+Wilyman Phd,Skepticon, Randi,Hypocritic Oath
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SKEPTICISM . SCIENCE . SOCIETY Vol 40, No 4. December 2020 Nobel Rot When good Scientists go Bad + Wilyman PhD, Skepticon, Randi, Hypocritic Oath Australian Skeptics . www.skeptics.com.au Skeptic_Cover_Dec20.indd 1 30/11/2020 9:48 pm Volume 40 • No 4 December 20 Contents REPORTS Skepticon review 10 Tim Mendham 23 James Randi obituary 18 Tim Mendham 18 Hunting & Being Hunted 23 Leo Igwe 10 37 FEATURES The Nobel Disease 28 Scott Lilienfeld et al Less than Nobel 34 Ian Bryce Doctor at Large 37 Ken McLeod Sydney Uni Cancer Chase 40 Anthony Garrett 28 34 40 ARTICLES Hippocratic or Hypocritic 48 Alan Moskwa Mars Barred 52 52 Martin Caon 48 Photo: NASA/JPL/Ken Kremer/Marco Di Lorenzo REGULARS Editorial 4 Around the Traps 5 58 Puzzles page 9 Them! 26 Logical place 46 What goes around 56 Book reviews 58 Quotable Quotes 62 56 FEATURE Bad Science The Skeptic December 20 anti- anti- anti- anti- fluoride anti- vaccination Ken McLeod reports on how anti-vaccination campaigner Judy Wilyman is trading on her flawed doctorate, and the Doctor implications for her, the University of Wollongong, and the community. at LARGE hen the University of corporations and the World Bank”. were awarded the Australian Skeptics’ WWollongong (UoW) issued Wilyman did her thesis within the Bent Spoon award in 2016.) a doctorate in 2016 to anti-vaxxer University’s School of Humanities and Judy Wilyman, concern and outrage Social Inquiry (whose name was changed THE CRITICISM was expressed by the scientific and in 2014 from the School of Social Wilyman’s thesis contains many flawed medical communities and others who Science, Media and Communications). inclusions - too many to list here in full, pointed out the multiple errors and It was this location which lead although details can found at tinyurl. misrepresentations in her PhD thesis. commentators to refer to it as an “Arts com/WilymanPhD. In “A critical analysis of the Australian degree” rather than a “Science degree”, But just as a sample: government’s rationale for its vaccination something which Wilyman has taken • Page 105 - “Smallpox is only policy”, Wilyman described what she calls exception to in an attempt to redefine transferable by direct skin-to-skin “the political framework in which policy herself as a science researcher (see below). contact”. This is demonstrably false is affected by biased science or undone The thesis was supervised by Prof - many indigenous Americans were [underfunded] science” and claims Brian Martin. killed by smallpox spread to them “the existence of institutional barriers The awarding of the doctorate raised via contaminated blankets. The US to carrying out independent research, the serious issue of the responsibility of Centres for Disease Control includes including on topics unwelcome to groups UoW to ensure that doctoral theses meet as transmission media “infected bodily with vested interests”. rigorous scientific standards. Wilyman’s fluids or contaminated objects such She alleged collusion between industry thesis has been widely criticised by as bedding and clothing” and “Rarely, and health authorities, particularly that the qualified experts for not meeting those smallpox has been spread by virus World Health Organisation “is perceived to standards. UoW has batted away those carried in the air in enclosed settings be out of touch with global communities criticisms and should respond properly. such as buildings, buses, and trains.” and it is controlled by the interests of (Wilyman, Martin and the University • Page 121: “In the scientific model it is 37 FEATURE Bad Science Doc at Large They conclude that “This thesis research, nor that it demonstrated that is notable for its lack of evidence of she had made “a significant contribution Continued... systematic literature review. Despite its to the knowledge of the subject”. extensive claims, there is no primary Those concerns were put to one side, research, but there is abundant and another reviewer was found who evidence of strong bias in selecting the presented a more favourable response. assumed that the aetiology of disease is literature cited and sometimes outright There was no review of the process mainly biological.” It is not assumed, it misrepresentation of facts. We agree that was used specifically to assess is! that critique of immunisation policy is a Wilyman’s thesis gaining a PhD. Instead • Page 121: “Allopathy rejects the theory valid academic exercise that goes beyond this was a ‘desktop review’ of UoW’s that the mind, the emotions and the technical knowledge, but equally it general processes. UoW reviewed 18 soul are involved as causal agents cannot be based on incomplete, flawed policy documents which applied to the in the development of illness to its technical assertions.” processes that led to Wilyman’s PhD thesis treatment”. The soul? Really? The critics called for a ‘please explain’ examination and award. These documents • Page 122: “If an agent, such as review of the process of awarding the were benchmarked against similar influenza virus, is known to cause an doctorate and the specific claims made documents and processes used at four illness it would be expected that all in the thesis. other Australian universities. The review’s individuals exposed to the agent would first key finding was that ‘The UOW-wide get the illness. But this is not the case.” THE RESPONSE policy framework relevant to HDR [higher It is not the case and nor would it be The immediate response was a defence degree research] students is compliant expected to be so. Wilyman has set up of ‘free speech’. with the Tertiary Education Quality and a falsehood and then shot it down in an The University issued a statement that Standards Agency’s higher education attempt discredit germ theory. “UoW ensures research is undertaken standards and with the ARC/NHMRC And all of these within just a few pages. according to strict ethical and quality Code of Responsible Research.” Many problems were raised by standards and supports researchers’ The critics of the thesis had not individual critics at the time, including a academic freedom of attacked UoW’s general commentary in the peer-reviewed journal thought and expression. processes, which did Vaccine which questioned the quality UoW does not restrict “ The thesis ... not need a review. The of the thesis’ academic supervision and the subjects into flawed arguments, complaints were directed examination (Vaccine, Vol 34, 2467-2468). which research may be specifically at Wilyman’s Martin responded that the commentary undertaken just because misleading asser- thesis; how it had been did not cite evidence-based sources, they involve public tions, incomplete reviewed; whether it had rather relying on “newspaper articles”, controversy or because research. been fact-checked; and and suggested that “it is good scholarly individuals or groups ” how it had been supervised. practice in such instances to seek primary oppose the topic or the UoW did not review these documentation, including the views from findings.” matters. UoW expressed confidence in both sides of contentious cases”. Martin dismissed concerns, saying its general procedures without checking A paper published in 2019 in Vaccine that they were “not genuine concerns whether these had been applied diligently (Vol 17, 1541-1545) does make that about quality and probity but instead to Wilyman’s offering. detailed commentary. This paper, part of a campaign to denigrate “PhD thesis opposing immunisation: viewpoints they oppose”. SCIENTIFIC BONA FIDES Failure of academic rigour with real- This is obviously a misrepresentation Wilyman has taken a leading role in the world consequences” was written by of the issues raised. They do not concern anti-vaccination movement for some time Dr Kerry Wiley, Prof Julie Leask, and freedom of speech, but rather they both in Australia and overseas, including Prof Margaret Burgess (all of Sydney criticise the thesis itself for clear scientific presentations at anti-vaccination rallies University), and Prof Peter McIntyre errors and misrepresentations, and the and support for the Australian [anti] (National Centre for Immunisation review process for apparently ignoring Vaccination-Skeptics/Risk Network. The Research and Surveillance). It addresses the serious flaws in the thesis. AVN (under whatever name) has been many of the main themes Wilyman It was later revealed that one of the a notorious provider of pseudomedical raises, criticising the thesis on the grounds thesis’s reviewers - unnamed, as were all information, regularly putting up claims of uncritical analysis due to highly reviewers - expressed “serious concerns that have been debunked. selected referencing, flawed arguments, about a lack of engagement with existing Wilyman has gone to great pains misleading and broad assertions, and literature and the lack of an appropriate to stress her scientific credentials and incomplete research. (This paper is theoretical framework”. They also felt authority concerning vaccination, with available on open access at tinyurl.com/ that the thesis showed no evidence particular regard to her thesis. Wilymanvaccine.) that Wilyman conducted original Wilyman’s academic background be- 38 The Skeptic December 20 gins with a BSc at UNSW, and aDipEd my Master of Science in Health, I University has validated the thesis’ claims from UoW. She then taught at high school lectured at Murdoch Uni for a couple and allowed the author to add weight to in Wollongong for nine years, followed of years. My research was partly in the her subsequent prolific writings, including by a Masters at UoW (Master of Science - Health department, now it’s in the open letters to politicians, and seminars to Population Health). She began her PhD at Social Science department.” parents, with consequences on a national UoW, transferred to Murdoch University The UoW PhD at the Social Science and international scale. Tangible evidence in Western Australia where she was under department is within the Faculty of of real-world consequences come from the supervision of Dr Peter Dingle.