Opinion Publishing

Even an academic hoax needs ethics approval

The authors of the fake “grievance studies” papers would have made a stronger point if they’d gone through an institutional review board.

Florence Ashley

February 08, 2019

Posted in

In My Opinion

14 Comments

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported on disciplinary proceedings against Peter Boghossian at Portland State University, following his participation in a publication hoax that has since been nicknamed “Sokal squared.” Many scholars have come to his defence. Harvard University psychologist Stephen Pinker, for instance, wrote that: “If scholars feel they have been subject to unfair criticism, they should explain why they think the critic is wrong.” Alan Sokal, of the original Sokal hoax, suggested that the university would become an academic laughingstock if the proceedings found that the hoax constituted research on human subjects.

As a student of bioethics, I find these defences concerning. The hoax perpetrated by Dr. Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose and James A. Lindsay involved writing hoax papers parodying what they call “grievance studies” – which notably includes queer and feminist studies – and submitting them to academic journals.

Research involving human subjects is subject to approval by an Institutional Review Board. Human subjects are defined under federal regulations as any “living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research: (i) Obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or (ii) Obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens.” This requirement isn’t optional, and journals typically demand proof of IRB approval.

On the face of it, it seems plain that this hoax is a research project involving human subjects. Academics are not excluded from the definition of human subjects when it comes to research ethics; to the extent that the authors are directly studying editors’ and peer reviewers’ willingness to publish the papers they wrote, it counts as research on human subjects and must be reviewed by an IRB. They both interacted with those who they were studying and intervened on their environment by submitting papers. If Dr. Boghossian didn’t believe that the requirement applied to him – for instance, because he suspected an exception to the requirement was applicable – the appropriate behaviour would have been to make a submission to the university IRB asking for a determination on whether approval was necessary.

In his seminal 1969 paper, “Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects,” Hans Jonas pointed out that there was what he called a “sacrificial theme” to human subject research. This sacrifice, exposing people to risks and abrogating personal inviolability for a greater good, is an indelible ethical stain on research which warrants higher ethical standards. Because research treats its subjects solely as means to an end, we must be satisfied that the greater good which is pursued outweighs the risks, and this is done through IRB approval.

Because of the mandate of balancing knowledge creation – an indubitable good – with risks and objectification, one of the things IRBs do is advise on how to maximize the quality of the research. This is a step which would have greatly benefitted Sokal squared, as it makes a range of assumptions which undermine its ability to convincingly support its conclusion that low academic standards in “grievance studies” sows doubt about the quality of scholarship within those fields.

One of the main flaws of their project is that they failed to adequately establish that the papers they submitted were undeserving of being published. This is how the authors describe their methodology: “The goal was always to use what the existing literature offered to get some little bit of lunacy or depravity to be acceptable at the highest levels of intellectual respectability within the field. Therefore, each paper began with something absurd or deeply unethical (or both) that we wanted to forward or conclude. We then made the existing peer-reviewed literature do our bidding in the attempt to get published in the academic canon.”

If I were to write a paper taking the stance that trans people are an affront to nature, supporting the claim using theological literature, and got it published – something I would not normally do, being trans myself – would I have shown that theological literature is ridiculous or that I don’t share the field’s intuition about what defensible theses are because of my own ideological leanings? I’d say that I showed the latter, rather than the former.

That the theses they defended were absurd or deeply unethical is merely their own estimation. Yet this estimation seems to reflect more their own ideological leanings than any widespread agreement. One paper suggests that we can learn about rape culture from how people treat dogs. One paper argues people shouldn’t masturbate while thinking about strangers without their consent. One paper argues that the potential masculinist and imperialist biases in programming make super intelligent AI risky. Another argues that it’s perfectly fine being fat.

None of these seem patently absurd or unethical to me. The dangers of AI bias is a serious topic of inquiry in the philosophy of AI and computer science, fields which fall outside of what the hoaxers consider “grievance studies.” As for not masturbating while thinking about strangers, I personally don’t think that’s absurd. Does that make me irrational? Perhaps, perhaps not.

The authors of the hoax try to stave off accusations of ideological bias by identifying themselves as leftists. Being a leftist, however, doesn’t preclude ideological bias. That they consider the hoax papers absurd may simply reflect their own ideological leanings. Going through the IRB process would hopefully have highlighted weak points such as this one and asked them to conduct the project in a more rigorous manner, ensuring that they are genuinely supporting the conclusion they set out to draw.

To ask researchers to be rigorous and go through IRB approval for research involving human subjects isn’t unreasonable, nor is it censorship. It’s following the law and one of the most quintessential norms of academic research.

Conducting a hoax project may be in the public interest, the critique may be a valid one, and satire may be an underappreciated form of academic expression. Still, none of those factors exempts researchers from obtaining IRB approval. Next time someone wants to come after critical studies, they should seek out IRB approval and ensure that their methodology is rigorous. The resulting critique is bound to be much more convincing. As for Sokal squared, I remain unconvinced.

Florence Ashley is a Master of Laws candidate at McGill University and a fellow of the McGill Research Group on Health and Law.

Florence Ashley

14 Comments

Just to be precise, “IRB” refers to the US ethics review structure; in Canada its they’re called Research Ethics Boards (REB) or Comités d’éthique de la recherche (CER).

Here is the final paragraph from Sokal’s ‘seminal 1969 paper:’

“There would now have to be said something about nonmedical
experiments on human subjects, notably psychological and genetic,
of which I have not lost sight. But having overextended my limits
of space by the most generous interpretation, I must leave this for
another occasion. Let me only say in conclusion that if some of
the practical implications of my reasonings are felt to work out
toward a slower rate of progress, this should not cause too great
dismay. Let us not forget that progress is an optional goal, not an
unconditional commitment, and that its tempo in particular, compulsive
as it may become, has nothing sacred about it. Let us also remember
that a slower progress in the conquest of disease would not threaten
society, grievous as it is to those who have to deplore that their
particular disease be not yet conquered, but that society would
indeed be threatened by the erosion of those moral values whose
loss, possibly caused by too ruthless a pursuit of scientific [or social]
progress, would make its most dazzling triumphs not worth having.
Let us finally remember that it cannot be the aim of progress to
abolish the lot of mortality. Of some ill or other, each of us will
die. Our mortal condition is upon us with its harshness but also
its wisdom—because Without it there would not be the eternally
renewed promise of the freshness, immediacy, and eagerness of
youth; nor, without it, would there be for any of us the incentive
to number our days and make them count. With all our striving to
wrest from our mortality what we can, we should bear its burden
with patience and dignity.”

Definitely worth reading to the end.

“None of these seem patently absurd or unethical to me.” Therein lies the problem.

Nonsense. This is nothing but excuses. If president Trump had been fooled in a similar manner, these critics would clap until their hands bled.

I was going to comment much more generally but I have to admit that I am now much more interested in your ideas about your statement in paragraph 10:

“As for not masturbating while thinking about strangers, I personally don’t think that’s absurd.”

Which refers to the idea that it is wrong to masturbate while thinking about a stranger without their consent. I am interested to hear how you recommend this topic be dealt with in practice. Would it be your recommendation that you should seek consent from any stranger you think you might masturbate while thinking about, or perhaps just everyone to be on the safe side, or do you suggest that if you find yourself thinking about someone you haven’t obtained consent from you should immediately stop thinking of them or stop masturbating?
A more difficult problem would be obtaining consent from people who you only experience as images, either in still photography or in videos. Would it be practical to set up an agency of some sort to process consent requests in an efficient manner, or should we restrict ourselves to actors who work in pornography who we can presume are giving some form of consent for the audience to use their image for sexual arousal?
I also find the focus on the stranger to be interesting as I am not sure whether the implication is that the same consideration would be extended to acquaintances, colleagues and friends.
Finally, how should we deal with transgressions? Should there be a way for abusers to confess and make restitution with the victims? Should it be anonymous?
As you are someone who doesn’t find the idea absurd, I would love to hear your thoughts.

What is or are the “information” and/or “biospecimens” obtained, from which individuals? Who are the “individuals”? Have any of the individuals complained? Are they willing to testify?

Thanks for reinforcing the entire point of their project. “None of these seem patently absurd or unethical to me.” This is precisely because everything you see is through a dogmatic ideological lens. What is the phrase? “White people are blind to white privilege.” If this is true then maybe regressive ideologues are blind to the regressiveness of their ideology?

This essay is an argument for the original hoax’s point: that these fields lack independent rigor. It outright claims that whether a ‘grievance studies’ paper deserves publication depends on whether you start with those fields’ assumptions about human nature regardless of content.

By making a comparison between queer and feminist studies and theology, the essay makes it clear that research into the two is equally vacuous.

–

More to the point, it mis-characterizes the hoax papers. The shallow assessments of each are exemplary of how these papers should *not* be treated by a peer review process. The patriarchy is in the details.

“One paper suggests that we can learn about rape culture from how people treat dogs.”
– That paper used laughably-impossible-as-described data collection methods (manually inspecting ‘just under 10,000’ dog’s genitalia in public parks and observing their interactions) to find that dogs have a rape culture themselves and proposing that we train men the way we train dogs to prevent it in people. This paper was selected by the journal for an award.

“One paper argues people shouldn’t masturbate while thinking about strangers without their consent.”
– That paper categorizes the act as a matter of ‘meta-sexual violence,’ opening the door to the idea of thought-crime. It fails to acknowledge the question of whether the crime could be addressed at all or how it intersects with different identities (does lesbian objectification or gay objectification count?) You’re also defending one of their rejected papers (by “Sociological Theory”) because (and the sociologists were correct) it’s not actual research. It’s vacuous speculation.

“One paper argues that the potential masculinist and imperialist biases in programming make super intelligent AI risky.”
– That paper also suggests that the solution is to program an AI with an ‘informed naivety’ and ‘alternative knowledges’ that would somehow handicap it and defuse its faculty of perfect reason (‘perfect reason’ being assumed to be simply perfect domination over others, explicitly rejecting positivism). The author subtly claims making an AI ‘feminist’ would make it dumb and harmless.

“Another argues that it’s perfectly fine being fat.”
The paper argues for creating a new sport- “Fat Bodybuilding”- that would involve bodies posing in front of judges in to ‘display fat in a body positive way.’ How you could judge such a test wasn’t addressed, and the inherent contradiction of being judgmental and non-judgmental of fat bodies was ignored.

And let’s not forget the papers from the hoax that this essay chose not to include:
“Progressive Stack-” suggesting white students in university should be chained to the floor and not permitted to speak as a form of reparation and education. Reviewer comments suggested they make it worse by going out of their way not to ‘center’ the chained students’ experience.
“Feminist Mein Kampf-” a rewrite of a chapter of Mein Kampf which substitutes various identities in the place of Jews, the German people, etc. to suggest ‘limited-choice’ feminism as the way to prevent greedy women from interrupting the onward march of National Soc… feminism.
“Dildos” – a paper using laughably stereotypical interviews with a blatantly self-selecting (and nonrepresentative) sample to suggest anal self-penetration with dildos would make men more sensitive.

The list goes on.

This isn’t simply a difference of opinion. The hoaxsters didn’t make great points but, because of their biases, fail to recognize how inclusive and valid these papers were.

Stating this as fact says more about the essay’s author (and their reading of the hoax papers, which are freely available online) then about the hoax.

Going through the IRB process would potentially have halted these very significant satirical hoax papers from being published in the first place. And similarly, being a minority,or a woman or trans, however, doesn’t preclude ideological bias. That presuming that these satirical hoax papers must go through IRB may simply reflect one’s own ideological leanings. Especially when theae hoax papers shine such an uncomfotably revealing light.

If this counts as research on human subjects does policy critical discourse type analysis also count? Policy was (presumably?) written by humans and critical discourse analysis digs into the ideologies and relations inherent within this. Or media frame analysis? Or social media content analysis? The list goes on. This is an interest philosophical question, but leveraging it for the political project and performance of Sokal Squared rebuttal (however justified or not) is amiss, or at least premature.

It’s absurd to declare that an expose of someone’s bad behaviour constitutes “research on human subjects” in the legal sense the antagonists are hoping to arrogate to push the results of this demonstration out of public discourse.

The Research on Human Subjects rubric is about the professional work of professional scientists working in their capacity on subjects that may be harmed in the course of applying treatments or conditions to which those subjects would not ordinarily be exposed. Its purpose is to take precautions against those treatments or conditions introducing unnatural and adverse effects that harm those individuals

In this case the editors and reviewers voluntarily engaged in activities which are NORMAL. They behaved precisely the same, and under the same conditions, as they would have had the hoax not been propagated. The hoax did not apply to them any conditions or treatments which were novel or abnormal in any sense.

The “harm” done to these folks is about the exposure they received upon the disclosure of their behaviours in public. This is NOT subject to the “harmful effects” consideration of the “Research on Human Subjects” rubric. To those who don’t get this absurdly simple point consider a simple thought experiment.

Let us suppose the hoax was perpetrated by not three academics, but three journalists. Say, three journalists whose careers consisted of exposing professionals of various types who engage in bad behaviour. And whose methods consist of engaging with them, in a hoax-like manner, but in such a way that said professionals cannot distinguish between this engagement and similar situations. Then making a record of the behaviour of the professionals, in order to expose the bad behaviour.

That is excellent journalism. It is NOT “research on Human Subjects” in the legal sense. No court would make that case. And no university could invoke penalties — what penalties would apply to non-academic journalists?

This is merely, and solely, an attempt at damage control to those who would rather not have bad behaviour exposed to the light of day. If the university is successful in applying this rubric to silence criticism and harm those who would expose the outrage of grievance culture to public scrutiny, then the Academy is effectively dead.

Some Obvious Critiques

As others have stated, if the hoaxers had gone through an IRB review, there is little if any chance their project would have succeeded. Why would anyone on the intersectional left – and that’s most people in arts and social sciences – have accepted this? Even if the panel were not of this persuasion, universities have become very conservative and bureaucratic institutions, and would, no doubt, err on the side of a cautious censorship.

Second, you seem oblivious to the whole Marxist tradition, or even Foucault, who tie knowledge and ideology to money and power – to class structure. Make no mistake, the people the hoaxers were attacking have a lot of money and power within academe, hence the fairly rabid reaction of some in their online response articles. This isn’t a quaint chat about scientific method over cucumber sandwiches. This is about well-paid jobs.

Third, this statement is troublingly naive:

“Being a leftist, however, doesn’t preclude ideological bias. That they consider the hoax papers absurd may simply reflect their own ideological leanings.”

The first statement is like saying “In my view, squirrels tend to have bushy tails.” To make it bite, it has to be reflexive, back on you. The second statement is absurd if you read their papers or their account in Areo magazine: inspecting dogs’ genitals? Ascribing ascertainable mental states and thus ethical principles to animals? Rewriting Mein Kampf as intersectional feminist drivel? (Wait, that one isn’t so absurd…) If you push ideology so far that you can’t see what they wrote as intentionally absurd is to collapse into an utter relativism where there are no epistemological principles for any knowledge claims, therefore we can all say what we want, unconnected to the empirical world. Yes, dog parks are evidence of heteronormativity. Etc.

In the end, it’s all about an intellectual sub-class having their hegemony challenged, then fighting back with personal attacks in the digital press and an attempt to de-carreerize Peter B. The response to the hoaxers has little do with sound scientific method: it was cheap, shoddy and cowardly.

I want to point out how all the comments that have been posted (and I can only imagine how many were screened from public view—in accordance i’m sure with “the following guidelines” that I don’t see anywhere following that sentence) express laudatory agreement or basic approval with what those 3 individuals did. That would concern me if I were in a position to broadcast my opinion like you did with your article. Why are there no gender-studies, say, students (from at least your university) that chimed in just to show support for your critique of the ‘hoax’.
You’re not getting the real point of what they did. Although you sound pretty intelligent, so I’m actually skeptical of your sincerity. it’s possible you totally get it despite your *grievance concerning the IRB approval that was evidently not required in order to publish the acclaimed (by the journal) dark park study that ostensibly involved bothering hundreds of strangers about uncomfortable topics in person (i.e., actual interactions, encroaching on random individuals’ actual space (not anonymous email/internet space).
The dogma that they were exposing is integral to and informs how IRBs make executive decisions; everyone knows they wouldn’t be granted permission (to tear apart, publicly, the university departments that actually inform much of the (arbitrary) standards imposed by the IRBs.
Anyways, they actually did a brilliant thing.
Also, the fact that the aforementioned “following guidelines” aren’t actually visible to those submitting comments here—do you see the amazing parallels there (regarding truth seekers, truth tellers, and activists that try to get in between and block communication).

I disagree with your interpretation. They were not studying private individuals but institutional mechanisms. The institution is corrupt and your views here actually reflect that corruption: a willingness to bend legal definitions to suit your ideological bias and silence dissenters.

Reply to