enlightenment and to publish anonymously (or under a pseudonym). The blind review process is already regulated by strict rules about anonymity, in order to make the evaluation of the paper objective. Once the paper passes the scrutiny of the blind reviewer, the author is no longer protected by anonymity. If she is lucky enough to have her paper published, her full name, academic affiliation(s), email and postal contacts are published together with the paper. In general, for papers that are not perceived as controversial (but it has become increasingly difficult to predict which papers will be considered controversial, as the case of Coles and Jones’s paper shows), there is nothing wrong with publishing the author’s name and details. Indeed academics are happy when they have their papers accepted for publication, and when they receive media attention and feedback from the general public. However, we must also cater for cases where public attention becomes a burden, if not a danger, to the researcher. Anonymous papers may still elicit hateful reactions from the public and the media, but these would be directed at the idea itself rather than at its author. A difference that is often forgotten in this kind of public pillory is that between the person who proposes an argument and the argument itself. It is certainly good to stimulate people to think about important issues and to develop their own reasoned positions. However, it is unnecessary to involve the author of the paper by, say, publishing her name and photo on-line in order to explain her position and to generate debate on a topic.
POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 1)
2)
A possible problem for this proposal to negotiate is the importance of publications for academic careers. Researchers should be able to claim authorship of their papers even if they publish anonymously or pseudonymously. One easy way to solve the problem is for the journal to release an official document certifying that on date X, author Y published paper Z. The certificate could be attached to a CV as part of a job application, allowing the committee that vets the applicants to be sure of a candidate’s claims of authorship. That the members of the committee reviewing job applications would learn the real name of the author of a certain paper need not be a problem, as information related to job applications is already protected by professional secrecy rules. It is sometimes useful to interview the author and ask her to clarify concepts or to comment on her article, and this may be lost if the article appears anony-
mously. Yet, authors may want to avoid involvement in the media debate. The inability to identify and interview the author does not seem too grave a consequence, as her argument would be already expressed in the paper, and other experts in the field would surely be available for public discussion. In any case, even if the author were identifiable, that would not guarantee that she would consent to interviews or reply to emailed comments. So, as far as the public interest is concerned, it makes no significant difference whether the author’s real name accompanies the published work, as the relevant ideas appear in the work itself. Indeed, the public would benefit from academic papers penned in honest pursuit of truth, uninhibited by fear. 3) The final objection to my proposal is that, if academics are able to conceal their identity from the public, they may feel less bound by responsibility for their writings, and may be tempted to write offensive, irrational, racist or sexist papers. However, the blind peer-review process should be an adequate filter for such unnecessarily offensive work, and a sufficient guarantee of its quality. Three additional measures can be taken to create greater accountability of authors to their peers. First, the name of the author should always be known by the editor of the journal. Second, the name of the author should always be disclosed to the head of the department where the scholar works. When publishing an anonymous paper, journals could notify those who directly deal with the author and inform them about the research, so as to allow the department to make informed decisions about whether or not to retain a certain person as an employee. Third, if the author agrees, we could also consider disclosing her name (e.g. added to the online version of the paper, or just published on the Website of the journal) after a certain amount of time, for instance five years. The time interval between the publication and the disclosure of the name should be long enough to let the possible media storm calm down and to make sure that any debate about a paper focuses on the ideas there developed, rather than being directed at the author.
CONCLUSIONS The publication of anonymous (or under a pseudonym) papers can benefit both academia and society. 1)
Academics will have the opportunity to publish their research without worrying about possible media storms. This peace of mind would allow original and new ideas to circulate more easily. Fear is a deterrent
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
New Threats to Academic Freedom to the public articulation of unpopular or challenging ideas and academics may justifiably fear undesirable consequences of media storms on their personal and professional lives. 2) Society will benefit from the lively debate and freedom in academia, which is one of the main incubators of discoveries, innovations and interesting research. Academia remains a place where tradition and innovation cohabit, as thoughts and practices are imparted to new generations at the same time that research on original topics is pursued. Without true academic freedom, society would fail to avail itself of this source of strength and innovation. New ideas may sometimes be condemned by the general public, but as history shows, public opinion is often a poor guide to the worth of an idea or practice. Ideas that were once condemned are now commonly accepted (from heliocentrism to evolution). Conversely, some ideas that once received majority assent (such as slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia) are now condemned. One of the most important lessons
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
162
from the history of ideas is that ideas should be discussed, regardless of how banal or absurd they look to the lay public. Giving academics the option to publish their research anonymously or under a pseudonym will give them the opportunity to develop new ideas, to challenge old biases, to solve old and new problems and to make the world a place where prejudice, ignorance and irrationality are challenged and, hopefully, defeated. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Peter Singer, Julian Savulescu, Sergio Bartolommei and Alberto Giubilini for discussing these ideas with me and for their comments on an early version of this article. I am particularly grateful to Sagar Sanyal who helped me to improve the article by reading different drafts of it. The responsibility for every idea expressed in the article remains with the author. Francesca Minerva is a McKenzie post-doctoral fellow at the University of Melbourne, CAPPE and School of Historical and Philosophical Studies. Francesca holds a Masters degree (laurea magistrale) in Philosophy and a PhD in Law and New Technologies, Bioethics.
