One of the most frequent refrains heard during the COVID-19 pandemic was for everyday Americans to simply “trust the science.”
That little phrase was a common response to any semblance of COVID-19 vaccine skepticism and was often used to shame dissenting thinkers into submission.
Interestingly, fast forward three years after the worst of the pandemic, and it appears that “the science” isn’t nearly as sound as it was originally promoted as being — and no, that’s not a reference to the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
The last statement was a reference to Professor Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Illinois’ Northwestern University, whose peer-reviewed and scientifically researched paper “was retracted because it provided evidence for an idea that activists hate.”
Bailey, who penned a scathing retort via The Free Press following his paper’s retraction, didn’t mince words when it came to the absurdity of his scientific research being retracted for reasons other than “plagiarism, making up data, or grave concerns about the scientific integrity of a study.”
Bailey, who has been a professor for 34 years and a researcher for 40, published an article titled “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases” in what he called the “prestigious academic journal” Archives of Sexual Behavior. The article came out March 29, but was abruptly taken down June 14.
The journal’s publisher, Springer Nature Group, decided that this research ran afoul of something, and promptly retracted it — about as ignominious a result that any researcher or scientist can get.
Springer claimed that it retracted the paper due to “noncompliance with our editorial policies around consent.”
The publisher added: “The participants of the survey have not provided written informed consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article. Additionally, they have not provided consent to publish to have their data included in this article.”
Should the landmark psychology paper have been censored?
Yes: 12% (3 Votes)
No: 88% (23 Votes)
Bailey refuted those claims. He even appealed the decision, though obviously to no avail.
“There are two aspects to informed consent in research: you should understand what you’re being asked to do, including any substantial risks and benefits, and you should be able to opt out,” Bailey wrote. “All parents completing Suzanna’s survey knew they were being asked questions about their children’s ROGD, and they decided to answer. Parents were promised privacy of personal information, and they got it.
“Springer’s additional complaint was that we did not have consent to publish survey results. This is plain wrong. We did inform participants that we would publish their data. At the end of the survey participants were told: ‘We will publish our data on our website when we have a large enough sample …’”
So what gives?
Bailey claimed that Springer fell victim to a growing contingency of outspoken activists.
On May 5, an open letter was published by a group of activists and their political allies, lambasting Springer and IASR (International Academy of Sex Research, which is affiliated with the journal in question.)
“Dear IASR and Springer,
“We are writing to express scientific and ethical concerns about the editorial direction of Archives of Sexual Behavior. We are a group of researchers who work in areas that fall under the journal’s scope, including scholars who have previously published there and/or were involved in the journal in an editorial capacity. In recent years, Archives of Sexual Behavior has routinely published articles on LGBTQ+ topics that in our view did not adhere to the highest standards of intellectual integrity and publication ethics, raising concerns over editorial bias. As a result, we have lost confidence in the journal’s editor, Dr Kenneth Zucker.
“With this letter, we are informing you that we will no longer submit to the journal, act as peer reviewers, or serve in an editorial capacity until Dr Zucker is replaced with an editor who has a demonstrated record of integrity on LGBTQ+ matters and, especially, trans matters. We encourage our peers to do the same. If the situation is not remedied in a timely manner, we will consider terminating any involvement with the IASR and with members of Archives of Sexual Behavior’s editorial board.”
Bailey’s assessment of the open letter? “This was a pretext for their real complaint: dislike of certain ideas and the people responsible for them. That is clear from the open letter, which focuses less on our article and more on Ken Zucker.”
“Zucker has also become a target of activist ire,” Bailey noted. “That’s because he believes that gender dysphoria is a problem that should be treated, if possible, with psychotherapy to prevent transition rather than drugs and surgery to facilitate transition.”
According to Bailey, “Gender dysphoria, unlike sexual orientation, can change.”
But Bailey’s most biting critique came when he outed the activists for what they actually wanted — “surrender.”
“Zucker — like many others — wants to help youth avoid the psychosocial upheaval associated with gender transition and a lifetime of potentially unnecessary medical treatment,” Bailey argued. “His position was almost universal until the past few years. The fact that it has become verboten is the result of a powerful activist movement that has been astonishing both in its effectiveness and its lack of scientific evidence.
“Debate is essential to good science, but that is not what these activists want. They seek surrender. And that is what they got.”
Bailey ended his response with a direct challenge to the rest of the scientific community.
“Censors have tried to stop scientific progress before. Now, as then, the pursuit of truth requires scientists and researchers who refuse to cow to puritans, ideologues and activists,” Bailey said.
