First Amendment, Post Publication Peer Review Scam, PubPeer, Retraction Watch, Scientific corruption

First Amendment Abuse and the Post Publication Peer Review Scam

On Tuesday October 4 at 10AM, a Michigan Court in Detroit conducted a hearing on case 326691 “Fazlul Sarkar vs John Doe”. As you may recall from our coverage at Science Transparency, Pr…

Source: First Amendment Abuse: Time to Sue Post Publication Reviewers for False Accusations

Standard
Adam Marcus, Anonymous Commenter, Character Assassination, Civil Death, Clare Francis, Defamation, Defamation lawsuit, Fake Peer Review, Fazlul Sarkar, First Amendment to US Constitution, Ivan Oransky, Michigan Court of Appeals, Post publication peer review, PubPeer, PubPeer lawsuit, Reporting Retractions, Reporting Science Retractions, Reputation Damage, Research Integrity, Research misconduct, Retraction Watch, Retractions, Science Transparency, Scientific Misconduct, Wayne State University

First Amendment Abuse: Time to Sue Post Publication Reviewers for False Accusations

On Tuesday October 4 at 10AM, a Michigan Court in Detroit conducted a hearing on case 326691 “Fazlul Sarkar vs John Doe”. As you may recall from our coverage at Science Transparency, Prof. Sarkar is a scientist anonymously accused of misconduct through a blog named PubPeer. Whether his data is valid or invalid is something we are not in a position to evaluate or debate. The focus here is the modus operandi of his accusers. The accusations had adverse consequences for his career and so Dr. Sarkar sued PubPeer in Court. The Court requested that the identity of only one of the anonymous accusers be revealed. This has not yet happened. All we know is that the accuser or accusers whose identity is sought by the Court hid under the pseudonym Clare Francis to launch the attacks on Fazlul Sarkar in what constitutes a flagrant abuse of First Amendment rights. The lawyers for the defendants argued that the Constitutional rights bestowed by the First Amendment guarantee the impunity of their clients. That is wrong, very wrong. And whose peers are PubPeers anyway?

To discuss the venal Clare Francis, we need to briefly focus on the blog Retraction Watch (the two are intimately related). This blog is run by two journalists, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. Odd as it sounds, these non-scientists and the anonymous contributors to the blog claim they seek “to increase the transparency of the retraction process in science” (sic), which is an oxymoron. Initially, the founders of Retraction Watch worried they would not get enough stories to cover. So, right around the time the blog came into existence in August 2010, anonymous whistleblowers, including Clare Francis, also surfaced and relentlessly accused scientists of misconduct, allegedly in connivance with Retraction Watch.  The blog harassed, scorned and pilloried anyone immediately after the anonymous whistleblowers managed to elicit some reaction from the journals, be it an expression of concern or a retraction. Obviously, Clare Francis or the cowards that hid in anonymity immediately informed Retraction Watch (or… yes, you are right). The attack then escalated as other journals were contacted once the accusers gained their short-lived credibility with the help of Retraction Watch, and their attacks then spiraled into full defamation cycles.

This seemed like quite an effective strategy to boost the blog, particularly since Clare Francis and other nobodies have been aggressively accusing scientists of fraud and plagiarism. If the anonymous accusers were successful in eliciting damning reactions from the journal editors, Retraction Watch would get a juicy story and a chance to pillory the incriminated scientists. On the other hand, if the cowards were not successful or the accusation proved to be false, there would be no consequence for them or for Retraction Watch since the journals typically do not inform the public or institutions that they have received a false accusation.

The ungainly posts at Retraction Watch elicited by Clare Francis actions contributed to build up a poisonous atmosphere best reflected in Ivan Oransky’s retort to a Nature editorial on retractions. Nature’s cautious reflections contrast starkly with Oransky’s views on the need for immediate condemnation illustrated by the following passage:

“We would argue that journals like Nature actually have a tremendous amount of power. If Nature thinks that they “have neither the authority nor the means to police authors or their institutions,” the editors should sit down with Anesthesia & Analgesia editor in chief Steven Shafer, who gathered a consortium of journal editors that held institutions’ feet to the fire and led to retractions in the Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii cases. One can only imagine how quickly a dean would return a call from Nature.”

After this rant, Oransky charged again:

“And why not issue an expression of concern about papers during those years while it’s being investigated? How does Nature justify, for example, leaving the dance symmetry paper in the literature for for five years after authors requested a retraction? Unless, of course, you’re worried about losing those citations, the first two years of which will count toward your impact factor.”

Motivated by recent reports on harassment to scientists and by these troubling views, Science Transparency decided to investigate the matter further. We sought to find out what proportion of accusations by Clare Francis or the cowards operating anonymously allegedly on behalf of the Clare Francis/ Retraction Watch machine had any merit to the point that they would eventually result in retraction. Although editors had not been diligent in collecting statistics, they all pointed to a figure slightly lower than 10%.

In regards to those enduring false accusations of misconduct by Retraction Watch, Paul S. Thaler, one of the most successful lawyer in the field, had this to say:

The first thing to remember is that the federal regulations, as well as the internal policies of most institutions, protect the confidentiality of respondents in research misconduct matters.  Thus, as a matter of federal law, institutions are prohibited from disclosing the identity of an accused scientist, except on a “need to know” basis, for example, to a member of the investigation committee, unless and until a finding of research misconduct is made.  These proceedings are not public as court is in criminal and civil disputes.  It is more comparable to proceedings against other professionals, such as lawyers, who are governed by their licensing organization.  Privacy in these matters is critically important as there is no public need to, or right to know, about professionals simply accused of wrongdoing.  What the public has a right to know about is a professional who has been found responsible for wrongdoing.  At that point, the public is alerted.  But because a professional’s reputation is so important to his or her career, the specter of an accusation can permanently stain that reputation and frequently the accusation is not well founded.  So the confidentiality of the process allows a full examination before the public is made aware.  We certainly do want to know about those scientists who have actually done something wrong that impacts science, but we do not, and should not, be concerned with those who are good scientists but caught up in a sometimes very political, internal dispute.

These remarks by attorney Paul S. Thaler are very much in line with the law (42 C.F.R. § 93.108(b) (2005)), as noted by Nicholas Roumel, the lawyer of plaintiff Dr. Sarkar:

“Because the consequences of a research misconduct proceeding can be dire, the [federal] regulations impose conditions of strict confidentiality on allegations of research misconduct. As section 93.108 of the regulations states: “Disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants in research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law.” 42 C.F.R. § 93.108(a) (2005). Disclosure of records or other evidence from which research subjects might be identified is also limited to “those who have a need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.” 42 C.F.R. § 93.108(b) (2005).” [Mauvais-Jarvis v. Wong, 2013 IL App (1st) 120070 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2013)]

It is our expectation that the scientists that have been wrongly accused of wrongdoing and pilloried by Retraction Watch, or by the cowards hiding behind pseudonyms, will now sue those responsible in Court. The writer of this piece may be contacted (weishilaurameng@gmail.com) to help coordinate some of the effort.

Standard
AAAS, Blog, Corruption, Data Falsification, Due process, Internet crank, Marcia McNutt, Mass hysteria, Open research, Post publication peer review, Research Integrity, Retraction Watch, Science, Science blogs, Science Magazine, Science Transparency, Scientific Crisis, Scientific Reproducibility, Scientific Research, Transparency and Openness

TOP: How Science magazine plans to deal with the intrusion of social media

Not long ago Science Editor Marcia McNutt published an appalling editorial entitled “Due process in the twitter age“, where she claimed that social media created an anxiety and added a sense of urgency to the post-publication peer review (PPPR) of reported scientific research. In a post at Science Transparency, we swiftly retorted that if the scientific establishment kept paying attention to blogs like Retraction Watch to conduct their business, they will only have themselves to blame for the current crisis. In our post we felt compelled to quote a Londoner from the Daily Mail (UK) who described the intrusion of social media in the most eloquent terms:

Social Media has turned us all into the baying masses of the medieval witch hunts, with no mediators of our hysterical views, and with the loudest, most ignorant and angry up at the front with their burning tweeting torches.

It would seem that Science magazine has decided to review their own position regarding how they intend to deal with the piracy of PPPR by social media. Marcia McNutt now claims that Science magazine will spearhead the implementation of TOP (Transparency and Openness Promotion), a set of new standards of transparency and reproducibility for the publication of scientific research. This initiative is inspired by the policy forum piece “Promoting an Open Research Culture” published in Science nearly an year ago. In fact, at Science Transparency we argued in support of this policy.

A Friday Evening Discourse at the Royal Institution; Sir James Dewar on Liquid Hydrogen, 1904 (oil on canvas) by Brooks, Henry Jamyn (1865-1925); The Royal Institution, London, UK.

A Friday Evening Discourse at the Royal Institution; Sir James Dewar on Liquid Hydrogen, 1904 (oil on canvas) by Brooks, Henry Jamyn (1865-1925); The Royal Institution, London, UK.

Transparency, availability of raw data, and full disclosure of all tools required by a person skilled in the art to reproduce the work is surely all that is needed to ensure the validity of reported research. This is true today as it was three centuries ago, when scientists were asked to perform their experiments in front of an audience at the Royal Institution. At Science Transparency we welcome the implementation of these TOP protocols as the best route to do away with corruption in science and to end the current hysteria promoted by social media in regards to the reproducibility crisis, real or perceived.

 

Standard
Marcia McNutt, Post publication peer review, PubPeer, Retraction Watch, Science Magazine, Social Media

RE: “Due Process in the Twitter Age” by Science Editor Marcia McNutt

Marcia McNutt is the Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, a well-known venue to communicate research results, and of other Science journals. She has recently contributed an editorial entitled “Due Process in the Twitter Age” where she tells us readers that the process of post publication revision has now changed because of the prominent role played by social media. Apparently, the anxiety created by social media, where anyone can hide and fire misconduct allegations or spill their anger at the world, fuels quick post-publication revision, putting pressure on journal editors. In other words, according to McNutt, social media influence the post publication fate of research articles because of the anxiety they generate in the scientific audience. Can you imagine a working scientist whose time is so precious reading blogs to judge or evaluate published research? It is hard to imagine that someone in McNutt’s position would say something so egregiously stupid but that’s pretty much what she wrote, I’m afraid.

The absurdity reached a climax when she identified social media outlets that in her opinion cause anxiety in the scientific establishment. She mentioned Retraction Watch, a blog created by two journalists, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, where literally anyone comments anything, and its sister blog PubPeer, a sort of reading club contributed anonymously, where there is no way to tell whether the contributors are anybody’s peers or simply coopt the site to attack people. This leaves us wondering why Retraction Watch founder Ivan Oransky has been named Science’s Garbage Man (Muellsammler der Wissenschaft).

Clearly journals have only themselves to blame for the sorry state of post publication revision. As McNutt’s editorial piece makes it abundantly clear, ineptitude is the sole culprit of the current crisis. When a player in science policy says what McNutt has said, it leaves us wondering about the fate of research. Hopefully such nonsense will not prevail, otherwise research is doomed as we know it.

Perhaps the following quote by a lucid Londoner commenting in the Daily Mail (UK) may help Marcia McNutt put in perspective the scientific impact of social media:

Social Media has turned us all into the baying masses of the medieval witch hunts, with no mediators of our hysterical views, and with the loudest, most ignorant and angry up at the front with their burning tweeting torches.

Standard
Defamation, Defamation lawsuit, Karolinska Institute, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Macchiarini, Meta-Research, Misconduct, Paolo Macchiarini, Retraction Watch, Scientific publication, Transplant surgery

Paolo Macchiarini portrayed by Retraction Watch: defamed, probably, vindicated? Never!

As the peer review system appears to be failing and bogus research keeps surfacing, post publication peer review (PPPR) is becoming a necessity. The problem is who conducts PPPR (*). Certainly an indiscriminate blog run by nonscientists nudging journals into reaction, where anyone can voice their opinion or make misconduct allegations is not the way to go about it. A similar opinion is held by Paolo Macchiarini, the eminent surgeon who saved human lives and was defamed but never vindicated by Retraction Watch. Paolo Macchiarini has chosen to write an open letter in Retraction Watch to voice his opinion on the blog. The fact that he has chosen this course of action after being cleared of misconduct, instead of suing Retraction Watch for defamation (at least for now), attests to his good nature, and may seem perplexing to some.

 

Paolo Macchiarini

Paolo Macchiarini ASSOCIATED PRESS

Surgeon Paolo Macchiarini achieved international fame for inducing the formation of tracheas from implants containing stem cells. His career has seen reversals of fortune, especially when Macchiarini was portrayed as having committed misconduct by Retraction Watch. The blog echoed and disseminated a provisional highly damaging report by a single individual that had only seen a portion of the evidence, thus defaming Macchiarini. With all the available evidence at hand, Macchiarini’s home institution, the Karolisnka Institute, refuted the damaging accusations and issued a very different veredict: Macchiarini acted “without due care,” but did not commit misconduct. Rather than suing Retraction Watch, Macchiarini responded in the blog itself, voicing his critical opinion on the blog and reacting (quite gracefully) to the gross abuses he endured.

In his opening paragraph, Macchiarini agreed (as we do) that the general goals of Retraction Watch may be commendable, notwithstanding the defamation he suffered at the hands of the bloggers. In his open letter, Macchiarini takes issue, and rightly so, with the gross breach of confidentiality by Retraction Watch, as the investigation of his research practices was being officially conducted. Allegedly, Retraction Watch even infringed the confidentiality of patient’s medical records, a major ethical breach possibly actionable in Court.

Retraction Watch has frequently reported false allegations of scientific misconduct against Paolo Macchiarini and other scientists. These nefarious allegations have found their way to the blog, and their dissemination constitutes a gross breach of confidentiality guidelines.  We should emphasize that in the case of Macchiarini, Retraction Watch was NOT reporting on a retraction, or on a case of scientific misconduct. In the words of Macchiarini:

“The alleged misconduct was reported to the editors of the very well-respected journals involved, and to my institution, who at the time of the leak were going through the normal process of official investigation.  This was nothing more than academic ‘gossip’.”

No, Paolo Macchiarini! We disagree with you. This is defamation, pure and unadulterated, and you are possibly entitled to massive reparations for the damage that Retraction Watch has inflicted to your reputation.

Retraction Watch lives dangerously by its unique set of rules, whereby the infringement of confidentiality in investigations of alleged scientific misconduct is entirely permitted. They chose to live dangerously, as they do not conform to the basic tenet of societies that function under the rule of law, whereby a person is innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. Retraction Watch fails to grasp the essential operating principle that the defendant must be protected by confidentiality because he/she is a-priori presumed innocent.

Retraction Watch lives dangerously indeed.  False accusations of scientific misconduct are common in science and are often motivated by the desire to destroy someone’s career.  A blog that indiscriminately publishes any allegation real or false at any stage of investigation will only enhance the efficacy of false accusations. We concur with Macchiarini in that Retraction Watch has grossly overstepped its mark by providing a platform for nefarious gossip and malfeasance in a way that hurts the academic community.

(*) There are serious efforts to curate the corpus of scientific publication. These efforts are largely sponsored by John and Laura Arnold, a young billionaire couple from Houston, that is currently financing large-scale meta-research projects. One such project is the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, or METRICS. These projects aim at effectively addressing major issues like reproducibility.

Standard
Clare Francis, Defamation lawsuit, Expression of concern, Fazlul Sarkar, Peer Review, Post publication peer review, PubPeer, Retraction, Retraction Watch, Scientific journal, Sock puppetry

The demise of peer review in scientific publication

It is widely felt that peer review in scientific publishing is failing and it seems journal editors and academic authorities have only themselves to blame. Nature started a debate on the subject but it is felt that the point was not made somehow. Every time a journal publishes an alert note or an expression of concern, or a retraction, in case of invalid data, the journal damages its own reputation by showing that its own peer review system has failed. The journal is exposing its inability to find competent reviewers that should have spotted the problems in the first place. Worse, in their confusion, some journal editors have even fallen prey to post-publication peer review, a rogue tank for indiscriminate assault run by the unqualified blogs PubPeer and Retraction Watch.

PubPeers are in effect nobody’s peers! (see our comment in Science Magazine) Their scientific credentials have not been screened, their competence has not been checked and, not surprisingly, the majority of the PubPeer accusations (over 85% by our own estimation) proved to be either false or frivolous, with vagaries like “these statistics look weird”, “these gel bands look similar”, and the like. On the other hand, most Retraction Watchers resort to sock puppetry (Clare Francis, etc.)  to launch their attacks so, it is hard to tell how many personal attacks are actually taken seriously. Like its sister blog Retraction Watch, which feeds on PubPeer, these indiscriminate sites serve as vehicles for anyone to say whatever they like and harass individuals, journals and institutions. Shrouded in anonymity, these angry people comfortably take shots at working scientists, with their attacks frequently driven by jealousy or envy.

But we are not being completely fair here. There are instances when honest contributors to PubPeer or Retraction Watch/Clare Francis have done a good job at helping journals spot fraudulent work. Unfortunately, the blogs are ill conceived and so they become flooded with nonsense or, worse, become subservient to hatred-driven attacks. That may be why Retraction Watch founder Ivan Oransky has been named Science’s Garbage Man by the Swiss Radio and Television (Muellsammler der Wissenschaft).

The sad thing is that there are journal editors (and even academic administrators) stupid enough to take these blogs seriously. The defamation lawsuit by Wayne State University Professor Fazlul Sarkar already covered by Science Transparency may mark a turning point (don’t count on it yet), inspiring editors and university authorities to finally follow science’s centuries-old way of dealing with challenges to published work. Pasted below is the protocol to deal with challenges to scientific reports that has been in place for centuries, basically since the Acta Eruditorum and Philosophical Transactions came into existence in the 17th century:

In the interest of fair play, when an honest person wishes to challenge a published scientific result, the person sends his/her findings to the same journal where the work was published and the challenge is subject to peer review subject to the same standards that applied to the peer review of the original work. This process is kept confidential and if and only if the challenge itself passes peer review, then the journal offers the authors under scrutiny the chance to respond. At this point, the journal goes public and publishes back-to-back the challenge and the response by the authors and takes appropriate action, which may be stern in case of invalid data (presumably a retraction notice).

Standard
Cat Ferguson, Ivan Oransky, Korea, MacArthur Foundation, Retraction Watch, Science Journalism, Sexist remarks, Social injustice, Social Media, Tim Hunt, University College London, Witch Hunt, Women in Science, Women Inequality

Sir Tim Hunt’s Character Assassination Allegedly Instigated by Ivan Oransky

It takes all kinds, I guess. Sir Tim Hunt spent much of his adult life in the lab with a group of able men and women, leaving us a precious and enduring legacy recognized with the Nobel prize. Ivan Oransky invests in other people’s downfall, trashing careers through his blog Retraction Watch. Not surprisingly, Retraction Watch founder Ivan Oransky has been named Science’s Garbage Man by the Swiss Radio and Television (Muellsammler der Wissenschaft). The contrast between the two men could not be bigger, they are almost antipodes of each other. Bring them together with Sir Tim Hunt having a faux pas and tragedy is likely to unfold, as it did.

As we all know by now, on June 8, 2015, Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt was invited to give an opening lecture at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea, and that same day he was invited to a lunch hosted by the Korean Federation of Women’s Science and Technology Associations, where he briefly spoke. After some general remarks on the importance of women in science, Sir Tim Hunt allegedly started to play a very different tune along the lines of “maybe I should tell you about my trouble with girls…” He allegedly went on to say that women scientists tend to fall in love with male scientists and vice versa, that they often sob when criticized, and that because of all those problems, science was better off with gender-segregated labs.

ANTOINE LAURENT LAVOISIER (1743-1794). avec Mme Lavoisier. peinture de 1788 DAVID, Jacques Louis (1748-1825) . The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York ©MP/Leemage PRIMARY ILLUSTRATION OF THE GENDER INTEGRATION DURING THE ENLIGHTENMENT

ANTOINE LAURENT LAVOISIER (1743-1794). avec Mme Lavoisier. peinture de 1788 DAVID, Jacques Louis (1748-1825) . The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York ©MP/Leema     Gender integration during the Enlightenment.

Sir Tim Hunt obviously has a naughty side to him, as do many scientists in their golden years. His mischief in Korea was probably geared at eliciting some endearing smiles from the audience. It proved to be a miscalculation that is costing him dearly. Sir Tim Hunt did not realize he was walking on a mine field. That day, he was not among his peers. That day, Sir Tim Hunt was in dangerous unfamiliar territory.

What Sir Tim Hunt probably did not know is that science journalism attracts some very angry and dangerous people, as this blog has amply illustrated. Some of these people would be naturally, instinctively hostile to Sir Tim Hunt from the get-go. Some of these people are likely to remain bitter all their lives because, down deep, they know that besides tweeting frantically and vilifying people, they would never be able to accomplish anything of enduring value, let alone something that could remotely compare with Hunt’s towering achievements. Sir Tim Hunt clearly did not know or take into account that Ivan Oransky was in the audience that day, and that oversight proved fatal for him. The cutout below reproduces what Oransky tweeted right after Sir Tim Hunt spoke:

Ivan Oransky's tweets on Sir Tim Hunt on June 9, 2015.

Ivan Oransky’s tweets on Sir Tim Hunt on June 9, 2015.

These people had the opportunity to meet Sir Tim Hunt, but what really counted for them was that they saw an opportunity to score by exposing his pranks in the worst light possible. It was a bad cocktail, where mischief met bitterness, while the attack was launched through the Social Media, dispatched with the label of political correctness…

Ivan Oransky and Connie St. Louis, whose tireless efforts brought down Nobel Laureate Sir Tim Hunt.

Ivan Oransky and Connie St. Louis, who brought down Sir Tim Hunt.

Sources:

For Ivan Oransky: http://yalemedicine.yale.edu/autumn2014/people/alumni/204173 for Oransky

For Connie St Louis: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html

But, alas, reality always has an unexpected twist. As it turns out, after all the hysteria settled, people started asking what on earth have they done and who the heck are Connie St Louis and Ivan Oransky, who, after all, brought about the downfall of a Nobel laureate. And they came up with some disturbing findings. St Louis’ CV has been allegedly engrossed with plenty of false information. Ivan Oransky of course DID NOT cover these allegations or tried to investigate them in his all-about-transparency blog Retraction Watch or elsewhere.

Both Oransky and St Louis are very loud people, and the readers can draw their own conclusions as to their intrinsic merits. Just to give you an idea of who are we dealing with, St Louis recently called the attempt of eight Nobel laureates at defending Sir Tim Hunt “idiotic”. Ivan Oransky -and his pal Adam Marcus- run the blog Retraction Watch, where they trash scientists’ careers with or without evidence of any wrongdoing (they would’t be able to tell since they are not scientists). When they lack evidence, they simply rely on hearsay generated by a mob of nobodies seeking notoriety or the so-called pubpeers, who are in effect nobody’s peers. Oransky and Marcus do not merely report challenged papers, itself an absurd redundancy, but also take steps to ruin careers by contacting institutions and journals, investing heavily in the downfall of scientists. Strikingly, one of the first and most abhorrent attacks on Sir Tim Hunt was written on June 9 by Cat Ferguson, a notoriously vicious writer whose meteoric career as scientist trasher earned her an internship at Retraction Watch.  In her article, Cat Ferguson appears to be the first to quote Oransky as witness of the incident.

As the defense of Sir Tim Hunt now picks up steam, Oransky is trying to distance himself from the grotesque incident, from the intellectual Chernobyl that he caused, perhaps finally persuaded that the monstrosity that he instigated will not put him in the right light.

A Londoner commenting in the Daily Mail (UK) aptly described the Hunt scandal:

Social Media has turned us all into the baying masses of the medieval witch hunts, with no mediators of our hysterical views, and with the loudest, most ignorant and angry up at the front with their burning tweeting torches.

We at Science Transparency sincerely hope for a swift reversal of this misfortune for Sir Tim Hunt. Sanity will ultimately prevail and University College London will hopefully grant Sir Tim Hunt due process of law and reinstate him, and this because the UK has not yet receded into the Dark Ages, we hope. As it has been lucidly stated by Howard Jacobson: “A university which is a hotbed of offence-taking is not a university but an ideological prison camp and indoctrination center“. Like all people brought up in the democratic tradition, we endorse the view that the freedom of thought supersedes the right of women to enjoy equal respect to men.

PEOPLE OPINE ON THE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF SIR TIM HUNT (https://www.change.org/p/university-college-london-reinstate-tim-hunt-2)

P.C.A. Sims NEW YORK, NY: Hysterical overreaction to a non-issue.

Gerald Hallam BUCKLAND MONACHORUM, UK: The speech in question and its total meaning were taken out of context to facilitate a mean, vicious and abhorrent attack on a decent man.

Kim Nasmyth OXFORD, UK: I have known Tim for over thirty years and know that he is not a misogynist.

Michael Collins BYFLEET, UK: I believe those who have forced Tim Hunt to resign have bowed to pressure from a rather extreme and unpleasant group of people who should be examining their own conduct.

Daphne Gilbert STOCKSFIELD, UK: I believe in Free Speech. Decisions should not be forced by hysterical Twitter mobs. What next? Burning at the stake? These people are a disgrace and are setting dangerous precedents.

Eric Tarkington ATLANTA, GA: University College appears to have been stampeded by a hateful mob that only thinks in sound bites. This is cowardice at best. Reinstatement is not enough — UCL should be begging for forgiveness!

Dean Brickland TULLAMORE, IRELAND: People need to stop pandering to idiots.

Simon Brady SOUTHAMPTON, UK: Stop giving power to the stupid.

Christina Hoff Sommers WASHINGTON, DC: Tim Hunt made a mildly silly comment. His persecutors are the guilty ones here. They behaved like vicious bullies.

Matthew Ventham HAILSHAM, UK: I dislike intolerance of other people’s views and disproportionate responses to petty trivia.

Standard