While I can appreciate that this is an informal forum, I have serious concerns with the way this post is framed and argued. I outline them below.
1. False Binaries: DEI and Health Disparities Are Not Mutually Exclusive
The post draws a firm line between "health disparities" and "DEI," treating them as wholly distinct. But in practice, they are not separate domains—they are distinct but deeply interrelated constructs. Research on health disparities almost inevitably engages with questions of representation, inclusion, and structural barriers—i.e., DEI principles in action.
To illustrate: imagine two research protocols, both studying whether health outcomes are worse among Black Americans than White Americans. In the first, DEI principles are incorporated. There is a Black community representative on the advisory board, Black clinicians on the research team, and community input is gathered on how the findings will be disseminated or used. In the second approach—one explicitly stripped of DEI—there are no Black staff, no community engagement, and all decisions about the use of data are made by the (likely all-white) investigators.
The latter might seem like a more "neutral," efficient, or scientific approach. But in fact, it mirrors the structure of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study—a project carried out without community input, without informed consent, and with devastating ethical consequences. Tuskegee was a disparities study. What it lacked was DEI. And that’s precisely why it remains a lasting stain on U.S. science.
So when the author implies that research on disparities should proceed “without DEI,” they are echoing a model of extractive, top-down research that history has already shown to be profoundly dangerous.
2. The McKinsey Straw Man and the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy
The essay dismisses the Bethesda Declaration’s credibility by attacking a single citation—a McKinsey report on team diversity—and then pointing to one critical academic paper as a rebuttal. This is a weak counterpoint. One contesting paper does not debunk a broader literature base, and ironically, this exact tactic—selective sourcing to support an ideological narrative—is what the author accuses others of doing.
The literature on diversity's benefits in science and problem-solving is extensive. While the McKinsey citation may not have been ideal, its presence does not invalidate the broader claim—especially when it could have been supported by stronger peer-reviewed sources. The correct critique here is not that the claim is false, but that it was under-referenced. To treat this as a fatal blow to the declaration’s integrity is an example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy: isolate a weak link, declare it central, and then burn the whole thing down.
More importantly, the Bethesda Declaration makes numerous empirically testable, policy-relevant claims—many supported by extensive documentation and precedent. The broader concern—that political ideology is increasingly shaping the scientific funding agenda—is not only plausible but independently verifiable, as has been an issue for ten years or more. Dismissing this based on a single citation is not good-faith critique—it’s rhetorical sleight of hand.
3. Epistemic Trespassing or Institutional Insight?
The accusation of “epistemic trespassing” falls flat when applied to NIH scientists. Ironically, it comes from a researcher who appears to have received a single NIH grant nearly three decades ago—hardly a deep well of contemporary insight into NIH processes or expectations. NIH intramural scientists operate under a unique set of constraints and obligations that differ substantially from university-based researchers. Their roles often straddle science and public health implementation. To suggest they lack standing to comment on institutional threats to scientific integrity is inaccurate. To suggest that they should lack the standing is a separate argument.
Public health research is inherently interdisciplinary. Policy, structural determinants, and research integrity are not separate from the daily work of epidemiologists, molecular biologists, and clinical scientists. These individuals are not "trespassers"—they are stewards of an institution directly affected by the policies they are speaking out against.
And on a personal note, it feels strange to have this point illustrated by a poorly generated AI image with superimposed text bubbles.
4. Why This Shift Is So Disappointing
Perhaps the hardest part of reading this essay is knowing that, for years, the author made important contributions to the debate about censorship, conformity, and politicization in science—often as a dissenting voice. Many of us read those earlier pieces with appreciation, even admiration, because they voiced concerns we shared but didn’t always feel empowered to articulate.
And so it’s profoundly disheartening to see that stance shift now, in a moment when other scientists are finally speaking out. If these NIH signatories had spoken up five years ago, perhaps they would have been praised. But because they are doing so now—at a time when these concerns are more broadly acknowledged—they are accused of “wrecking” scientific credibility?
Should they be punished for their prior silence? Are they not allowed to join the conversation now, even if late? Is the right response to cancel them?
That impulse to discredit those who speak out is not consistent with the values the author has long championed. These scientists are defending transparency, equity, and the independence of scientific inquiry. That may be uncomfortable, but it is not disqualifying.
This Wooden Stake Misses the Heart
This “Wooden Stake” essay does not slay propaganda—it manufactures it. It engages in selective sourcing, presents false binaries, deploys rhetorical gatekeeping, and issues a performative call for epistemic humility it does not itself follow. The decision to avoid addressing most of the Bethesda Declaration while confidently dismissing parts of it betrays the kind of cherry-picking the author criticizes.
If the concern is truth, integrity, and the protection of science from political distortion, then the question is not whether every sentence in the Bethesda Declaration was perfectly sourced—it’s whether the Declaration raises legitimate alarms about real threats.
The response from Unsafe Science does not drive a stake into the heart of bad science. It drives a wedge between scientists who should be allies in the defense of evidence, equity, and public trust.
It's unfair to terminate existing grants. Many of them aren't actually about DEI but had to include statements about DEI because it was mandated by the NIH !!! If the administration wants to eliminate DEI components in grants, it should be done for future grants, not existing ones.
Professor Jussim is correct that it was a mistake to cite the flawed McKinsey study in a prominent petition.
But Professor Jussim is unfair to find fault with the NIH signatories for failing to define a distinguishing line between "disparities" research and "DEI". The failure to define a distinguishing line began in the January 21, 2025 Presidential order #14173, which banned DEI without defining it. It was this order- without distinction- that led to the DOGE staff using search terms to control the termination of the NIH grants (detailed in Nature on 5/21/2025 based on sworn testimony, and I heard the very same information from an NIH official one week earlier. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01617-8).
I looked for terminations from my institution and the first "hit" I got was "Mitochondrial-based Determinants of Sex Differences in Acute Kidney Injury" (the "sex difference" analysis of kidney injury appears to be what triggered the termination).
Where Professor Jussim indicates that he lacks information, I'm going to point out that the information is not hard to obtain by looking at the above-cited Nature article and grants termination database.
Could one still fault NIH staff for not offering their own distinction between disparities work and "DEI" (whatever it might be) research?
That publication summarizes Dr. Bhattacharya's words, and he says the term "DEI" does not apply to studying disease in minority populations which “are a central focus of the NIH and will continue to be under my watch.”
So given that the NIH grant terminations were carried out recklessly by DOGE (not by scientific staff), without reference to Dr. Bhattacharya's own declarations, it's not strange that NIH staff would presume he recalls his own words of a month earlier. Would it have been even stronger if they reminded him of his own statements? Sure, rhetorically, yes. But the fundamental storyline they lay out is that high quality peer-reviewed scholarship was devastated and that's a reality we can see for ourselves.
“Professor Jussim is unfair to find fault with the NIH signatories for failing to define a distinguishing line between "disparities" research and "DEI".”
And then:
“Could one still fault NIH staff for not offering their own distinction between disparities work and "DEI" (whatever it might be) research?
Yes, one could.”
This seems contradictory. Either NIH signatories were correct or they weren’t. That DOGE may have blurred the distinction does not mean that NIH staff should not have done better. Professor Jussim’s criticism was completely fair.
You got me on contradiction. Basically it would be a more effective piece of work to remind the Director of NIH that he knows the difference. So in that way, one can find fault.
That said, the underlying reality of DOGE staff canceling thousands of studies of pretty much anything (witness the cancellation of the study of acute kidney injury) is what it is.
How would we distinguish "research on disparities" from "research which has a DEI component" in practice? For example, if NIH does research on a disease that affects women more, which one is that?
Disparities. As stated, it should not be blocked. But if the research *also* has a whole section devoted to describing the DEI practices embedded into the proposal, then its fair game.
I fear that looking only at grant proposal text may dismiss good research. Wouldn't we want to fund research into a disease that affects women more, assuming it was well thought out research, regardless of the text in the proposal? In many institutions, such language was essentially boilerplate.
Regardless, this seems to be literally what this administration did -- a keyword search to decide which grants to cancel. Even if you support grant proposal textual classification in principle, it seems that keyword search is a poor predictor of what might even loosely count as "woke," meaning a lot of good science has been canned.
I am confused. Doesn't the acquisition of a PhD not make one an expert in everything that all should bow down to? That's how academics act. A good example...the same academics who insist that any interference with college faculty speaking or teaching is a violation of academic freedom also argue that K-12 teachers have NO such freedom but can only teach what we 'the experts' say they can teach. The academic and scientific communities are reaping the consequence of their arrogance and hubris. No one believes ANYTHING they say any more. The NIH scientists here described should be rewarded for expressing themselves here by having their lack of expertise in the matters they are speaking on called out and have the resulting doubts on statements they make even IN their areas of expertise given the credence they deserve. The scientific community has the status of a snake oil salesmen at this point.
I might be missing something but “Psychology as science and as propaganda” is restricted access. Need a university account or subscription. Am I missing something? I didn’t dig hard to try to get at it but it seems to be paywalled.
Thanks for pointing this out! I (really truly) LOVE when commenters point out any actual error (including typos) in my posts. It improves the posts!
I was actually worried about this. *I* have easy access to it, but it must be because either my computer or the journal platform "remembers" that I have access. But I did not think this was likely. Now I know that is the case.
Try this link, its an upload of the paper to my Rutgers site:
Lee’s article make many good points valid on their own. The critique of the Bethesda Declaration succeeds, I find, except where “epistemic trespassing” is invoked. Tim’s comment here concisely sounds a valid alarm. Lee’s reply clarifies his position: “It IS possible to become deeply knowledgeable about some topic outside one’s original area of expertise and then to provide informed, reality-based opinions and recommendations.” With Lee on this I totally agree.
Following Lee’s research suggestion, I found Nathan Ballantyne’s 2019 article, “Epistemic Trespassing.” That article starts: “Epistemic trespassers are thinkers who have competence or expertise to make good judgments in one field, but move to another field where they lack competence—and pass judgment nevertheless. We should doubt that trespassers are reliable judges in fields where they are outsiders.”
Note the loaded adverse sound-bite: “epistemic trespassing.”
Regrettably, Ballantyne sets the rhetorical stage by committing the genetic fallacy, i.e., he demands we “doubt” what people say because they are “outsiders” by profession. His article refines his approach and also makes valid points, but the rhetorical device must be opposed.
Immersive study in economics, for example, enables you to “make good judgments” that bolster or criticize various politicians’ assertions about the meanings of terms or the results of policies. Plenty of smart people self-educate in fields of computer science and hardware and can advise about design methods or problems to avoid – never having obtained some official “degree” in these subjects.
I reject Ballantyne’s wholesale call to “doubt” people who offer information or judgments just because they lack a “degree” or other establishment imprimatur. In the legal system where I have “competence or expertise” (hopefully!), a person may testify to an opinion on any subject so long as the person has knowledge and the grounds and reasoning of the opinion are themselves evidentially worthy and logical. I would urge people not to categorically “doubt” an “outsider” but instead question or investigate any person’s opinion to ascertain the factual basis and the line of reasoning. Focus on facts and reasoning, not sheepskin.
Yes, as stated, I completely agree, and the comment adds useful nuance. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Ballantyine article ALSO points out that one can *successfully* trespass by doing the hard work digging into a field outside of one's original expertise.
But there is a huge BUT (if Substack comments allowed images, I'd paste in a HUGE butt here...).
1. Smart people are capable of making reasonable-sounding and seemingly evidence-based arguments all the time, that are still wrong or even misleading propaganda simply by cherrypicking studies, findings, and evidence consistent with their narrative -- which is kinda what the BD does regarding diversity.
One needs A LOT of immersion in the underlying science to be able to recognize that.
Note that on this score, even I do not write that many Wooden Stake essays. This is because it is quite effort-intensive to do the deep dive to debunk many claims that I am pretty sure are bullshit, and I do not want to be in the business of saying, "I am pretty sure this is bullshit" based solely on my intuitions and feels.
2. In their normal walks of life, as they say in meme-form: most of us mostly AIN'T GOT TIME FOR THAT! That is, few of us have the time to do the deep dive to get the expertise to be able to seriously vet the arguments and evidence of an epistemic trespasser.
So I end up believing Ballantyne's recommendation to doubt outsiders is actually good advice as a default, absent: 1. deep expertise of one's own in the area; 2. deep familiarity with the trespasser's work and prior record.
While recognizing the problems of epistemic trespassing do we then invite epistemic hegemony or totalitarianism? What is a woman? Does one really need to be an expert to have an acceptable answer? And what type of expert is more acceptable, biology, psychology, psychiatry? DEI has been shoved down our throats by the supposed experts.
Those who have written about it have addressed some of the very questions you raise. Short version -- it IS possible to become deeply knowledgeable about some topic outside one's original area of expertise and then to provide informed, reality-based opinions and recommendations.
3. If you have not read them, I also highly recommend Jonathan Rauch's twin books, Kindly Inquisitors and The Constitution of Knowledge. Short version, in an open society:
a. Everything is up for debate/discussion by everyone.
I know several NIH funded researches who are running into this issue. This article isn’t entirely fair. The entire NIH review process has been a rushed shitshow, and yes, some grants are being cancelled just because they utilize the concept of diversity in its non-DEI meaning. Studies of disparities are naturally going to use “diversity” in a lot of contexts and the DOGE-inflected review process has not been subtle or intelligent
"This sort of thing wrecks their credibility. Now that their claim about the “robustness” of research on the benefits of diversity is knowably false, a reasonable, rational person who does not have the time to fact check every other claim in The Bethesda Declaration is likely to wonder, “Maybe the rest of it is true, but its kinda hard not to wonder what else is false or misleading?” And to conclude, “If this is what the best and brightest at NIH have to offer, maybe Trump’s wrecking ball is just what’s needed.”
**I actually do not reach that conclusion, but explaining why would be another whole essay. "**
The essay was on one thing the BD gets wrong, and the deeply dysfunctional irony of them mongering their expertise to promote it. It did not address Trump's policies re: NIH writ large. I would prefer a world where:
1. Experts did not do this, so that
2. When they raised dissident objections, those objections would deserve credibility. Credible experts would have some better chance of having their objections taken seriously, if not by the administration, then by the voting public. I note here that in 2018, the Democrats picked up over 40 seats in the House. "Instead, the point is that by doing this sort of thing, they unnecessarily fan the flames they are trying so desperately hard to put out."
Monopoly Round-Up: The Best and the Brightest Under Pressure
Harvard is under attack by the Trump administration. How are the best and the brightest responding? Plus, Apple takes another hit. And is a McDonald's ice cream machine fix coming?
"Health disparities. U.S. Law (42 U.S.C. § 282) states that NIH shall "utilize diverse study populations, with special consideration to biological, social, and other determinants of health that contribute to health disparities." Yet, NIH has stigmatized and abruptly cut off funding for research mislabeled "Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)." Achieving your stated goal to "solve the American chronic disease crisis” requires research addressing the social and structural drivers of health disparities."
Of course, subjects must be diverse since different groups and races have different diseases and susceptibilities to disease. Examples include sickle cell disease, porphyria, Tay-Sachs disease, to name but a few. Where diversity shouldn't be considered as a significant factor is in people ~doing~ the research. The law addresses the former (subjects and patients), not the latter.
The signatories knew this. They're trying to pull a fast one. And they just got caught.
While I can appreciate that this is an informal forum, I have serious concerns with the way this post is framed and argued. I outline them below.
1. False Binaries: DEI and Health Disparities Are Not Mutually Exclusive
The post draws a firm line between "health disparities" and "DEI," treating them as wholly distinct. But in practice, they are not separate domains—they are distinct but deeply interrelated constructs. Research on health disparities almost inevitably engages with questions of representation, inclusion, and structural barriers—i.e., DEI principles in action.
To illustrate: imagine two research protocols, both studying whether health outcomes are worse among Black Americans than White Americans. In the first, DEI principles are incorporated. There is a Black community representative on the advisory board, Black clinicians on the research team, and community input is gathered on how the findings will be disseminated or used. In the second approach—one explicitly stripped of DEI—there are no Black staff, no community engagement, and all decisions about the use of data are made by the (likely all-white) investigators.
The latter might seem like a more "neutral," efficient, or scientific approach. But in fact, it mirrors the structure of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study—a project carried out without community input, without informed consent, and with devastating ethical consequences. Tuskegee was a disparities study. What it lacked was DEI. And that’s precisely why it remains a lasting stain on U.S. science.
So when the author implies that research on disparities should proceed “without DEI,” they are echoing a model of extractive, top-down research that history has already shown to be profoundly dangerous.
2. The McKinsey Straw Man and the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy
The essay dismisses the Bethesda Declaration’s credibility by attacking a single citation—a McKinsey report on team diversity—and then pointing to one critical academic paper as a rebuttal. This is a weak counterpoint. One contesting paper does not debunk a broader literature base, and ironically, this exact tactic—selective sourcing to support an ideological narrative—is what the author accuses others of doing.
The literature on diversity's benefits in science and problem-solving is extensive. While the McKinsey citation may not have been ideal, its presence does not invalidate the broader claim—especially when it could have been supported by stronger peer-reviewed sources. The correct critique here is not that the claim is false, but that it was under-referenced. To treat this as a fatal blow to the declaration’s integrity is an example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy: isolate a weak link, declare it central, and then burn the whole thing down.
More importantly, the Bethesda Declaration makes numerous empirically testable, policy-relevant claims—many supported by extensive documentation and precedent. The broader concern—that political ideology is increasingly shaping the scientific funding agenda—is not only plausible but independently verifiable, as has been an issue for ten years or more. Dismissing this based on a single citation is not good-faith critique—it’s rhetorical sleight of hand.
3. Epistemic Trespassing or Institutional Insight?
The accusation of “epistemic trespassing” falls flat when applied to NIH scientists. Ironically, it comes from a researcher who appears to have received a single NIH grant nearly three decades ago—hardly a deep well of contemporary insight into NIH processes or expectations. NIH intramural scientists operate under a unique set of constraints and obligations that differ substantially from university-based researchers. Their roles often straddle science and public health implementation. To suggest they lack standing to comment on institutional threats to scientific integrity is inaccurate. To suggest that they should lack the standing is a separate argument.
Public health research is inherently interdisciplinary. Policy, structural determinants, and research integrity are not separate from the daily work of epidemiologists, molecular biologists, and clinical scientists. These individuals are not "trespassers"—they are stewards of an institution directly affected by the policies they are speaking out against.
And on a personal note, it feels strange to have this point illustrated by a poorly generated AI image with superimposed text bubbles.
4. Why This Shift Is So Disappointing
Perhaps the hardest part of reading this essay is knowing that, for years, the author made important contributions to the debate about censorship, conformity, and politicization in science—often as a dissenting voice. Many of us read those earlier pieces with appreciation, even admiration, because they voiced concerns we shared but didn’t always feel empowered to articulate.
And so it’s profoundly disheartening to see that stance shift now, in a moment when other scientists are finally speaking out. If these NIH signatories had spoken up five years ago, perhaps they would have been praised. But because they are doing so now—at a time when these concerns are more broadly acknowledged—they are accused of “wrecking” scientific credibility?
Should they be punished for their prior silence? Are they not allowed to join the conversation now, even if late? Is the right response to cancel them?
That impulse to discredit those who speak out is not consistent with the values the author has long championed. These scientists are defending transparency, equity, and the independence of scientific inquiry. That may be uncomfortable, but it is not disqualifying.
This Wooden Stake Misses the Heart
This “Wooden Stake” essay does not slay propaganda—it manufactures it. It engages in selective sourcing, presents false binaries, deploys rhetorical gatekeeping, and issues a performative call for epistemic humility it does not itself follow. The decision to avoid addressing most of the Bethesda Declaration while confidently dismissing parts of it betrays the kind of cherry-picking the author criticizes.
If the concern is truth, integrity, and the protection of science from political distortion, then the question is not whether every sentence in the Bethesda Declaration was perfectly sourced—it’s whether the Declaration raises legitimate alarms about real threats.
The response from Unsafe Science does not drive a stake into the heart of bad science. It drives a wedge between scientists who should be allies in the defense of evidence, equity, and public trust.
It's unfair to terminate existing grants. Many of them aren't actually about DEI but had to include statements about DEI because it was mandated by the NIH !!! If the administration wants to eliminate DEI components in grants, it should be done for future grants, not existing ones.
Professor Jussim is correct that it was a mistake to cite the flawed McKinsey study in a prominent petition.
But Professor Jussim is unfair to find fault with the NIH signatories for failing to define a distinguishing line between "disparities" research and "DEI". The failure to define a distinguishing line began in the January 21, 2025 Presidential order #14173, which banned DEI without defining it. It was this order- without distinction- that led to the DOGE staff using search terms to control the termination of the NIH grants (detailed in Nature on 5/21/2025 based on sworn testimony, and I heard the very same information from an NIH official one week earlier. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01617-8).
The NIH grants terminated are (mostly) public and discouraging (https://grant-watch.us/nih-data.html).
I looked for terminations from my institution and the first "hit" I got was "Mitochondrial-based Determinants of Sex Differences in Acute Kidney Injury" (the "sex difference" analysis of kidney injury appears to be what triggered the termination).
Where Professor Jussim indicates that he lacks information, I'm going to point out that the information is not hard to obtain by looking at the above-cited Nature article and grants termination database.
Could one still fault NIH staff for not offering their own distinction between disparities work and "DEI" (whatever it might be) research?
Yes, one could.
But it's useful to note that the distinction between DEI and disparities was affirmatively described on April 21, 2025 by Dr. Bhattacharya publicly, and that is the the person to whom that letter was addressed. This is detailed on April 21 (report from Science: https://www.science.org/content/article/new-nih-director-defends-grant-cuts-part-shift-support-maha-vision).
That publication summarizes Dr. Bhattacharya's words, and he says the term "DEI" does not apply to studying disease in minority populations which “are a central focus of the NIH and will continue to be under my watch.”
So given that the NIH grant terminations were carried out recklessly by DOGE (not by scientific staff), without reference to Dr. Bhattacharya's own declarations, it's not strange that NIH staff would presume he recalls his own words of a month earlier. Would it have been even stronger if they reminded him of his own statements? Sure, rhetorically, yes. But the fundamental storyline they lay out is that high quality peer-reviewed scholarship was devastated and that's a reality we can see for ourselves.
Professor Kertesz says:
“Professor Jussim is unfair to find fault with the NIH signatories for failing to define a distinguishing line between "disparities" research and "DEI".”
And then:
“Could one still fault NIH staff for not offering their own distinction between disparities work and "DEI" (whatever it might be) research?
Yes, one could.”
This seems contradictory. Either NIH signatories were correct or they weren’t. That DOGE may have blurred the distinction does not mean that NIH staff should not have done better. Professor Jussim’s criticism was completely fair.
You got me on contradiction. Basically it would be a more effective piece of work to remind the Director of NIH that he knows the difference. So in that way, one can find fault.
That said, the underlying reality of DOGE staff canceling thousands of studies of pretty much anything (witness the cancellation of the study of acute kidney injury) is what it is.
How would we distinguish "research on disparities" from "research which has a DEI component" in practice? For example, if NIH does research on a disease that affects women more, which one is that?
Disparities. As stated, it should not be blocked. But if the research *also* has a whole section devoted to describing the DEI practices embedded into the proposal, then its fair game.
I fear that looking only at grant proposal text may dismiss good research. Wouldn't we want to fund research into a disease that affects women more, assuming it was well thought out research, regardless of the text in the proposal? In many institutions, such language was essentially boilerplate.
Regardless, this seems to be literally what this administration did -- a keyword search to decide which grants to cancel. Even if you support grant proposal textual classification in principle, it seems that keyword search is a poor predictor of what might even loosely count as "woke," meaning a lot of good science has been canned.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/only-about-40-of-the-cruz-woke-science
I am confused. Doesn't the acquisition of a PhD not make one an expert in everything that all should bow down to? That's how academics act. A good example...the same academics who insist that any interference with college faculty speaking or teaching is a violation of academic freedom also argue that K-12 teachers have NO such freedom but can only teach what we 'the experts' say they can teach. The academic and scientific communities are reaping the consequence of their arrogance and hubris. No one believes ANYTHING they say any more. The NIH scientists here described should be rewarded for expressing themselves here by having their lack of expertise in the matters they are speaking on called out and have the resulting doubts on statements they make even IN their areas of expertise given the credence they deserve. The scientific community has the status of a snake oil salesmen at this point.
I might be missing something but “Psychology as science and as propaganda” is restricted access. Need a university account or subscription. Am I missing something? I didn’t dig hard to try to get at it but it seems to be paywalled.
Thanks for pointing this out! I (really truly) LOVE when commenters point out any actual error (including typos) in my posts. It improves the posts!
I was actually worried about this. *I* have easy access to it, but it must be because either my computer or the journal platform "remembers" that I have access. But I did not think this was likely. Now I know that is the case.
Try this link, its an upload of the paper to my Rutgers site:
https://sites.rutgers.edu/lee-jussim/wp-content/uploads/sites/135/2025/06/jussim-honeycutt-2023-psychology-as-science-and-propaganda.pdf
I have also updated the post with that working link.
Works. Thanks Lee. Love the Substack!
Lee’s article make many good points valid on their own. The critique of the Bethesda Declaration succeeds, I find, except where “epistemic trespassing” is invoked. Tim’s comment here concisely sounds a valid alarm. Lee’s reply clarifies his position: “It IS possible to become deeply knowledgeable about some topic outside one’s original area of expertise and then to provide informed, reality-based opinions and recommendations.” With Lee on this I totally agree.
Following Lee’s research suggestion, I found Nathan Ballantyne’s 2019 article, “Epistemic Trespassing.” That article starts: “Epistemic trespassers are thinkers who have competence or expertise to make good judgments in one field, but move to another field where they lack competence—and pass judgment nevertheless. We should doubt that trespassers are reliable judges in fields where they are outsiders.”
Note the loaded adverse sound-bite: “epistemic trespassing.”
Regrettably, Ballantyne sets the rhetorical stage by committing the genetic fallacy, i.e., he demands we “doubt” what people say because they are “outsiders” by profession. His article refines his approach and also makes valid points, but the rhetorical device must be opposed.
Immersive study in economics, for example, enables you to “make good judgments” that bolster or criticize various politicians’ assertions about the meanings of terms or the results of policies. Plenty of smart people self-educate in fields of computer science and hardware and can advise about design methods or problems to avoid – never having obtained some official “degree” in these subjects.
I reject Ballantyne’s wholesale call to “doubt” people who offer information or judgments just because they lack a “degree” or other establishment imprimatur. In the legal system where I have “competence or expertise” (hopefully!), a person may testify to an opinion on any subject so long as the person has knowledge and the grounds and reasoning of the opinion are themselves evidentially worthy and logical. I would urge people not to categorically “doubt” an “outsider” but instead question or investigate any person’s opinion to ascertain the factual basis and the line of reasoning. Focus on facts and reasoning, not sheepskin.
Yes, as stated, I completely agree, and the comment adds useful nuance. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Ballantyine article ALSO points out that one can *successfully* trespass by doing the hard work digging into a field outside of one's original expertise.
But there is a huge BUT (if Substack comments allowed images, I'd paste in a HUGE butt here...).
1. Smart people are capable of making reasonable-sounding and seemingly evidence-based arguments all the time, that are still wrong or even misleading propaganda simply by cherrypicking studies, findings, and evidence consistent with their narrative -- which is kinda what the BD does regarding diversity.
One needs A LOT of immersion in the underlying science to be able to recognize that.
Note that on this score, even I do not write that many Wooden Stake essays. This is because it is quite effort-intensive to do the deep dive to debunk many claims that I am pretty sure are bullshit, and I do not want to be in the business of saying, "I am pretty sure this is bullshit" based solely on my intuitions and feels.
2. In their normal walks of life, as they say in meme-form: most of us mostly AIN'T GOT TIME FOR THAT! That is, few of us have the time to do the deep dive to get the expertise to be able to seriously vet the arguments and evidence of an epistemic trespasser.
So I end up believing Ballantyne's recommendation to doubt outsiders is actually good advice as a default, absent: 1. deep expertise of one's own in the area; 2. deep familiarity with the trespasser's work and prior record.
While recognizing the problems of epistemic trespassing do we then invite epistemic hegemony or totalitarianism? What is a woman? Does one really need to be an expert to have an acceptable answer? And what type of expert is more acceptable, biology, psychology, psychiatry? DEI has been shoved down our throats by the supposed experts.
I recommend this:
1. Go to Google Scholar
2. Search for "epistemic trespassing."
Those who have written about it have addressed some of the very questions you raise. Short version -- it IS possible to become deeply knowledgeable about some topic outside one's original area of expertise and then to provide informed, reality-based opinions and recommendations.
3. If you have not read them, I also highly recommend Jonathan Rauch's twin books, Kindly Inquisitors and The Constitution of Knowledge. Short version, in an open society:
a. Everything is up for debate/discussion by everyone.
b. No one has final say.
I know several NIH funded researches who are running into this issue. This article isn’t entirely fair. The entire NIH review process has been a rushed shitshow, and yes, some grants are being cancelled just because they utilize the concept of diversity in its non-DEI meaning. Studies of disparities are naturally going to use “diversity” in a lot of contexts and the DOGE-inflected review process has not been subtle or intelligent
From the essay:
"This sort of thing wrecks their credibility. Now that their claim about the “robustness” of research on the benefits of diversity is knowably false, a reasonable, rational person who does not have the time to fact check every other claim in The Bethesda Declaration is likely to wonder, “Maybe the rest of it is true, but its kinda hard not to wonder what else is false or misleading?” And to conclude, “If this is what the best and brightest at NIH have to offer, maybe Trump’s wrecking ball is just what’s needed.”
**I actually do not reach that conclusion, but explaining why would be another whole essay. "**
The essay was on one thing the BD gets wrong, and the deeply dysfunctional irony of them mongering their expertise to promote it. It did not address Trump's policies re: NIH writ large. I would prefer a world where:
1. Experts did not do this, so that
2. When they raised dissident objections, those objections would deserve credibility. Credible experts would have some better chance of having their objections taken seriously, if not by the administration, then by the voting public. I note here that in 2018, the Democrats picked up over 40 seats in the House. "Instead, the point is that by doing this sort of thing, they unnecessarily fan the flames they are trying so desperately hard to put out."
3 related essays in my inbox the same day...The above and:
Our Knowledge System Has Collapsed. Can We Survive Without It?
Ted Gioia
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-knowledge-system-collapse?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Monopoly Round-Up: The Best and the Brightest Under Pressure
Harvard is under attack by the Trump administration. How are the best and the brightest responding? Plus, Apple takes another hit. And is a McDonald's ice cream machine fix coming?
Matt Stoller
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-the-best-and-the?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Simple solution: Fire them all! And you’ll find out you didn’t need them.
"Health disparities. U.S. Law (42 U.S.C. § 282) states that NIH shall "utilize diverse study populations, with special consideration to biological, social, and other determinants of health that contribute to health disparities." Yet, NIH has stigmatized and abruptly cut off funding for research mislabeled "Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)." Achieving your stated goal to "solve the American chronic disease crisis” requires research addressing the social and structural drivers of health disparities."
Of course, subjects must be diverse since different groups and races have different diseases and susceptibilities to disease. Examples include sickle cell disease, porphyria, Tay-Sachs disease, to name but a few. Where diversity shouldn't be considered as a significant factor is in people ~doing~ the research. The law addresses the former (subjects and patients), not the latter.
The signatories knew this. They're trying to pull a fast one. And they just got caught.
Time to fire them too!
Thank You!
"Epistemic Trespassing" is 100% going to be the title of my next Stack/Channel/Blog.