Nottingham University goes 'kerplunk'!

I have posted previously about the embarrassment that has emanated from Nottingham University over recent weeks. The Nottingham saga related to a student who had in his possession a printout of terrorist material. The student was studying terrorism. The material was printed (and freely accessible) from a US government website.

Why discuss this on a scientific integrity blog?

It reflects the same system malfunction which leads lawyers and Vice Chancellors to make unprincipled anti-academic comments about the most basic safeguards of academia in science. Do I, as an academic, have the right to see, discuss, and properly assess data (mis)represented in my name by a commercial company? Are doctors prescribing drugs allowed to see and discuss the most fundamental aspects of science underlying that prescribing decision? Does an academic studying terrorism have the right to assess and to see (and even to possess) the information he is studying? What exactly are the roles and obligations of a University and of academic leadership?

Now we have this from the Times Higher Education Supplement (17 July 2008):

Researchers have no 'right' to study terrorist materials, By Melanie Newman

"Academics have no "right" to research terrorist materials and they risk being prosecuted for doing so, the vice-chancellor of the University of Nottingham has told his staff."...

Mr Sabir's personal tutor Bettina Renz, a lecturer in international security, and his MA supervisor, Rod Thornton, a terrorism specialist and former soldier, have both said they told police that Mr Sabir's possession of the document was legitimate given his research interests....

[Despite this, the University in a new letter] "warned Mr Sabir that he risked re-arrest if found with the manual again" and added: "The university authorities have now made clear that possession of this material is not required for the purpose of your course of study nor do they consider it legitimate for you to possess it for research purposes."...

"Since his release without charge, Mr Sabir has been accepted to study for a PhD in radical Islam at Nottingham under Dr Thornton's supervision. His doctorate application proposes an analysis of Islamic terrorists' military and political strategy "based on primary documents, including reports published by think-tanks and research centres and documentation published or released by Islamist groups (strategic and political statements, military manuals, group manifestos and charters)"....

"Mr Sabir insisted to Times Higher Education that he had downloaded his version of the al-Qaeda manual from a US government website and that it was still freely available on the internet"....

"He said he was now unclear what he could and could not legitimately research for his PhD, given the police and the university's warning"....

"Vanessa Pupavac, lecturer in international relations at Nottingham, said: "The university suggests it is illegitimate to study the operational or the tactical as opposed to the political or strategic dimension of al-Qaeda." Scholars were interested in both dimensions, she argued."...

Oliver Blunt QC, of the Anti-Terrorism team at Furnival Chambers in London, said that academics do have a "right" to "access" terrorist materials, whether for research or otherwise, as long as they do not "possess" them. (!) He said: "Once the researcher knowingly downloads or saves the materials that he is accessing, then he is in 'possession' of terrorist materials.

On the internet, what exactly is the difference between "reading", "downloading" and "possessing"?

The Vice Chancellor at Nottingham is quoted as follows

"There is no 'right' to access and research terrorist materials. Those who do so run the risk of being investigated and prosecuted on terrorism charges. Equally, there is no 'prohibition' on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges (although they may be held in custody for some time while the matter is investigated). This is the law and applies to all universities." --- Colin Campbell, Vice-Chancellor of Nottingham University (THE, 17 July 2008)

The following from Professor Scott Lucas (University of Birmigham), an open letter to the Vice Chancellor at Nottingham

The problem was never the type-set pages of Mein Kampf; rather, it was in the use of those pages to justify bigotry, racism, war, genocide. The problem was never Marx’s Das Kapital or Mao’s Little Red Book or Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations or the Koran or the Bible. It was, still is, and always will be the manipulation of those texts to justify the taking of lives.

Vice-Chancellor, do you think that --- through your denial of texts to us --- that you make us safer? Do you think that, by denying us our ability to think, consider, criticise that you shelter us from harm? Do you think that you protect us from ourselves, prevent us from becoming extremists? If you do, you are reducing your staff, your students, your administrators, your trustees to no more than children incapable of judgement? You go in one step from being a proud university to a fortress of ignorance.

“There is no 'prohibition' on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges.” Thus we are allowed freedom of thought under the caution that we are guilty before being proven innocent. Perhaps you know, Vice Chancellor, of other societies in other times who have also maintained their standard. Perhaps you know where scholars, students, citizens have been advised that they may read their books and then, as those books are burned, explain why they have not committed a crime. Read on

What has become of us, and why do the leadership of other universities remain silent?



There are cogent comments from Edward Reid-Smith on the THES article

The situation seems to be that a small elite group is able to access and possess certain materials without being themselves "corrupted" or to be charged as terrorists .... Their decision is that others accessing and possessing the same materials will be "corrupted" or liable to be charged as "terrorists" whether or not they actually are terrorists. The 99.9% of the population not privileged will not be allowed to possess the material, and legislation will ensure that they are terrorised into not seeking knowledge about what "terrorists" actually think and do.....

The passing of legislation which leaves any community uncertain of exactly what is allowed and what is banned, presents an excellent tool for oligarchic dictatorship at whim. One may question whether non-specific legislation is the result of ineptitude, or because there is some strange pleasure to be gained from putting the populace in fear (i.e. terrorising?) seeking information.

Upper echelons of the university (businessmen) have decided that they know what constitutes "legitimate research material".

Certainly there are real and serious dangers in this world of ours. People who feel they have the right to blow other random individuals apart (or to act as apologists for others who do) are a part of that problem. Dealing with those dangers involves proper discussion as to what they are. That is what Universities are for.

A few other links about this story here, here, here. U-Tube video of Rizwaan Sabir here.

Earlier|Later|Main Page

The problems at Nottingham University

This post is not about science. It is in support of a postgraduate student (Rizwaan Sabir) and an administrator (Hisham Yezza) at Nottingham University, a short drive from my home.

Following my series of posts about MK-ULTRA research 50 years ago, Daniel Goldberg at the Medical Humanities Blog elaborated on the idea of state involvement as a necessary element in the most serious kinds of unethical human research.

This can happen in several ways: a) some of the worst examples of unethical research have been carried out by the state itself, b) precedents set by the state create cynicism over professional ethical guidance which is administered by the state, and c) state functionaries (professional regulators, product regulators) play an important role in the suppression of concerns over unethical conduct and assist in the bullying and marginalization of individuals raising legitimate concerns.

Systems function well, and gravitate towards some sort of integrity and truth when there is variability within those systems. Properly functioning systems require dissent. They require the diverse commentary of many individuals with differing perspectives on ethical standards. They require transparency. They require crooks, cooks and discussion over the definition of crookery and acceptable behaviour.

Clearly, the involvement of the state as a necessary element in systematic University malfunction goes beyond science. The problems of the past week at Nottingham University have been discussed elsewhere in some detail. Briefly, a postgraduate student (Rizwaan Sabir) was conducting research (into terrorism). He was arrested after downloading material (related to terrorism) from a US government website. I believe that the material is here - take a look. His Nottingham University supervisors insisted the materials were directly relevant to his research (which is on terrorism). A university administrator and previous student at Nottingham University (Hisham Yezza) printed some of the (publicly available) material for him. Both men were arrested, their homes were searched by police, and Yezza (the printer) faces immediate deportation. Upper echelons of the university (businessmen) decided that they knew what constitutes "legitimate research material". Certainly there are real and serious dangers in this world of ours. People who feel they have the right to blow other random individuals apart (or to act as apologists for others who do) are a part of that problem. Dealing with those dangers involves proper discussion as to what they are. That is what Universities are for.

Some news reports are here, and here. A campaign site is here. Yezza is Editor of the magazine Ceasefire - (download the latest issue here).
In the words of Thomas Jefferson 200 years ago:

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
(Thomas Jefferson 1743-1846, U.S. President, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782)

We understood this 60 years ago.





Earlier|Later|Main Page

Gardasil scandal: University of Queensland exits the civilized scientific community

Just after my last post on the role of a University I read this piece in today's British Medical Journal about an appalling episode at the University of Queensland that goes right to the heart of what a University is. The University of Queensland has broken its contract with the scientific community. This is an absolute disgrace.

I am reminded of the letters to me stating that I needed University "authorisation" to discuss issues of scientific procedure. I recall the warning of "public dissociation" and that "public interest disclosure legislation" somehow applied to discussion of scientific methodology involving Procter and Gamble.

From the University secretary and registrar at Queensland (Douglas Porter) this most absurd of comments:

Douglas Porter, wrote to Dr Gunn, asking him to provide a written apology to CSL stating that the "comments were made by you in your personal capacity and were not endorsed or authorised by the university." - "The University of Queensland’s vice chancellor declined to comment and referred the BMJ to Mr Porter, who said that Dr Gunn "had no authority to speak on behalf of the university" and should not have mentioned his university position. "It’s an absolute storm in a teacup."

What are you Mr Porter - The University of Kentucky Fried Chicken, or a real University? Shame, shame and more shame.

BMJ 2008;336:741 (5 April) [Link]
Academic freedom is at risk in dispute over Gardasil, lecturers say
Melissa Sweet, Sydney

Senior academics are outraged that the University of Queensland has asked an academic to apologise to a drug company for his public comments on a vaccine against human papillomavirus that was developed jointly by the university and the company.

Academics at the university and elsewhere say that the request is a threat to academic freedom and warn that it raises worrying concerns about universities’ independence and ability to negotiate conflicts of interest.

The request came after the company, CSL, wrote to the university’s vice chancellor complaining about comments on the radio made by Andrew Gunn, a senior lecturer in general practice.

The programme dealt with the general issue of pharmaceutical marketing and briefly mentioned Gardasil, whose development has reaped millions of dollars for the university as well as public and political kudos.

CSL’s director of public affairs, Rachel David, wrote: "I feel Dr Gunn’s comments are inappropriate and inconsistent with the long-standing relationship CSL has with the University of Queensland and given the involvement of the university in the development of Gardasil."

On 14 March the university’s secretary and registrar, Douglas Porter, wrote to Dr Gunn, asking him to provide a written apology to CSL stating that the "comments were made by you in your personal capacity and were not endorsed or authorised by the university." Mr Porter also asked to be sent a copy of Dr Gunn’s letter to CSL.

Dr Gunn said he was disappointed by the university’s response and that the company’s complaint seemed to be aimed at stopping him from speaking out again. "Even if you’re fairly resistant to pressure, it’s got to make you think twice about saying potentially critical things about their products," he said.

Wayne Hall, of the university’s School of Population Health, described CSL’s response as "heavy handed" and said that the university’s response was "disrespectful of the rights of academics to speak out on matters of public interest."

The university’s executive dean of health sciences, Peter Brooks, also expressed concerns about the handling of the complaint and said that universities generally needed to do a better job of resolving conflicts of interest.

"If you’ve got very large amounts of money changing hands, then it’s very difficult, I think, not to let that influence you to some extent," he said. "It’s a dilemma that universities have.

"Quite frankly, I have said that I think that if anybody at UQ [University of Queensland] makes a statement about Gardasil, including the inventors, if it’s going to be a public statement then probably under conflict of interest [guidelines] they should acknowledge that the university receives significant funding from CSL each year."

Paul Glasziou, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford and a former University of Queensland academic, said that the freedom of academics to speak without interference from their employers or government was crucial in an open society and that it was reasonable for Dr Gunn to have used his academic title.

Chris Del Mar, dean of health sciences and medicine at Bond University, Robina, Queensland, and an honorary professor at the University of Queensland, said that universities should support academics in saying what they think. "Discourse and argument are the stock in trade of academics," he said. "To gag [argument] is anti-academic."

Simon Chapman, of the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health, said that the registrar’s letter should appal all researchers and academics.

"The registrar and vice chancellor would do well to read their own website on how academics should present themselves in public. The University of Queensland’s policy states: ‘It is accepted practice that where a member of staff is writing on something which is clearly within the range of professional expertise, it is appropriate for the member of staff’s university position to be given.’"

Professor Chapman said that the registrar’s suggestion that a university would have official views on drug company promotions or a specific vaccine is "both preposterous and inimical to academic freedom."

David Henry, adjunct professor at the School of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, said that the university’s response was even more inappropriate than CSL’s.

He said, "It is fairly predictable that a company will react to what they see as a commercial threat, but it is very worrying that a university would require an academic to get clearance before giving an interview."

"It shows that poor funding of Australian universities has led to desperation in their attempts to raise funds from other sources, including commercial companies. In doing this they are abandoning part of their mission, which is to generate and communicate new knowledge in a fearless and impartial way."

Carolyn Allport, president of the National Tertiary Education Union, added: "If freedom of inquiry is to be respected as a core responsibility of universities, then it is important that both universities and academics and researchers retain their rights to engage in critical commentary, in the public interest."

The University of Queensland’s vice chancellor declined to comment and referred the BMJ to Mr Porter, who said that Dr Gunn "had no authority to speak on behalf of the university" and should not have mentioned his university position.

"You’re just beating this up," he told the BMJ. "It’s an absolute storm in a teacup."

Dr David of CSL said that she had asked the university to clarify whether Dr Gunn was speaking on behalf of the university, because "if the university does not have access to correct information about our products, it is clearly a more important issue than if the interview simply reflected the opinions of an individual."

She said, "Neither I nor anyone else at CSL has the power or the inclination to ‘gag academic freedom’ or any form of freedom of speech, and I am not aware of any arrangement with the university or any other academic institution in Australia that would even allow for this possibility."

A spokesman for UniQuest, the university’s commercial arm, said that the exact value of Gardasil’s returns to the university was confidential but that it amounted to some millions of dollars annually.

A transcript of Dr Gunn’s comments is available at www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2007/2108059.htm

Although not relevant here - remind me - what is the evidence that Gardasil actually works?

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Memory Hole (20 October): The Protectors

Scientific Misconduct Blog Memory Hole: Events of October the 20th

Quotes of the day

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.
Plato circa 400 B.C.

A good deal of tyranny goes by the name of protection.
Louise Erdrich

60 years ago today: Academic Freedom is un-American

On 20 October 1947 the House Un-American Activities Committee opened hearings into supposed communist influence in the motion picture industry.

22 years ago today: Secret C.I.A funding at Harvard

On 20 October 1985 it was reported that Nadav Safran, a Harvard Professor of Near Eastern Studies had been receiving confidential research funding from the Central Intelligence Agency ("Harvard Widens Inquiry in C.I.A. Aid to Professor," New York Times 20 Oct 1985). Part of the agreement was that he should submit his manuscripts to the CIA for prior approval. Several scholars had earlier withdrawn from a conference on Islamic fundamentalism at Harvard after learning that the CIA was one of its sponsors. Safran was later forced by his colleagues to resign his Harvard position. See some discussion in the Harvard Crimson of 1986.

6 years ago today: UK Government accused of coverup over sheep research

On 20 October 2001 the UK Labour Government was accused of trying to hide details of the disastrous scientific investigation into BSE in sheep.

2 years ago today: Pargluva and regulatory failure

On 20 October 2005 an important article was published JAMA (Brophy JM. Selling safety - lessons from muraglitazar. JAMA 2005; 294) indicating various techniques used to provide a deceptive impression of the drug Pargluva (muraglitazar) to a puppet FDA panel. For the methods used to mislead see the summary at Health Care Renewal.

The FDA panel reviewing Muraglitazar had known of concerns, but had conflicts of interest. They backed the drug regardless of the absence of any evidence of meaningful efficacy (NYT). The summary of the FDA meeting (available on the internet archive here) indicates concerns about increased heart failure and cardiac death with Pargluva (short term cardiac death rate 0.3% with Pagluva 0% with Actos, CCF 0.75% for Pargluva vs 0% for Actos). Five clinical trials had been notified to the FDA (the "clinical trial register") but were not available in published form.

The parallel scientific report in JAMA concluded "muraglitazar should not be used or approved to treat patients with diabetes until an appropriate dedicated trial to assess cardiovascular outcomes is performed." - which is exactly the conclusion an honest FDA panel should have reached.

On 18 March 2006 Bristol-Myers Squibb discontinued the development of muraglitazar.

2 years ago today: Nature study on distortion of clinical guidelines

On 20 October 2005 the journal Nature reported on their investigation of "independent" clinical guidelines ("Cash interests taint drug advice" Vol 437/ 20 October 2005). The results of the survey showed that "drug companies are distorting decisions about how their products are being prescribed". Surprise.

"Nature found that more than one-third of authors declared financial links to relevant drug companies, with around 70% of panels being affected. In one case, every member of the panel had been paid by the company responsible for the drug that was ultimately recommended." Nature studied over 200 guidelines deposited with the US National Guideline Clearinghouse. Only 90 contained details about conflicts of interest. Of those, just 31 were free of industry influence.

In one example uncovered by Nature, guidelines for the treatment of anaemia in HIV positive patients were written by a working group selected by Paul Volberding at UCSF. Volberding convened the group at the request of Ortho Biotech. Ortho Biotech funded the meetings and all six members were paid by the company for lecturing or consultancy. The group's guidelines (P.Volberding et al. Clin. Infect. Dis. 38, 1454-1463; 2004) recommend use of epoetin alpha, a drug marketed by Ortho Biotech.

Patients die as a result of schlock science - does anyone care?

2 years ago today: David Healy, the BMJ and Academic Stalking

On 20 October 2005 Professor David Healy gave a landmark talk at Columbia University. Amongst other things he detailed the role of lawyers at the British Medical Journal in the peer review process: "our best journals refuse to take articles on the basis of sheer terror about what pharmaceutical companies might do to them rather than on the basis of any concerns about the scientific merits". The lecture was scheduled as a debate between Healy and James Coyne (University of Pennsylvania), but Coyne pulled out. Coyne had an interesting role in the stifling of academic debate (see Academic Stalking) as did academics at Oxford University. Sickening reading.

Earlier|Later|Main Page

A Blogger's Manifesto: A new book and the interesting story of Eric Ringmar

This post is about Eric Ringmar and an excellent little book about blogging, Universities and Free Speech that is on sale as of today:

Eric Ringmar: A Blogger's Manifesto - Free Speech and Censorship in the Age of the Internet. ISBN-10: 1843312883. The book is available at Amazon (Amazon USA, Amazon UK). You can also download it, but I would encourage that you read part of it today, and then buy it.

The book is great. What happened to Eric is important and infuriating.

Eric is a Swede, and was up until recently a Senior Lecturer in Government studies at the London School of Economics (LSE). He writes complicated and interesting-looking books about political history (like this one or this). He spent 20 years at prestigious universities, first Yale and then the LSE. Now he is at a "non-prestigious" one : National Chiao Tung University.

Eric resigned from the LSE on the 1st of February 2007. His resignation letter is here. It reads simply:

"Freedom of speech is important to scholarship. It is also important to me. I cannot go on working at an educational institution which does not protect and share this value."

Now read Chapter 3 of Eric's book. It describes what happened to him (For press coverage see Guardian, THES).

To enhance the sense of incredulity while reading, it will help to look at the open day speech he gave to prospective students at the LSE before the trouble started, and the blog that infuriated the LSE. For a rapid tour, some posts are gagging orders, should you do a PhD in the UK, English Professors, Potentially defamatory blogs, and the Muslim Danish Cartoons

Then read Chapter 8: The bloggers manifesto, peruse the other chapters here, and buy it.

I give it 9 out of 10 for insight and amusement.

Previous book reviews on this blog:

• Shuchman, Miriam. the Drug Trial: Review| Rating 0/10
• Shuchman, Miriam. the Drug Trial: Review| Rating 0/10
• Washburn, Jennifer. University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of American Higher Education: Review| Rating 10/10
• Rivlin, Solomon. Scientific Misconduct And Its Cover-up: Review| Rating 7/10
• Ringmar, Eric. A Blogger's Manifesto - Free Speech and Censorship in the Age of the Internet: Review| Rating 9/10

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Elsevier , IBM, Academic freedom and public health

An important article by Bailar and colleagues has just been published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (Bailar et al., IBM Elsevier Science and Academic Freedom Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health, 2007;13:312–317 PDF here).

The publication is timely. We know that several scientific journals have recently rejected manuscripts following legal threats. We also know that several manuscripts have been rejected on the grounds that "we feel we don't have the resources for the legal work required to check it all". Rejected manuscripts commonly contain information perceived to be against the interests of a corporate sponsor, an advertiser, or powerful colleagues within the scientific discipline.

It would seem important that journals should disclose these instances. When journals appear to be rejecting (or not reviewing) manuscripts based on factors other than science, it should cause us to place a red flag against the work they do publish. Although journals sometimes claim legitimate fear of litigation, such fear cannot extend to mere publication of the fact of intimidation. It would seem a simple matter for a journal to publish that they had been intimidated through legal threat to prevent consideration of a manuscript. The failure of journals and editors to publicize and condemn such threats would seem to me to suggest complicity.

There is also the small paradox that while journals express concerns about "libel" this is not generally matched by any great desire to correct inaccuracies in the science they publish (take JAACAP for example) - even inaccuracies which are likely to have resulted in patient deaths.

In their article Bailar and colleagues document a case of attempted suppression involving Elsevier and IBM. I have summarized/extracted the incident below:

The story started in 1985 when a chemist in a particular IBM research facility in California wrote to IBM Corporate Headquarters about a cluster of cancers amongst employees. In response, IBM commissioned a study of brain cancer mortality among electronics workers, to be conducted by researchers at the University of Alabama. The investigators reported that:

"...mortality from brain cancer among male electronics workers increased as the duration of employment in “technical jobs” lengthened. This was consistent with a trend previously reported, that the risk of dying from brain cancer is highest among electrical and electronics workers with long-term work histories—specifically, those of ten years or more—and with probable exposures to solders and organic solvents." Eleven years later (in 1996) this IBM sponsored study relating to brain tumors was published (Epidemiology. 1996;2:125-30).

In 2003 IBM was forced to provide the raw data underlying the study to plaintiffs in litigation who had other (non brain) cancers. IBM attempted to block plaintiffs’ attorneys access to the file, maintaining that it contained no helpful data. The employee data was eventually passed to epidemiologist Richard Clapp of Boston University. The researchers found excess incidence of other tumors, and patterns of mortality in the IBM workforce consistent with occupational exposures to solvents and other carcinogenic materials used in IBM manufacturing processes. Proportionate mortality ratios were found to be significantly elevated compared to a matched U.S. population. The types of cancers that were increased were consistent with the findings of other studies of semiconductor workers.

Judge Robert A. Baines ruled that the analysis of IBM’s Corporate Mortality File data contained in Dr. Clapp’s public Court declarations was inadmissible as evidence in the trial stating that:

“This same study, again, assuming that it is a valid study, could be used to show any number of things, such as if . . . everyone in manufacturing drank coffee in the company cafeteria . . . coffee served in the company lunch-room causes cancer.”

So much for the understanding of Judges and the legal system. The legal "misunderstanding" of basic epidemiology in this case was discussed in the Journal Science (Science law and the IBM case. Science. 2004;305:309) and elsewhere.

The analysis also revealed that IBM had failed to disclose evidence of risks to IBM workers, while at the same time maintaining a Corporate Mortality File that included relevant data and was the best available dataset from which to determine whether the claims by the plaintiffs against IBM were correct. Given that the premise of the plaintiffs’ claim was corporate fraud and concealment, exclusion of these data from the jury’s deliberations was of critical importance.

After losing the case (while being unable to discuss the best available data) a plaintiffs’ attorney said that the prohibition of using Clapp’s analysis of IBM’s Corporate Mortality File data in the trial had meant that, “I fought the case with one hand tied behind my back.”

Clapp then submitted his analysis to the journal Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. IBM lawyers sent a letter cautioning Clapp not to publish the details of his analysis, stating that it was protected by a court order. IBM then stated that the data were “incomplete and inadequate for reliable study.” Clapp disputed this by saying that the data he received from IBM were close to 100% complete, and that in any event IBM’s own research contractors had previously published an article based on mortality in the same dataset. IBM lawyers then labeled the analysis “junk science.”

In a tour de force of epidemiological misunderstanding IBM then stated that: “In a workforce as large as IBM’s, many workers will, by simple chance, contract unusual diseases.” “There’s no evidence that any workers’ illnesses were caused by their work at IBM.”

In March 2004, in a letter to plaintiffs’ attorney Steven Phillips, IBM attorney Michael Templeton wrote that publication of the study would represent “a misappropriation of data that Dr. Clapp has no right to use for such purposes,” and that “IBM expressly reserves all of its rights to take any appropriate action.”

Clapp withdrew his manuscript submission following these threats.

In November 2004, the IBM Medical Director sent a message to employees. The message began, “Safeguarding employee health, safety and well-being in the workplace is core to our values and woven into every aspect of who we are as a company. This includes rigorously evaluating our business practices and work environments.” 25 The message went on to state that preliminary evidence from the UAB study revealed that IBM employees had fewer cancers than expected.

This appeared to have been based on an IBM analysis of those data that looked at cancer "incidence" (instead of cancer mortality as had their own previous manuscript and the manuscript of Clapp), apparently failed to take account of exposure or exposure time and excluded some workers. Clearly cancer incidence is a different endpoint (and probably a less reliable one). Several other criticisms were made of this alternative and completely different study (which IBM then proceeded to submit for publication).

Clapp then wrote again to the editor of Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine (and Elsevier Journal) asking to publish the mortality data, and re-submitted the manuscript.

The manuscript was refused.

Elsevier spokesperson Eric Merkel-Sobotta, when asked whether IBM had contacted Elsevier about the study, said, “There’s been no coercion and no threats.”

One commentator stated : "A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, and threats are unnecessary when the media are prepared to apply self censorship rather than make waves.”

Other instances involving other Elsevier Journals are discussed: "the journal “serves as a convenient venue for the publication of industry research.”

In March 2006, after more than two years of intimidation and delaying tactics by IBM, plaintiffs in New York got that state’s court to declare the Clapp and Johnson study non-confidential. That motion removed any residual basis for objection to publication of Clapp and Johnson’s detailed study. The court in New York issued an injunction prohibiting IBM from interfering with Dr. Clapp’s efforts to publish his corporate mortality study. Accordingly, Dr. Clapp submitted his paper and it was accepted and subsequently published in the journal Environmental Health. (Clapp et al., Environ Health. 2006;5:30 (PDF here).

"The actions of IBM and of Elsevier Science point up the need for speedy government action to obtain non– industry-funded studies of many workplace hazards and a wider commitment of all journals, editors, and their publishers to ensure that important research findings that may affect public health or social justice reach both the scientific community and the public as rapidly as possible."

Personal opinion: If IBM has a casual relationship to the truth involving it's own workers, can I trust information it provides me as a consumer? If IBM is confident in it's scientific statements it needs to be able to defend these based on science and the data it provided. Threats and meaningless accusations of "junk science" are never appropriate. Is our medical medical leadership saying anything at all? Are we teaching our medical students about this? This episode is a disgrace.

Individuals and corporations named are: IBM, Elsevier, Judge Robert A. Baines, Eric Merkel-Sobotta (Elsevier)

Notes

• See also: Wadman M, Scientists cry foul as Elsevier axes paper on cancer mortality, Nature 2004, 429, 687 (subscribers)
• The case bears similarities to the case of Betty Dong. The Dong affair also involved an attempt by a science-based corporation to publish a diversionary data analysis while threatening a scientist to force withdrawal of a valid analysis.
• Elsevier claims to be "the undisputed market leader in the publication and dissemination of literature covering the broad spectrum of scientific endeavors" and "to supply the information you need in the most convenient format".

Earlier|Later|Main Page

A whitewashed crow soon shows black again

A whitewashed crow soon shows black again (Chinese Proverb)

Dedicated to Tareq AlBaho and to his morally adept colleagues Hans Herrmann, Francoise Virieux and the
Nobel Prizewinner Pierre-Gilles de Gennes (who died last week on 18 May 2007).

We have a Nobel prize winner (Physics 1991) who tried and failed to conceal criminal activity by his senior staff against a junior researcher. Those individuals were later tried and convicted in 2000 and 2001. An interesting story - More to follow.

Great intellect implies neither humanity nor ethical insight.
It's all in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex several inches behind the brow.

See Wall Street Journal, 11 May 2007 Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring.

"To analyze their moral abilities, Dr. Koenigs and his colleagues used a diagnostic probe as old as Socrates -- leading questions: To save yourself and others, would you throw someone out of a lifeboat? Would you push someone off a bridge, smother a crying baby, or kill a hostage?

The effort to understand the biology of morality is far from academic, said Georgetown University law professor John Mikhail. The search for an ethical balance of harm is central to medical debates on vaccine safety, organ transplants and clinical drug trials."

Hat tip S.S for neurology.

Earlier|Later|Main Page

An important book - The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education

An interview with Jennifer Washburn from 2005.

Author of one of the most important and readable books on the University Industrial Interface.

Jennifer Washburn: University, Inc: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education - New Edition, Oct 2006 [Amazon]

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Dr David Kern's "dilemma" - learning from history

In November 1996 Dr David Kern, Professor of Occupational Health Medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island received a letter.



The integrity of medical research is under threat. Many cases have arisen which have demonstrated the inclination of our profession to act in a way that damages both science and the interests of the patients we serve. In many instances, organizations charged with maintaining integrity have colluded, almost routinely, to pervert science, to bully those raising concerns, and to obscure problems. These organizations include our medical Journals, professional regulatory bodies, drug regulators and even formal bodies devoted to maintaining "integrity".

The story of Dr David Kern and the "dilemma" of flock workers' lung is one of many such stories. The letter mentioned Kern's "dilemma". The problem was that Kern had no dilemma. Kern knew that the integrity of a doctor is paramount. The dilemma was one for Brown University.

What happened to David Kern is a stain on the reputation of Brown University. In 1994 Kern reviewed a patient with unusual lung disease. He wondered whether the disease might be due to occupational exposure. Kern visited the patient's place of work - Microfibres Inc. Before visiting he signed a standard confidentiality agreement forbidding the disclosure of any "trade secrets" he might discover during his visit. Over the next two years at least 6 more cases arose, and Kern believed he had sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a new lung disease. He informed the company of his decision to publish his findings, initially in the form of an abstract at the annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society in May 1997.

In response to this, Microfibres Inc., threatened to sue citing the confidentiality agreement prohibiting disclosure of any "trade secrets". However occupational lung disease is not such a "trade secret". The associate Dean of Medicine, Paul Shank attempted to force Kern to withdraw his abstract, and to prevent publication of the findings. Kern refused. He next received correspondence from Francis Diez, president of Memorial Hospital instructing him to withdraw. The hospital, the letter added, was shutting down his entire program "effective immediately". Shamefully, six months after the actions of Shank and Diez, Brown University pretended in a duplicitous statement that they had supported Kern's academic freedom and integrity all along. Less than a week after that, Kern received a letter informing his that his teaching and research positions had been eliminated. Brown University appeared to see nothing to gain from honest research or medicine. Microfibres’ owner and two relatives sat on the hospital’s board, and the company had helped to fund the hospital’s facilities.

University obfuscation in the Kern case was damaging both to our profession and to our patients: In the words of Dr Kern:
Extracts from speech delivered at MIT March 29, 1999

"A small group of Brown University faculty members rallied and called for university administrators to take a principled stand. Instead, the Dean of Medicine hand-picked a Committee of Inquiry comprised of two associate deans whose subsequent report side-stepped nearly every critical issue."

"Moreover, far more important issues such as the suppression of scientific findings critically important to public health and interference with a physician's responsibilities to care for his patients were not addressed at all."

The ATS [American Thoracic Society] admonished: "Barriers to the open communication of scientific information must be resisted. In particular, the threat of litigation and/or elimination of financial support to prevent the open communication of scientific information is abhorrent."

Democracy can coexist with the belief that all humans are sinners but not with the belief that all sins are equal. Democracy has within each of its camps, not excluding the civilitarian camp, thugs in number. And when you're in an argument with a thug, there are things much more important than civility."

I do not like incivility. Yet, I like thugs even less. What I am asking, rather, what I demand of us all is honesty and truth. For without honesty and truth, there is nothing.

In my case, representatives of the company, the hospital, and Brown University have gone to great lengths to distort the truth. Yet, even were their claims true, their points of contention are irrelevant to the critical issues that remain (a) their attempts to suppress the dissemination of scientific findings critically important to the public health, (b) their interference with my professional responsibilities to care for patients, and (c) their immediate termination of the state's only occupational health program.

And so, we are left confronting arrogance, dishonesty, and a callous disregard for the health of workers. While our medical school and university administrators continue to proclaim their dedication to truth, to the search for knowledge, and to the advancement of civilization, it is all pretense as wordsmithing triumphs over truth and as knowledge is buried. What makes such pretense infuriating goes beyond hypocrisy to the failure of these administrators to realize that people's lives hang in the balance. They either fail to appreciate or are unwilling to acknowledge that their words and actions have jeopardized the health of individual workers, have contributed to the potentially irrevocable loss of an opportunity to advance both scientific understanding and the public health, and have undermined the collective sense of trust and mission in our academic community.

For more information about David Kern see:

1. New Disease, Old Story. Annals of Internal Medicine 15 August 1998 129(4) Pages 327-328 (by Frank Davidoff, Editor)
2. Transcript of a speech by Dr Kern, Delivered at MIT, Cambridge, MA, March 29, 1999
3. Objectivity Lost: University Industry Science Collaborations
4. David G. Kern, Robert S. Crausman, Kate T.H. Durand, Ali Nayer, Charles Kuhn III. Flock Worker's Lung: Chronic Interstitial Lung Disease in the Nylon Flocking Industry. Annals of Internal Medicine 15 August 1998 Volume 129(4) 261-272 [Full Text]

Earlier|Later|Main Page

The mission of a University: Burger Flipping, Tenure, Berkeley and British Petroleum

"Behind one of these two doors is tenure - Behind the other is flipping burgers". Which do you pick? (Hat tip Omni Brain for cartoon).

Farley appears to have missed the boat in this instance. The door leading to tenure is the same door that leads to McDonald’s, Procter and Gamble or British Petroleum.

Recent events at the University of California at Berkeley underlie the anxieties we should be feeling about the cataclysms occurring at academic-industrial interface. On the 1st of February the oil giant BP announced that it had chosen UC Berkeley to lead the largest academic-industrial research alliance in history ($500 million over 10 years).

LA journalist Jennifer Washburn writes well about the undoing of Universities as part of such deals. "Would the institutionalization of BP at Berkeley call into question the essential objectivity of the research generated by the collaboration?" Her full news report in the LA times is here, extracts are below. It is also worth reading the speech by Professor Ignacio Chapela to the Berkeley senate on 8 March 2007 (full text here, webcast here).

For anyone wondering what these sorts of partnerships mean for a university without an academic compass it is worth reading what happened to Professor Tyrone Hayes at UC Berkeley in 2003 when he tried to publish scientific findings about the pesticide atrazine -- based on collaboration with the company Syngenta (see also excellent article in the Ecologist about this incident). It is worth remembering what happened to Professor Ignacio Chapela at Berkeley in 2004 when he tried to pubish a Nature article showing that genetically modified corn had contaminated native maize in Mexico - stepping on the toes of a Berkeley-Novartis agreement.

In the absence of a compass, such partnerships have little to do with scholarship and are at odds with the fundamental mission of a University. In the worst cases, such partnerships may smooth the path to corporate research misconduct. Academics might be used to give flawed, secret or selectively reported research a veneer of university respectability, while the deal undermines the very basis of that respectability.

I have nothing against big industry or big pharmaceutical companies. However their raison d'être is to make money. If industry gets involved in science, it has to balance genuine hypothesis testing and transparency against commercial interests and the financial consequences of dishonesty. This is not in itself a criticism - it is a simple fact. Universities exist for a different reason:- to add to human knowledge and to disseminate that knowledge through publication and teaching.

I might be inclined to choose the burger flipping.

Big Oil buys Berkeley
The BP-UC Berkeley research deal pushes academic integrity aside for profit.
By Jennifer Washburn, LA Times, March 24, 2007

Extracts - The full news report is here.

ON FEB.1, the oil giant BP announced that it had chosen UC Berkeley, in partnership with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to lead the largest academic-industrial research alliance in U.S. history. If the deal is approved, BP will give $500 million over 10 years to fund a new multidisciplinary Energy Biosciences Institute devoted principally to biofuels research.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, UC administrators and BP executives immediately proclaimed the alliance — which is not yet a done deal — a victory for higher education and for the environment. But here's another way to see it. For a mere $50 million a year, an oil company worth $250 billion would buy a chunk of America's premier public research institutions, all but turning them into its own profit-making subsidiary.

Robert Reich, former secretary of labor and now a professor of public policy at Berkeley, has warned that — because of its size and commercial scope — the BP alliance could be either "a huge feather in Berkeley's cap or a huge noose around Berkeley's neck." The question is, do rules and practices set up to safeguard academic integrity and independence stand up to a corporate deal of this magnitude?

Ultimately, there is an even more basic question to consider. Would the institutionalization of BP at Berkeley call into question the essential objectivity of the research generated by the collaboration?
See also An unholy alliance? and
and this piece about Stanford's deal with Exxon Mobil.

Things are Often Not what they Appear

Professor Ignacio Chapela to the Berkeley senate on 8 March 2007 (full text here, webcast here).

Remarks on the Berkeley-British Petroleum proposition prepared by invitation of the chair of the academic senate University of California, Berkeley - and presented on the floor of the Academic Senate (In eight minutes).

Things are often not what they appear

This session, for instance. It will be portrayed as the latest expression of the vibrant democratic system of shared governance for which Berkeley was once known. Far from it, this session is a last-minute hurried afterthought by a leadership caught asleep at the wheel, a session convened only because of the rising outrage and opposition to the presence of British Petroleum on our campus. May nobody claim that eight minutes of my clumsy words represent any kind of reasonable and legitimizing discussion. May nobody leave this room thinking that there is anything like a legitimate process in place to guarantee that this Faustian deal with the British transnational corporation is not what it portends, the last -and I believe final- coup de grace to the very idea of a university that can represent the best interest of the public..... more here

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Querulous Paranoia, bullies and the British Psychological Society

Following my last posting on the abuse of science and of an individual - Lisa Blakemore Brown - by the British Psychological Society, I thought it appropriate to launch into a more general rant about the abuse of psychiatric diagnosis to suppress scientific discussion. For collated posts on the case of Lisa Blakemore Brown see here.

King's College London claim to know whether individuals are mentally "normal". See this fascinating study - Am I normal? - from King's College. Norms were reported for the 21-item PDI psychometric test for delusional ideation. Although the deluded sample of schizotypal inpatients scored significantly higher than "normal" individuals, the range of scores overlapped considerably, with 11 percent of healthy adults scoring higher than the mean of the deluded group.

Other silly research reported from King's College London suggests that "one in three people in the UK regularly suffers paranoid or suspicious fears" based on the King's College definition of paranoia that runs along the lines of "Paranoid thinking is the suspicion that other people intend to do us harm." According to this wonderful research (and the accompanying book "Overcoming Paranoid and Suspicious Thoughts"):

• 40 per cent of people regularly worry that negative comments are being made about them
• 27 per cent think that people deliberately try to irritate them
• 20 per cent worry about being observed or followed
• 10 per cent think that someone has it in for them
• 5 per cent worry that there's a conspiracy to harm them.

Watch for the promotion of drug therapy any time soon (perhaps by the Mental Health Research Network - see last post - also coordinated by King's College London).

But what if people really do "intend to do us (or society) harm"? Paranoia (as incorrectly defined above) is a normal human defense mechanism designed to protect us against harm. So is fear. Protective mechanisms can be influenced by disease. But it is necessary to know the normal range of human response to bullying, and to confirm that paranoid "delusions" are in fact false before diagnosing mental illness. Sadly the British Psychological Society appear unconcerned about reality in their assertions of paranoia (read). Psychiatric labelling (such as querulous paranoia) can be a potent form of abuse. Querulous paranoia is the disease of asking too many difficult questions.

The British Psychological Society appear to endorse tests for paranoia along the lines of those discussed by Dr Rita Pal when she faced accusations of mental illness after pointing to deaths on a geriatric ward and the subsequent cover-up. After causing the target some considerable stress by obfuscating and ignoring concerns, a test along the lines of the one below can sometimes prove diagnostically helpful.

Look at the picture of two dolphins jumping out of the water in tandem. Research has shown that the more differences you notice between the two dolphins, the more paranoid you are. This is attributed to the concentration on minute details, distress and preoccupation induced by those in power pretending not to hear what you are saying. It also serves as an excellent test to divert attention from fiddled research involving drugs.

Such highly useful tests to detect, treat and remove the "mentally ill" from the population derives from the same highly developed system of scientific psychology and psychiatry that gave us Teenscreen (imposed screening tests in the USA to detect, drug and sometimes kill normal children - Link), hidden information about the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa, and the despicable attempts to hide away information about suicide in antidepressant drug trials [Link] [Link].

It is both notable and shameful that the neither the General Medical Council nor the British Psychological Society have uttered a peep about these scandals. They have instead colluded to hide away concerns about the science upon which we as doctors rely [Link] [Link]. The UK drugs regulator, the MHRA has colluded with industry attempts to pervert science, and has failed to address many important matters brought to their attention [Link] [Link] [Link]. Instead they bully and abuse those who raise concerns, while never dealing plausibly with the concerns raised. Our patients and the public suffer in the process - but these professional bodies have little interest in honest science, honest debate or the welfare of patients.

The British Psychological Society need to do some serious explaining.

For some good essays on brilliance and madness see The Icarus Project.

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Am I Normal? More on the case of Lisa Blakemore Brown

Many bloggers have been writing about the case of Lisa Blakemore Brown and the shameful attempt by the British Psychological Society to have her pronounced "mentally disturbed" and "unfit to practice" (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22). My collated postings on this topic are here.

The psychiatric transcript of LBB's "trial" has now appeared online here. I will be analyzing this part of her "trial" in detail over the next few days. What happened to Blakemore Brown must never happen to any other commentator on science. The BPS approach to debate is absolutely wrong and against the public interest.

Worse still, the BPS have shrouded the issue in secrecy [Link]. They have allowed the nature of the "charges" to be misrepresented in public while refusing to allow Blakemore Brown to i) discuss her own case, ii) present her case at an international meeting, or iii) publish the transcripts of her trial. The BPS have threatened legal proceedings if Blakemore Brown breaks their "copyright" on what they have done to her.

If Blakemore-Brown did do anything seriously wrong in terms of patient care, then charges should be examined in detail, and criticism should be transparent - but we have seen no evidence of this in her "trial". These procedures have been likened to a Salem Witch Trial and threaten to shut down all debate. I don't have to agree with her in order to be repelled by what is happening. This is not how debates about policy or science should work.

Blakemore Brown appears as sane as the next person working in this controversial area. Having spoken extensively with her, her colleagues and some of her patients, it would be hard to describe her as having a paranoid illness. Even harder since those of us who have investigated the facts of her case know that all of her so called "paranoid delusions" appear to have a solid foundation in fact. The British Psychological Society don't appear to be too concerned about facts. Blakemore Brown claimed that:

1. there were successful attempts to hack into her computer.
2. named parties in communication with the BPS had admitted to computer hacking.
3. documents had been stolen from her home (by an individual known to the BPS).
4. this individual had altered the address of her bank account.
5. a patient had been coached to make an earlier "complaint" by a patient "support group".
6. this support group subsequently received a large injection of funding from a pharmaceutical company.
7. some E-mail and written correspondence had been forged.
8. the BPS lied that they had not been approached repeatedly by a third party to report that a patient had been coached to complain.
9. the BPS transmitted correspondence of dubious provenance (supposedly written by herself) to a psychiatrist for "review" without checking whether she had in fact written it.
10. critical background regarding the source of the correspondence and the stated intentions of the individual who provided it was not conveyed to the assessing psychiatrist.
11. the BPS had continued with their procedures taking no cognisance of the fact that her daughter was desperately ill.
12. the "panel" judging her mental state was composed of an accountant, a physiotherapist, and Dr Pat Frankish.
13. the medical assessor to the panel (qualified in medicine in 1953, was a Consultant Psychiatrist at King's College Hospital), is author of these books on Christianity and psychiatry and has accused her of "grandiosity" (presumably of a non-religious type). This is on the basis of her involvement in parliamentary reports - unfortunately senior parliamentarians have declined to agree with this interesting assessment (see letter from Lord Earl Howe)
14. that the Psychiatrist chosen to assess her mental state and paranoia from her E-mail syntax (including falsified E-mails) is Deputy Director of the UK Mental Health Research Network which aims to provide "a better environment for pharma industry-sponsored research in the UK" [Link].
15. that the psychiatrist "forgot" to include this appointment on his supplied CV
16. that a number of anonymous and named parties had conducted a deliberate and protracted campaign (between 2002 and 2006) to induce a "flame war" on an Internet bulletin board to defame her -- and that she knew the identity of at least one of the anonymous posters (that bulletin board is there for all to see - as is an archive of an earlier postings - but the BPS have not thought to ask for it).
17. that one of those parties defaming her anonymously was in communication with the British Psychological Society.

Unfortunately for Blakemore Brown, she also claimed (amongst many other excellent writings) that thimerosal in vaccines might not be such a great idea. Furthermore she claimed that some prominent paediatricians might have misled the scientific community in terms of the strength of science relating to the diagnosis of Münchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy (MSbP) and supposed murders and injury of children by their mothers. I have no idea at all about this aspect of science. I have no idea whether there is any credible scientific evidence to indicate the specificity and sensitivity of indices for diagnosis of MSbP. I have no idea whether vaccines are always helpful. Lisa Blakemore Brown may well be wrong - but I am starting to wonder why those in power feel the need to stifle debate in this most controversial and scientifically blurry area of medicine.

There are of course never conspiracies to discredit those who forward unpopular, embarrassing or potentially costly scientific viewpoints. Those who believe in conspiracies must be mentally ill. See the next posting on querulous paranoia, and more about the Mental Health Research Network.

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Suppression of dissent - the British Psychological Society turns off the lights

What exactly is the role of the British Psychological Society (the representative body for psychology and psychologists in the UK)? Bloggers have been writing about the apparent attempt by the BPS to discredit the respected psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown and to have her officially pronounced "mentally disturbed" and "unfit to practice" (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18).

Blakemore Brown has unpopular views about autism, drug use, some powerful paediatricians, accusations of parental child abuse, some paediatric research, vaccines and the manipulation of patient "support" groups by the pharmaceutical industry. The BPS are attempting to declare her "paranoid" for believing things which are quite evidently believable to all of us who have examined the evidence in her case. Blakemore Brown appears as sane as the next person working in this controversial area.

For an example of her "controversial" writing see here: [Link].

The BPS have also allowed the nature of the "charges" to be misrepresented in public while refusing to allow her to i) discuss her own case, ii) present her case at an international meeting, or iii) publish the transcripts of her trial. The BPS have threatened legal proceedings if Blakemore Brown breaks their "copyright" on what they have done to her.

If Blakemore-Brown did do anything seriously wrong in terms of patient care, then charges should be examined in detail, and criticism should be transparent - but we have seen no evidence of this in the charges she faces. Nor has Blakemore Brown been allowed to address the misrepresentation of the charges in the only way possible - by discussing what they are.

These procedures have been likened to a 21st Century Salem Witch Trial and threaten to shut down all debate. I don't have to agree with her in order to be repelled by what is happening. This is not how debates about policy or science should work.

The BPS have reportedly spent a half a million pounds of members money and public funds on Blakemore Brown. Given our reading of the transcripts it is hard to work out how they perceive this to be in the interests of the public, their members, or scientific discussion.

Other complaints about the BPS are surfacing. The BPS have a strangely selective approach to integrity. While psychology and psychiatry are convulsed with problems of a very serious nature (see AHRP Blog, Furious Seasons, Clinical Psychology blog) the BPS has nothing at all to say about them - from the hiding of documents about the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa [Link Link] to the ongoing concerns about manipulation of information about suicide risk with SSRI antidepressants [Link]. However when Blakemore Brown asserts that that a certain pharmaceutical company is influencing a patient support group the BPS take this as diagnostic of "paranoia". Some education seems in order.

In the meantime an interesting letter appeared in the February 2007 issue of the Psychologist. I reproduce the writer's E-mailed version of it:

The BPS - value for money in the public service?
The Psychologist, February 2007

Sir

The BPS regularly refers to its duty to the public when defending itself against i) accusations of failure to support its members, ii) ostentatious advertising of members under a cloud and iii) being over-expensive.

I no longer subscribe to such a defence. Three times, spread over some years, I have sought either support or guidance on ethical matters. On none of these occasions was I offered any.

In the last instance, when I told officials that I was being repeatedly and overtly pressurised to falsify research findings for a public project, I was told that 'we don't give legal advice' and that I should consult the Code of Ethics. Apart from the fact that there is little in the Code of Ethics about corruption, other than an urging of the practitioner to behave professionally, I don't see why some guidance was not forthcoming. I was in touch with members of the BPS with responsibility for regulations and ethics; if all that is necessary is already on the web site, then I think there is a certain amount of redundancy in the organisation.

In short, I don't think members' subscriptions are benefiting the public and I think reorganisation, rethinking and refunds are in order.

Yours Sincerely

Cole Davis
Chartered Occupational Psychologist, London NW2

Now this is an organisation which spends vast amounts of money pursing bizarre charges of paranoia against Blakemore Brown yet fails to engage with serious problems that are widely discussed or presented to them.

The BPS is not the only professional body that has a problem with integrity. The General Medical Council is an interesting organisation which takes selective action against some (often Asian) doctors for doing silly things, while very serious "indiscretions" of senior members of the old-boys club are quietly ignored by powerful colleagues through a process of deceit, delay and secrecy (see my own complaint here, and further discussion here and here)

The actions of the British Psychological Society are especially reprehensible given the many mothers Blakemore Brown has helped, and that they were fully aware of the tragedies in her personal life. I end with three quotations as tribute to the courage of Lisa Blakemore Brown.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
(Pynchon T, 1995 Gravity's Rainbow. ISBN 140188592)

""It's hard to get someone to believe something when their job is dependent on not believing it"
(Al Gore, An inconvenient Truth)

"The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
(Preface to The Screw Tape Letters, C. S. Lewis)

Earlier|Later|Main Page

A statement from Lisa Blakemore Brown

I have already posted about the victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown by the British Psychological Society. Since then the case has been discussed by many concerned bloggers, and commentators on those blogs (See for example here here here here here here here). Here is a statement from Lisa dated today, 8am, the day of her "trial".

PUBLIC STATEMENT - LISA BLAKEMORE BROWN
31 January 2007 8:00 am

It is my view that the British Psychological Society have pursued vexatious complaints against me from sources of dubious credibility. This year will mark 10 years since I first encountered harassment from the British Psychological Society. I will not discuss this harassment here in detail, because it is obvious.

Instead of investigating my concerns, the Society sought to use an aged method of discrediting the messenger - abuse the stigma of mental illness. I find the accusations against me to be insulting, defamatory and malicious. Many members of the public believe it is comparable to the method used in a Totalitarian Regime. The BPS has a mandatory role to investigate the serious issues raised in the public's interest. Yet, as a authority it has been misled by various individuals, some with a criminal past and has sought to victimise me for expressing my honest views on the ethical issues affecting the public.

Over more than a decade I have raised a number of issues surrounding the management of children with ADHD, Asperger syndrome and Autism. I have discussed the difficulty of pigeonholing children into these diagnostic categories through my metaphor of the tapestry. Each child is different. I have also discussed Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy. I have challenged academic thinking about some of these problems in my writings, in court, in helping individual families facing legal challenge, and in my professional practice. I have mentioned that all is not well with our scientific evidence underlying the issue of vaccines and their potential side effects. I know that many people agree with my views. Some of my views may well be wrong. But that is what academic debate is all about.

The British Psychological Society will know full well that many of the things I have raised are correct. They will also know full well that many of the matters I have raised with regard to the manipulation of these procedures are correct, and have been shown to be so. And yet you have accused me of being paranoid based on my stating of the obvious. That was the charge panel members.

I believe that the BPS has behaved very badly. They have misused psychiatric assessment. They have contributed to the distortion of academic debate, and they will have contributed to the fear that professionals feel of challenging the unknown. In so doing the BPS has also failed the public. This is Soviet psychiatry at it’s worst, and we do not expect that in 21st Century Britain.

Thank you

Addendum: 1pm 31 January 2007: I am informed that the British Psychological Society have threatened legal injunction to prevent publication of the transcripts of these hearings. Having read the case transcripts, I find them most extraordinary. They read like an encyclopaedia of legal and psychological abuse. They also represent the most fundamental manifestation of the abuse of science and suppression of dissent. The British Psychological Society should be ashamed. The BPS should immediately make them available for public scrutiny. A.B

Earlier|Later|Main Page