The same thing that happened with Hudlicky's paper happened with a poster I presented in an ETHICS session at the AGU meeting in DC in December 2018. The objections were NOT based on any inaccuracy in the facts or statements made in the poster...but rather with how it made certain people "feel". What is most amusing is that the poster was pointing out that the manner in which woke feminist dominated professional societies approach conflict between individuals in the profession actually not only violate the mores and methods of science but actually violate the US federal constitution. Rulings by the Supreme Court since the poster came out demonstrate that its interpretation of the law is correct...while the academic societies continue to try to impose the culture of 1693 Salem, Massachusetts. The academic community continues to lie to itself pretending that their actions are ethical and fully supported by the members (sort of like how Holocaust deniers pretend that the Jews killed did not exist because...where are they?).
My main reaction though is to ask the question : is a journal which is highly focused on fine-grained details of the science of chemistry the right place for all these topics as a unit?
impact of new technology
impact of information technology
diversity of workforce
integrity of the literature
transference of skills
universities as corporations
competition for resources
diversity of research options
Why are his opinions on pedagogy relevant, is he an expert in pedagogy? Are they really scientific in nature? Was his essay accepted on basis of scientific merit, or was it accepted on then basis of his name?
The journal was highly remiss in its process of acceptance, and responding to unaccountable chatter o ln Twitter.
Scientific American has taken on a terrible number of articles which are false and misleading - a savaging of EO Wilson comes to mind - and taken on political stands. The writings here have an unfortunately similar flavor.
It was a sorta combined retrospective/prospective/perspective piece. Many journals that are usually more technical publish pieces like that periodically, typically by accomplished, senior figures in the field.
In the old days, their accomplishments signaled, "you don't have to agree, but this person is accomplished enough that at least you should pay attention." But in a world of "check your privilege" and "disrupt and dismantle," a world gone mad post-George Floyd, being an accomplished senior White male was already a negative. Being an accomplished senior White male saying "this diversity stuff is bad news, grad students should submit, and is anyone paying attention to all the Chinese garbage" was practically asking for trouble.
To add to the exhibits -- our essay Scientists must resist cancel culture (https://doi.org/10.1002/nadc.20224120702), which discussed Hudlicky's cancellation in terms of censorship and cancel culture, has generated a firestorm of complaints about the authors, the journal, its editor, and the German Chemical Society for allowing to air such renegade opinions. People may appreciate some of the longer responses that were published here:
For STEM community, Hudlicky was a proverbial canary in a coal mine... We must remember this case--if only not to forget how much ideology has corrupted our institutions and, sadly, some of our colleagues.
Incidentally, today I stumbled on this thoughtful essay on the same topic, by a pathologist (how appropriate!) from Canada: Academic Responsibilities, Obligations, and Freedom: A Call for Review – In Memory of Professor Dr. Tomáš Hudlický (https://actamedica.lfhk.cuni.cz/67/1/0032/).
From the conclusions:
"Social sensitivities to political interference are high in North America and elsewhere. A solid demand to return to academic freedom was once intrinsic to the university as a universal institution. There is a dangerous pathway that humanity is embracing governed by conformism, limitation of individual freedom, and overreach of the government over personal liberties. Neoliberalism and neo-Marxism are blended into a new ideology that limits academic freedom, raising social conflicts with opportunism. There is a need for think tanks that promulgate and privilege reason, critical thinking, dialectics, Aristotelian debates, and human intelligence. Universities are not perfect. Still, their fundamental principles need to be cherished and not canceled. We must expose cultures able to subjugate and brainwash children and adolescents erasing the roots of the Western Civilization. There are growing mental health issues in youth and the causes are multiple, but one could be that the debate has been banned in several institutions. Future generations should be taught about academic freedom because the outlook of the University is tightly linked to this highly precious and timeless value."
An academic researcher as well, but not in the sciences, in Australia, and thankfully recently (mostly) retired. I'm sad to say I fell for all this stuff hook, line, and sinker and was one of the people pushing it, even though I wasn't as hardcore as some of my other social justice-minded colleagues. I didn't realise how far off the human rights track we had gone since the 1980s. I'm now in a position where I can push back slightly through my comments to younger researchers on some of the more ridiculous ideologically driven things they write in their research papers and dissertations, I alert them to the irrelevance and illogical things they are writing in the midst of otherwise perfectly well thought out research. Other than that, the only thing that's going to reform academia in the Western world is governmental change, with accompanying policy changes, and intergenerational change - my generation are mostly goners, unfortunately.
Lee, I am also an academic researcher. Unfortunately, as you well know, there are some things you simply cannot say in an academic publication. Anything that goes against far left orthodoxy simply cannot be said. Even if much of the evening out of women and men in academia has already happened, you still cannot say that we don’t need even more women and even fewer men in academia. Finding men in many of my classes has become increasingly difficult. But you still can’t say it, or you will be shunned and canceled.
Seth, welcome aboard. But I semi-disagree! I get all sorts of stuff that runs against the orthodoxy published. Its probably harder, and lord knows, when I criticized DEI in psych, I got mobbed and denounced. You know the racist mule denunciation story? Anyway, even that paper got published. Then there's the stereotype accuracy stuff. And the radicalization of academia stuff. Our not too long ago defense of merit in science, and our review scientific censorship by scientists.
Its fairer to say the risks of some sort of punishment for going against leftist orthodoxies are high and short-term rewards are few. But the long game is the only game that matters... at least if you can survive the short game. And, admittedly, some haven't. The chapter from which that is an excerpt also includes four similar stories about faculty fired for crossing leftist sacred beliefs. That is why I can't more than half-disagree.
I agree about the path towards self-destruction - radicalism permeates every single part of academia now but academics and administrators think they’re being ‘smart’ and ‘kind’ - it’s sad because this quite totalitarian thinking has destroyed academia. It’s become like an upside down Orwellian world.
Most of the students in my old university were women and international students. And the ones attracted to the DEI were/are mostly women, and they dominate 'professional development' workshops on DEI, 'white privilege', anti-racism, etc. Interestingly, more broadly, it's older women who also go to public social and cultural events: writing festivals, films, talks, etc. I've been wondering for a while - where are the older men going, what are they doing?
Many men are not attending colleges or universities. If they are, they’re majoring in business or STEM. But even when I taught in a science program, the students were half women. I think that’s absolutely wonderful, but the fact that so many men are not going to universities is very concerning.
Oh, I think that many things that go against far left orthodoxy need to be said. Recent elections all over the world bear that out. But academia is not going to be able to root out extreme leftism because the extreme leftists are in control. They are the deans, the provosts, and the department chairs. Academia is not going to self correct. I think it is actually more likely to self-destruct. And that is part of my fear.
I read the complete article by Hudlicky, and to be honest, it shouldn't have been accepted; it was more a ranting in disconnected topics than a proper opinion article in chemistry.
Having said that, the Hudlicky affair opened my eyes regarding the DEI problem and the lack of awareness of many colleages.
Calling out women and minorities in industry with an implication that they were less than “meritorious” is problematic. It’s the definition of sexism. Their sex is irrelevant to the work. If he is worried about the class of applicant for work, he should be citing some practical measurement, not his perception, their sex. A classic “meritorious” argument in the past has been “he has a family to feed”. I wouldn’t have allowed opinions like this into a journal on chemistry. It’s fine for an opinion article for a paper, or scholastic pedagogy or industry management, with data to back up assertions like “average skills are dropping”. He comes across as merely biased. I worked in hard science and ‘’meritorious’ is also a synonym for connected, knowing the right people. As in any discipline. It’s not dispassionate. Hiring has never been about test scores. He simply has no factual data - as opposed to reactant yields or melting point analysis, to challenge the reader.
It’s part and parcel - “they” the corporate overlords and publishing houses “won’t do what he wants” and “the industry suffers” therefore.
The China Literaure problem seems to say Chinese people are scamming the system. Universities in China (and elsewhere; universities elsewhere aren’t saintly) may be flooding the system with sub-par research, so how are publications failing to identify this? If a particular research institution has more than a certain level of retractions, then it should be put on probation. The fact that it’s Chinese is irrelevant.
By comparing China today with Germany of 100 years ago he seems to be making the case that there’s something the matter with Chinese, while not recognizing that the system is very different. That’s the 2nd tripwire. I won’t even go into the reasons why. I’m almost surprised he doesn’t bring up industrial espionage.
The article, an oddly written opinion essay of this sort, has places and times for publication. This journal and this framing seem odd , and also giving voice to a complaints that the system wasn’t the same as it was in the past or what he prefers - which tautological, and presumptuous. It has self contradictions and inconsistencies in logic. Not top rate.
You do not need DEI or affirmative action if they were more meritorious -- you simply need systems that judge people on their merits. Selecting people based on identity/demographic characteristics means you are not selecting them exclusively on merit. Which plausibly means the ones you have selected would not have otherwise been selected. As was obviously the case in undergrad admissions at Harvard -- where there were mountains of data -- but the principle applies to hiring as well. So he was at least mostly right about that one.
Regardless of your opinion about how to handle massive retractions, he was also right about excess retractions emerging from China. And its not at all clear that "it does not matter" that its China. It might matter quite a lot and probably does.
Also, journals regularly publish opinion or perspective pieces. The entire point is to provide one's opinion and perspective.
The system allowing it was poor which is the irony w.r.t. his complaints.
The term ‘Meritorious’ has varying meaning, it has in the past to mean something quite different than the most accomplished applicant.
You only need to point out less than accomplished candidates are coming in. He makes claims about women and minorities without fact. That’s a poor idea.
I read the entire article, “Where Now” is better titled “Why Won’t Publicatkon Pay Attention to Me.” an indictment of publishing in Chemistry, and had little to do with organic synthesis per se.
He began complaining that publications didn’t listen to him “not even the referees” on one points about validating results with melting Lonny analysis: people should print out articles and read them because they learn more or might develop poor attention span, internet good/bad as information technology), he hated to be contradicted (must submit to the master) - a reiteration of his first point, he was clearly offended as melting point analysis was brought up several times (footnote (1) was a “how dare he” note on a young chemist), people’s attention spans, journals are too big, China publishes too much of dubious quality.
The trio of submitting to the master, irritation at university as corporation (eg, himself having to answer upwards, competition for resources through grants process) interlocked with the irritation at publications not agreeing with, and generally railing at people not doing what he thinks is the best.
The only actual point that seemed relevant to the discussion was presence research possibilities with the linkage of biochemistry with synthesis.
The rest was hurt feelings and heresay. Even the complaint about a China publications related to his proof of impossibility of >96% yields and why didn’t they follow his direction.
It never even remotely should have been punished, it was a “cry in the dark” for relevancy, attention, and a return to his past.
He also provided several internal contradictions which made it easy to attack. Reading abstracts defocused attention, yet there were too many pages to read.
And yet ... it passed peer review. The solution, then, for anyone who did not like his arguments was to publish a refutation, not retract. As I wrote here:
I think much of what is published in psych is nonsense. But I do not go around demanding we retract any of it, not even the most ridiculous (absent fraud or massive data error).
The same thing that happened with Hudlicky's paper happened with a poster I presented in an ETHICS session at the AGU meeting in DC in December 2018. The objections were NOT based on any inaccuracy in the facts or statements made in the poster...but rather with how it made certain people "feel". What is most amusing is that the poster was pointing out that the manner in which woke feminist dominated professional societies approach conflict between individuals in the profession actually not only violate the mores and methods of science but actually violate the US federal constitution. Rulings by the Supreme Court since the poster came out demonstrate that its interpretation of the law is correct...while the academic societies continue to try to impose the culture of 1693 Salem, Massachusetts. The academic community continues to lie to itself pretending that their actions are ethical and fully supported by the members (sort of like how Holocaust deniers pretend that the Jews killed did not exist because...where are they?).
It's all obviously a mess that is soaking up deficit spending.
Creative destruction may be the most efficient and effective path.
The censorship was atrocious, no question.
My main reaction though is to ask the question : is a journal which is highly focused on fine-grained details of the science of chemistry the right place for all these topics as a unit?
impact of new technology
impact of information technology
diversity of workforce
integrity of the literature
transference of skills
universities as corporations
competition for resources
diversity of research options
Why are his opinions on pedagogy relevant, is he an expert in pedagogy? Are they really scientific in nature? Was his essay accepted on basis of scientific merit, or was it accepted on then basis of his name?
The journal was highly remiss in its process of acceptance, and responding to unaccountable chatter o ln Twitter.
Scientific American has taken on a terrible number of articles which are false and misleading - a savaging of EO Wilson comes to mind - and taken on political stands. The writings here have an unfortunately similar flavor.
It was a sorta combined retrospective/prospective/perspective piece. Many journals that are usually more technical publish pieces like that periodically, typically by accomplished, senior figures in the field.
In the old days, their accomplishments signaled, "you don't have to agree, but this person is accomplished enough that at least you should pay attention." But in a world of "check your privilege" and "disrupt and dismantle," a world gone mad post-George Floyd, being an accomplished senior White male was already a negative. Being an accomplished senior White male saying "this diversity stuff is bad news, grad students should submit, and is anyone paying attention to all the Chinese garbage" was practically asking for trouble.
To add to the exhibits -- our essay Scientists must resist cancel culture (https://doi.org/10.1002/nadc.20224120702), which discussed Hudlicky's cancellation in terms of censorship and cancel culture, has generated a firestorm of complaints about the authors, the journal, its editor, and the German Chemical Society for allowing to air such renegade opinions. People may appreciate some of the longer responses that were published here:
https://gdch.app/category/cancel-culture
Lee's letter to the editor is also there.
For STEM community, Hudlicky was a proverbial canary in a coal mine... We must remember this case--if only not to forget how much ideology has corrupted our institutions and, sadly, some of our colleagues.
Incidentally, today I stumbled on this thoughtful essay on the same topic, by a pathologist (how appropriate!) from Canada: Academic Responsibilities, Obligations, and Freedom: A Call for Review – In Memory of Professor Dr. Tomáš Hudlický (https://actamedica.lfhk.cuni.cz/67/1/0032/).
From the conclusions:
"Social sensitivities to political interference are high in North America and elsewhere. A solid demand to return to academic freedom was once intrinsic to the university as a universal institution. There is a dangerous pathway that humanity is embracing governed by conformism, limitation of individual freedom, and overreach of the government over personal liberties. Neoliberalism and neo-Marxism are blended into a new ideology that limits academic freedom, raising social conflicts with opportunism. There is a need for think tanks that promulgate and privilege reason, critical thinking, dialectics, Aristotelian debates, and human intelligence. Universities are not perfect. Still, their fundamental principles need to be cherished and not canceled. We must expose cultures able to subjugate and brainwash children and adolescents erasing the roots of the Western Civilization. There are growing mental health issues in youth and the causes are multiple, but one could be that the debate has been banned in several institutions. Future generations should be taught about academic freedom because the outlook of the University is tightly linked to this highly precious and timeless value."
An academic researcher as well, but not in the sciences, in Australia, and thankfully recently (mostly) retired. I'm sad to say I fell for all this stuff hook, line, and sinker and was one of the people pushing it, even though I wasn't as hardcore as some of my other social justice-minded colleagues. I didn't realise how far off the human rights track we had gone since the 1980s. I'm now in a position where I can push back slightly through my comments to younger researchers on some of the more ridiculous ideologically driven things they write in their research papers and dissertations, I alert them to the irrelevance and illogical things they are writing in the midst of otherwise perfectly well thought out research. Other than that, the only thing that's going to reform academia in the Western world is governmental change, with accompanying policy changes, and intergenerational change - my generation are mostly goners, unfortunately.
Lee, I am also an academic researcher. Unfortunately, as you well know, there are some things you simply cannot say in an academic publication. Anything that goes against far left orthodoxy simply cannot be said. Even if much of the evening out of women and men in academia has already happened, you still cannot say that we don’t need even more women and even fewer men in academia. Finding men in many of my classes has become increasingly difficult. But you still can’t say it, or you will be shunned and canceled.
Seth, welcome aboard. But I semi-disagree! I get all sorts of stuff that runs against the orthodoxy published. Its probably harder, and lord knows, when I criticized DEI in psych, I got mobbed and denounced. You know the racist mule denunciation story? Anyway, even that paper got published. Then there's the stereotype accuracy stuff. And the radicalization of academia stuff. Our not too long ago defense of merit in science, and our review scientific censorship by scientists.
Its fairer to say the risks of some sort of punishment for going against leftist orthodoxies are high and short-term rewards are few. But the long game is the only game that matters... at least if you can survive the short game. And, admittedly, some haven't. The chapter from which that is an excerpt also includes four similar stories about faculty fired for crossing leftist sacred beliefs. That is why I can't more than half-disagree.
I agree about the path towards self-destruction - radicalism permeates every single part of academia now but academics and administrators think they’re being ‘smart’ and ‘kind’ - it’s sad because this quite totalitarian thinking has destroyed academia. It’s become like an upside down Orwellian world.
Most of the students in my old university were women and international students. And the ones attracted to the DEI were/are mostly women, and they dominate 'professional development' workshops on DEI, 'white privilege', anti-racism, etc. Interestingly, more broadly, it's older women who also go to public social and cultural events: writing festivals, films, talks, etc. I've been wondering for a while - where are the older men going, what are they doing?
Many men are not attending colleges or universities. If they are, they’re majoring in business or STEM. But even when I taught in a science program, the students were half women. I think that’s absolutely wonderful, but the fact that so many men are not going to universities is very concerning.
If it can't be said in an academic publication, should it not be said at all, or somewhere else?
Oh, I think that many things that go against far left orthodoxy need to be said. Recent elections all over the world bear that out. But academia is not going to be able to root out extreme leftism because the extreme leftists are in control. They are the deans, the provosts, and the department chairs. Academia is not going to self correct. I think it is actually more likely to self-destruct. And that is part of my fear.
I read the complete article by Hudlicky, and to be honest, it shouldn't have been accepted; it was more a ranting in disconnected topics than a proper opinion article in chemistry.
Having said that, the Hudlicky affair opened my eyes regarding the DEI problem and the lack of awareness of many colleages.
But was he racist or sexist? Because that is the reason given for retraction, not because the paper was off-topic.
Calling out women and minorities in industry with an implication that they were less than “meritorious” is problematic. It’s the definition of sexism. Their sex is irrelevant to the work. If he is worried about the class of applicant for work, he should be citing some practical measurement, not his perception, their sex. A classic “meritorious” argument in the past has been “he has a family to feed”. I wouldn’t have allowed opinions like this into a journal on chemistry. It’s fine for an opinion article for a paper, or scholastic pedagogy or industry management, with data to back up assertions like “average skills are dropping”. He comes across as merely biased. I worked in hard science and ‘’meritorious’ is also a synonym for connected, knowing the right people. As in any discipline. It’s not dispassionate. Hiring has never been about test scores. He simply has no factual data - as opposed to reactant yields or melting point analysis, to challenge the reader.
It’s part and parcel - “they” the corporate overlords and publishing houses “won’t do what he wants” and “the industry suffers” therefore.
The China Literaure problem seems to say Chinese people are scamming the system. Universities in China (and elsewhere; universities elsewhere aren’t saintly) may be flooding the system with sub-par research, so how are publications failing to identify this? If a particular research institution has more than a certain level of retractions, then it should be put on probation. The fact that it’s Chinese is irrelevant.
By comparing China today with Germany of 100 years ago he seems to be making the case that there’s something the matter with Chinese, while not recognizing that the system is very different. That’s the 2nd tripwire. I won’t even go into the reasons why. I’m almost surprised he doesn’t bring up industrial espionage.
The article, an oddly written opinion essay of this sort, has places and times for publication. This journal and this framing seem odd , and also giving voice to a complaints that the system wasn’t the same as it was in the past or what he prefers - which tautological, and presumptuous. It has self contradictions and inconsistencies in logic. Not top rate.
You do not need DEI or affirmative action if they were more meritorious -- you simply need systems that judge people on their merits. Selecting people based on identity/demographic characteristics means you are not selecting them exclusively on merit. Which plausibly means the ones you have selected would not have otherwise been selected. As was obviously the case in undergrad admissions at Harvard -- where there were mountains of data -- but the principle applies to hiring as well. So he was at least mostly right about that one.
Regardless of your opinion about how to handle massive retractions, he was also right about excess retractions emerging from China. And its not at all clear that "it does not matter" that its China. It might matter quite a lot and probably does.
Also, journals regularly publish opinion or perspective pieces. The entire point is to provide one's opinion and perspective.
Going crazy over him was ridiculous, of course.
The system allowing it was poor which is the irony w.r.t. his complaints.
The term ‘Meritorious’ has varying meaning, it has in the past to mean something quite different than the most accomplished applicant.
You only need to point out less than accomplished candidates are coming in. He makes claims about women and minorities without fact. That’s a poor idea.
It was not racist or sexist. It was only out of place.
You are spot on.
I read the entire article, “Where Now” is better titled “Why Won’t Publicatkon Pay Attention to Me.” an indictment of publishing in Chemistry, and had little to do with organic synthesis per se.
He began complaining that publications didn’t listen to him “not even the referees” on one points about validating results with melting Lonny analysis: people should print out articles and read them because they learn more or might develop poor attention span, internet good/bad as information technology), he hated to be contradicted (must submit to the master) - a reiteration of his first point, he was clearly offended as melting point analysis was brought up several times (footnote (1) was a “how dare he” note on a young chemist), people’s attention spans, journals are too big, China publishes too much of dubious quality.
The trio of submitting to the master, irritation at university as corporation (eg, himself having to answer upwards, competition for resources through grants process) interlocked with the irritation at publications not agreeing with, and generally railing at people not doing what he thinks is the best.
The only actual point that seemed relevant to the discussion was presence research possibilities with the linkage of biochemistry with synthesis.
The rest was hurt feelings and heresay. Even the complaint about a China publications related to his proof of impossibility of >96% yields and why didn’t they follow his direction.
It never even remotely should have been punished, it was a “cry in the dark” for relevancy, attention, and a return to his past.
He also provided several internal contradictions which made it easy to attack. Reading abstracts defocused attention, yet there were too many pages to read.
Sad in source and outcome.
And yet ... it passed peer review. The solution, then, for anyone who did not like his arguments was to publish a refutation, not retract. As I wrote here:
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/75-of-psychology-claims-are-false
I think much of what is published in psych is nonsense. But I do not go around demanding we retract any of it, not even the most ridiculous (absent fraud or massive data error).
Exactly.
Sadly, all the brouhaha was for completely unrelated, wrong, and obsessive reasons.